Animal experimental research design in critical care.

BACKGROUND: Limited translational success in critical care medicine is thought to be in part due to inadequate methodology, study design, and reporting in preclinical studies. The purpose of this study was to compare reporting of core features of experimental rigor: blinding, randomization, and power calculations in critical care medicine animal experimental research. We hypothesized that these study design characteristics were more frequently reported in 2015 versus 2005. METHODS: We performed an observational bibliometric study to grade manuscripts on blinding, randomization, and power calculations. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used for analysis. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using kappa and Gwet's AC1. RESULTS: A total of 825 articles from seven journals were included. In 2005, power estimations were reported in 2%, randomization in 35%, and blinding in 20% (n = 482). In 2015, these metrics were included in 9, 47, and 36% of articles (n = 343). The increase in proportion for the metrics tested was statistically significant (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, and p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of published manuscripts in critical care medicine journals reported on recommended study design steps to increase rigor. Routine justification for the presence or absence of blinding, randomization, and power calculations should be considered to better enable readers to assess potential sources of bias.

Study Design Rigor in Animal-Experimental Research Published in Anesthesia Journals.

BACKGROUND: Lack of reproducibility of preclinical studies has been identified as an impediment for translation of basic mechanistic research into effective clinical therapies. Indeed, the National Institutes of Health has revised its grant application process to require more rigorous study design, including sample size calculations, blinding procedures, and randomization steps. We hypothesized that the reporting of such metrics of study design rigor has increased over time for animal-experimental research published in anesthesia journals. METHODS: PubMed was searched for animal-experimental studies published in 2005, 2010, and 2015 in primarily English-language anesthesia journals. A total of 1466 publications were graded on the performance of sample size estimation, randomization, and blinding. Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess linear trends over time for the primary outcome of whether or not a metric was reported. Interrater agreement for each of the 3 metrics (power, randomization, and blinding) was assessed using the weighted κ coefficient in a 10% random sample of articles rerated by a second investigator blinded to the ratings of the first investigator. RESULTS: A total of 1466 manuscripts were analyzed. Reporting for all 3 metrics of experimental design rigor increased over time (2005 to 2010 to 2015): for power analysis, from 5% (27/516), to 12% (59/485), to 17% (77/465); for randomization, from 41% (213/516), to 50% (243/485), to 54% (253/465); and for blinding, from 26% (135/516), to 38% (186/485), to 47% (217/465). The weighted κ coefficients and 98.3% confidence interval indicate almost perfect agreement between the 2 raters beyond that which occurs by chance alone (power, 0.93 [0.85, 1.0], randomization, 0.91 [0.85, 0.98], and blinding, 0.90 [0.84, 0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: Our hypothesis that reported metrics of rigor in animal-experimental studies in anesthesia journals have increased during the past decade was confirmed. More consistent reporting, or explicit justification for absence, of sample size calculations, blinding techniques, and randomization procedures could better enable readers to evaluate potential sources of bias in animal-experimental research manuscripts. Future studies should assess whether such steps lead to improved translation of animal-experimental anesthesia research into successful clinical trials.

A successful model for longitudinal community-engaged health research: the 2040 Partners for Health Student Program.

Introduction: Community-based participatory research [CBPR] is an emerging approach to collaborative research aimed at creating locally effective and sustainable interventions. The 2040 Partners for Health student program was developed as a unique model of longitudinal CBPR. Analysis of this program and its components illuminates both the challenges and the opportunities inherent in community engagement. Methods: The program rests on a foundation of a community-based, non-profit organization and a supportive academic university centre. Inter-professional health students and community members of underserved populations work together on different health projects by employing an adapted CBPR methodology. Three successful examples of sustainable CBPR projects are briefly described. Results: The three projects are presented as primary outcomes resulting from this model. Benefits and challenges of the model as an approach to community-engaged research are discussed as well as secondary benefits of student participation. Conclusion: The 2040 Partners for Health student program represents a successful model of CBPR, illuminating common challenges and reiterating the profound value of community-engaged research.