105
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study aimed to review the literature describing and quantifying time lags in the health research translation process. Papers were included in the review if they quantified time lags in the development of health interventions. The study identified 23 papers. Few were comparable as different studies use different measures, of different things, at different time points. We concluded that the current state of knowledge of time lags is of limited use to those responsible for R&D and knowledge transfer who face difficulties in knowing what they should or can do to reduce time lags. This effectively ‘blindfolds’ investment decisions and risks wasting effort. The study concludes that understanding lags first requires agreeing models, definitions and measures, which can be applied in practice. A second task would be to develop a process by which to gather these data.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

          Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40–62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The meaning of translational research and why it matters.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Academic research and industrial innovation

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J R Soc Med
                JRSM
                jrsm
                Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
                Royal Society of Medicine Press
                0141-0768
                1758-1095
                December 2011
                : 104
                : 12
                : 510-520
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge , Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK
                [2 ]RAND Europe , Cambridge CB4 1YG, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: Jonathan Grant. Email: jgrant@ 123456rand.org
                Article
                JRSM-11-0180
                10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
                3241518
                22179294
                7dcb01a0-597c-44d4-bdc6-f4084808070b
                © 2011 The Royal Society of Medicine

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Reviews

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article