“UBORA aims at creating an EU-Africa e-Infrastructure enabling open source co-design of new solutions to face the current and future healthcare challenges of both continents. To do so the project brings together European and African universities and their associated technological hubs, biomedical prototyping laboratories and incubators, national and international policymakers, and committed stakeholders….”
“Future Science Group officially partners the Journal of 3D Printing in Medicine with their key online resource 3DMedNet, offering all members unparalleled free access to peer-reviewed content.?
In a move highlighting their continued commitment to furthering the adoption of 3D printing in the medical field for the benefit of patients and clinicians alike, Future Science Group (FSG) has today announced that all content from the Journal of 3D Printing in Medicine will be free to access to members of 3DMedNet….
Membership to 3DMedNet is completely free….”
“There is a growing research literature suggesting psychedelics hold incredible promise for treating mental health ailments ranging from depression and anxiety to PTSD. But how do we know for sure?
The way forward for psychedelics is through “open science.” Researchers should pre-register their plans and share their data, as we have in our own research….”
“The Data Sharing Working Group is hosting a webinar featuring Jaime Guidry Auvil, the Director of NCI’s Office of Data Sharing. Jaime will share the efforts that are in motion at NCI and NIH that aim to promote the data sharing ecosystem. Importantly, she’ll report on the impressive steps that NCI is taking to incentivize and ease the burden of data sharing. We expect that many of us will learn from Jaime about how private funders of medical research can similarly support the data sharing ecosystem including what it takes to implement and enforce data sharing by funding organizations, as well as monitoring and learning from the ongoing governmental initiatives. We hope you join us!”
“Wikimedia, especially Wikipedia, hasn’t always had the best of relationships with academia.
So you may be surprised to learn that there’s a trio of Wikimedia academic journals that are now accepting submissions: the WikiJournal of Medicine, Science, and Humanities. All are run on a traditional academic journal model, including an extensive peer review process by academic peers and the publication of a version of record that can be disseminated and cited.
The journal operates under a free copyright license, meaning here that others can take and use the text for any purpose, so long as they credit the original source and share it under a similar license. This allows volunteer Wikipedia editors to port the high-quality text into Wikipedia, bringing it to the encyclopedia’s millions of readers “for added reach and exposure,” as the journals’ about pages declare.
This process also works in reverse: some of the articles published by these journals are actually Wikipedia articles, usually submitted shortly after one or more editors have re-written them. These journals allow recognized experts in the field to vet the material.
We wanted to learn more about this innovative publishing model, so we asked several members of these journals’ editorial boards a few questions. Here’s what they had to say….”
Abstract: To ascertain compliance rates with the European Commission’s requirement that all trials on the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) post results to the registry within 12 months of completion (final compliance date 21 December 2016); to identify features associated with non-compliance; to rank sponsors by compliance; and to build a tool for live ongoing audit of compliance….
Results Of 7274 trials where results were due, 49.5% (95% confidence interval 48.4% to 50.7%) reported results. Trials with a commercial sponsor were substantially more likely to post results than those with a non-commercial sponsor (68.1% v 11.0%, adjusted odds ratio 23.2, 95% confidence interval 19.2 to 28.2); as were trials by a sponsor who conducted a large number of trials (77.9% v 18.4%, adjusted odds ratio 18.4, 15.3 to 22.1). More recent trials were more likely to report results (per year odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.07). Extensive evidence was found of errors, omissions, and contradictory entries in EUCTR data that prevented ascertainment of compliance for some trials.
Conclusions Compliance with the European Commission requirement for all trials to post results on to the EUCTR within 12 months of completion has been poor, with half of all trials non-compliant. EU registry data commonly contain inconsistencies that might prevent even regulators assessing compliance. Accessible and timely information on the compliance status of each individual trial and sponsor may help to improve reporting rates.
“An analysis of data from the European Union’s Clinical Trial Register — published in The BMJ1 on 13 September — shows that around 50% of the listed trials have not complied with guidelines that say results must be reported within 12 months.
The researchers who conducted the analysis found that only 11% of trials run by academic centres — such as those led by universities, governments, hospitals or charities — had published outcomes after completion (see ‘Failing to comply’’)….
Furthermore, only 11 of the major sponsors of clinical trials — entities that are responsible for at least 50 trials on the register — had reported 100% of results, all of which were companies.
This compares to a total of 32 major sponsors that had not reported any results from their trials. All of these are academic institutions, rather than companies.”
“Cochrane is registered as a charity and is largely publicly funded; much of its data extraction and systematic review work is done by volunteers. However, Cochrane’s current policies allow only specific individuals with full library access to view and reuse data reports in their entirety. Cochrane has declined to allow data sharing for reuse through OpenTrials or the Trip Database library. However, data sharing is essential to transparency in research, the investigators wrote, and is associated with “increased citations…publications, and [data] reuse for new purposes.” In addition, improved access to existing data allows investigators to refine extraction processes and explore “new avenues of inquiry.” …”
“One year after three UK public research funders agreed to adopt the WHO’s strong standards on clinical trial transparency, it appears that none of them has fully implemented their commitments.
Responses to Freedom of Information requests filed by TranspariMED indicate that two funders, MRC and NIHR, have taken significant steps towards greater transparency, but still fall short of fully delivering on the promises they made. The third funder, DFID, has taken no action to meet its commitments….”
“Thank you for your participation in the “Open Science to Advance Health Equity” track. We are excited that you have taken up this challenge and hope this weekend’s team work will lead to a continuing interest to contribute to this area. We look forward to your innovations and to supporting your work here at MedHacks…”