Harmonisation of research outcomes for meaningful translation to practice: The role of Core Outcome Sets and the CROWN Initiative

The UEMS experience in continuous medical education accreditation process: a 'quo vadis' analysis of our global database

Background

The authors systematically appraise a large database of continuous professional development (CPD) and continuous medical education (CME) events against the European Accreditation Council for Continuous Medical Education (EACCME) framework.

Methods

The authors performed a retrospective observational study of all CPD or CME events within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) database between 2017 and 2019, including 91 countries and 6034 events. Assessment of event design, quality and outcomes was evaluated against a validated, expert-derived accreditation framework, using thematic analysis to extract distinct themes, and subsequent quantitative analysis.

Results

The authors included 5649 live educational events (LEEs) and 385 e-learning materials (ELMs). Three thousand seven hundred sixty-two [3762 (62.3%)] of the events did not report clear justification in their needs assessment process. Most accreditation applications claimed covering a single educational need [1603/2277 (70.3%)]. Needs assessments were reported to be similar across conferences, courses and other types of events (P<0.01); 5642/6034 events (93.5%) had clearly documented expected learning outcomes; only 978/6034 (16.2%) reported a single expected learning outcome while the rest report 2-10 outcomes. Providers who declared more than one educational need also declared multiple learning outcomes (ρ=0.051, P<0.01).

Conclusions

Despite EACCME providing a robust framework for the CPD/CME accreditation process, reporting quality can still be improved, as more than 1 in 2 events fail to provide a clear description of their needs assessment. To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest educational LEE/ELM database, which can be a starting to revisit the CME/CPD accreditation process.

How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study

Background

The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency.

Methods

We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe.

Results

From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074).

Conclusion

We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.

Diet and physical activity in pregnancy and offspring's cardiovascular health: a systematic review

There is increasing evidence linking maternal diet and physical activity before and during pregnancy with offspring's cardiovascular health. Although many studies examined this association, the evidence has not been reviewed systematically. We therefore undertook a systematic review to synthesize evidence examining the association of maternal diet and physical activity before and during pregnancy with offspring's blood pressure and vascular health. We systematically searched the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to June 30, 2017. Eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. A total of 19 articles were included comprising three randomized controlled trials and 16 observational studies. Of the studies that examined the association of interest, 60% (three out of five studies) showed that high maternal carbohydrate intake was associated with higher offspring's blood pressure. Maternal protein intake during pregnancy was negatively associated with offspring carotid intima-media thickness in two out of two studies. No consistent findings for maternal fatty acid intake were found. There were too few studies to draw conclusions on energy intake, fibre intake, protein/carbohydrate ratio, specific foods, dietary patterns and maternal physical activity. Heterogeneity in exposure and outcome assessment hampered pooling. Also, owing to the observational nature of most studies, causality cannot be established. Harmonization of valid exposure and outcome measurements, and the development of core outcome sets are needed to enable more robust conclusions.

Lack of research reproducibility, the rise of open science and the need for continuing education in research methods

In this opinion piece, we discuss the issue of lack of reproducibility in medical research and the different approaches that are being taken to address this problem. One general approach involves much greater transparency including the pre-publication of a study protocol, analysis plan and analysis code as well as the ultimate sharing of data, doing away with the concept of the 'single wrap-up publication'. The other change required is to support the training and mentorship of young researchers and ensure that they are not working in isolation.