Advanced search    

Search: authors:"Mike Clarke"

93 papers found.
Use AND, OR, NOT, +word, -word, "long phrase", (parentheses) to fine-tune your search.

Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews? – a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups

Background Missing outcome data or the inconsistent reporting of outcome data in clinical research can affect the quality of evidence within a systematic review. A potential solution is an agreed standardized set of outcomes known as a core outcome set (COS) to be measured in all studies for a specific condition. We investigated the amount of missing patient data for primary ...

A smartphone intervention for adolescent obesity: study protocol for a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Background There are few evidence-based mobile health solutions for treating adolescent obesity. The primary aim of this parallel non-inferiority trial is to assess the effectiveness of an experimental smartphone application in reducing obesity at 12 months, compared to the Temple Street W82GO Healthy Lifestyles intervention. Methods/design The primary outcome measure is change in ...

The trials methodological research agenda: results from a priority setting exercise

Background Research into the methods used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials is essential to ensure that effective methods are available and that clinical decisions made using results from trials are based on the best available evidence, which is reliable and robust. Methods An on-line Delphi survey of 48 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered ...

Professionals’ views of fetal monitoring during labour: a systematic review and thematic analysis

Background Current recommendations do not support the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for low risk women during labour, yet EFM remains widespread in clinical practice. Consideration of the views, perspectives and experiences of individuals directly concerned with EFM application may be beneficial for identifying barriers to and facilitators for implementing ...

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: A Systematic Review

Background A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for ...

Outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis randomised trials over the last 50 years

Background The development and application of standardised sets of outcomes to be measured and reported in clinical trials have the potential to increase the efficiency and value of research. One of the most notable of the current outcome sets began nearly 20 years ago: the World Health Organization and International League of Associations for Rheumatology core set of outcomes for ...

Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials

In a systematic review of cohort studies, Kerry Dwan and colleagues examine the evidence for selective reporting and discrepancies in analyses between journal publications and other documents for clinical trials. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials

Background A systematic review, with or without a meta-analysis, should be undertaken to determine if the research question of interest has already been answered before a new trial begins. There has been limited research on how systematic reviews are used within the design of new trials, the aims of this study were to investigate how systematic reviews of earlier trials are used in ...

PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility

Background PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic review protocols in health and social care, was launched in February 2011. After one year of operation we describe access and use, explore user experience and identify areas for future improvement. Methods We collated administrative data and web statistics and conducted an online survey of users’ experiences. ...

Doing New Research? Don't Forget the Old

Nobody should do a new research study, says Clarke, without first systematically reviewing the literature. And journal editors should insist that all research papers are accompanied by an up-to-date systematic review.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform

at the University of Aberdeen, UK, was held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss the initiative. The grant holders of the MRC Hub funding (Marion Campbell, Mike Clarke, Athene Lane, Trudie Lang

Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions

Background Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are ...

The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews

Systematic Reviews The nuts and bolts prospective register Booth et al. Alison Booth Mike Clarke Gordon Dooley Davina Ghersi David Moher Mark Petticrew Lesley Stewart - of PROSPERO: an