Applied Filters
- Integrative Sciences
- Moher, DavidRemove filter
- FACETSRemove filter
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Straus, Sharon E3
- Abou-Setta, Ahmed M2
- Ardern, Clare L2
- Clement, Fiona2
- Cobey, Kelly D2
- Colquhoun, Heather2
- Curran, Janet A2
- Godfrey, Christina2
- Khan, Karim M2
- LeBlanc, Annie2
- Li, Linda C2
- Moffitt, Pertice2
- Tricco, Andrea C2
- Wilhelm, Linda2
- Zarin, Wasifa2
- Alayche, Ibrahim1
- Alayche, Mohsen1
- Andrea C. Tricco1
- Ayala, Ana Patricia1
- Baxter, Nancy N1
- Bornstein, Stephen1
- Chan, An-Wen1
- Chaudhry, Sabrina1
- Chow, Ryan1
Access Type
1 - 8of8
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESS
- Clare L. Ardern,
- Nadia Martino,
- Sammy Nag,
- Robyn Tamblyn,
- David Moher,
- Adrian Mota, and
- Karim M. Khan
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) commenced a Quality Assurance Program in 2019 to monitor the quality of peer review in its Project Grant Competition Peer Review Committees. Our primary aim was to describe the performance of CIHR grant peer reviewers, based on the assessments made by CIHR peer review leaders during the first 3 years of the Research Quality Assurance Program. All Peer Review Committee Chairs and (or) Scientific Officers who led peer review for CIHR in 2019, 2020, and 2021 completed Reviewer Quality Feedback forms immediately following Peer Review Committee meetings. The form assessed Performance, Future potential, Review quality, Participation, and Responsiveness. We summarised and descriptively synthesised data from assessments conducted after each of the four grant competitions. The performance of peer reviewers on 4438 occasions was rated by Chairs and Scientific Officers. Approximately one in three peer reviewers submitted outstanding reviews or discussed additional applications and one in 10 demonstrated potential as a future Peer Review Committee leader. At most, one in 20 peer reviewers was considered to have not performed adequately with respect to review quality, participation, or responsiveness. There is a need for more research on the processes involved in allocating research grant funding. - OPEN ACCESS
- Mohsen Alayche,
- Kelly D. Cobey,
- Jeremy Y. Ng,
- Clare L. Ardern,
- Karim M. Khan,
- An-Wen Chan,
- Ryan Chow,
- Mouayad Masalkhi,
- Ana Patricia Ayala,
- Sanam Ebrahimzadeh,
- Jason Ghossein,
- Ibrahim Alayche,
- Jessie V. Willis, and
- David Moher
Adherence to study registration and reporting best practices is vital to fostering evidence-based medicine. All registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Canada as of 2009 and completed by 2019 were identified. A cross-sectional analysis of those trials assessed prospective registration, subsequent result reporting in the registry, and subsequent publication of study findings. The lead sponsor, phase of study, clinical trial site location, total patient enrollment, number of arms, type of masking, type of allocation, year of completion, and patient demographics were examined as potential effect modifiers to these best practices. A total of 6720 trials were identified. From 2009 to 2019, 59% (n = 3,967) of them were registered prospectively, and 32% (n = 2138) had neither their results reported nor their findings published. Of the 3763 trials conducted exclusively in Canada, 3% (n = 123) met all three criteria of prospective registration, reporting in the registry, and publishing findings. Overall, the odds of having adherence to all three practices concurrently in Canadian trials decrease by 95% when compared with international trials. Canadian clinical trials substantially lacked adherence to study registration and reporting best practices. Knowledge of this widespread non-compliance should motivate stakeholders in the Canadian clinical trial ecosystem to address and continue to monitor this problem. - OPEN ACCESS
- OPEN ACCESS
- Andrea C. Tricco,
- Wasifa Zarin,
- Fiona Clement,
- Ahmed M. Abou-Setta,
- Janet A. Curran,
- Annie LeBlanc,
- Linda C Li,
- Christina Godfrey,
- Pertice Moffitt,
- David Moher,
- Heather Colquhoun,
- Ian D. Graham,
- Ivan D. Florez,
- Linda Wilhelm,
- Wanrudee Isaranuwatchaia,
- Jackie Mann,
- Marina Hamilton,
- Vasanthi Srinivasan,
- Stephen Bornstein, and
- Sharon E. Straus
This is the introductory paper in a collection of four papers on the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance, a pan-Canadian research initiative that was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in September of 2017. Here, we introduce the SPOR enterprise in Canada, provide a rationale for the creation of the SPOR Evidence Alliance, provide information on the mandate and approach, and describe how the SPOR Evidence Alliance adds to the health research ecosystem in Canada and beyond. - OPEN ACCESS
- Carole Lunny,
- Wasifa Zarin,
- Sabrina Chaudhry,
- Sonia M. Thomas,
- Annie LeBlanc,
- Sophie Desroches,
- Tanya Horsley,
- Heather Colquhoun,
- Priscille-Nice Sanon,
- Minnie Downey,
- Zahra Goodarzi,
- Nancy N. Baxter,
- Kelly English,
- Elliot PausJenssen,
- Shanon McQuitty,
- Linda Wilhelm,
- Annette McKinnon,
- Alison M. Hoens,
- Linda C. Li,
- Fiona Clement,
- Janet A. Curran,
- Ahmed M. Abou-Setta,
- Christina Godfrey,
- David Moher,
- Pertice Moffitt,
- Jennifer Walker,
- Janet Jull,
- Cheryl Koehn,
- Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai,
- Sharon E. Straus, and
- Andrea C. Tricco
The Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance is a research initiative in Canada whose mission is to promote the synthesis, dissemination, and integration of research results into health care and public health decision-making and clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to (i) outline the governance and committee structure of the SPOR Evidence Alliance, (ii) outline the procedures for patient and health system decision-maker engagement, and (iii) present the capacity-building strategy for governance members. The governance structure includes the following six standing committees: the International Advisory Committee, Steering Committee, Executive Committee, Knowledge Translation Committee, Partnerships Committee, and Training and Capacity Development Committee. The guiding principles embrace inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, transparency, and co-building. There are currently 64 committee members across the six committees, 13 patient and public partners, 8 health system decision-makers, 7 research trainees, and 36 researchers. A multi-disciplinary and diverse group of people in Canada are represented from all regions and at various levels of training in knowledge generation, exchange, and translation. This collaborative model makes the SPOR Evidence Alliance strong and sustainable by leveraging the knowledge, lived experiences, expertise, skills, and networks among its 342 members and 12 principal investigators. - OPEN ACCESS
- Sharon E. Straus,
- Brian Hutton,
- David Moher,
- Shannon E. Kelly,
- George A. Wells, and
- Andrea C. Tricco
In 2009, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Health Canada, and other stakeholders established the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (DSEN) to address the paucity of information on drug safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. This unique network invited knowledge users (e.g., policy makers) to submit queries to be answered by relevant research teams. The research teams were launched via open calls for team grants focused in relevant methodologic areas. We describe the development and implementation of one of these collaborating centres, the Methods and Application Group for Indirect Comparisons (MAGIC). MAGIC was created to provide high-quality knowledge synthesis including network meta-analysis to meet knowledge user needs. Since 2011, MAGIC responded to 54% of queries submitted to DSEN. In the past 5 years, MAGIC produced 26 reports and 49 publications. It led to 15 trainees who entered industry, academia, and government. More than 10 000 people participated in courses delivered by MAGIC team members. Most importantly, MAGIC knowledge syntheses influenced practice and policy (e.g., use of biosimilars for patients with diabetes and use of smallpox vaccinations in people with contraindications) provincially, nationally, and internationally. - OPEN ACCESSShortcomings in the rigour and reproducibility of research have become well-known issues and persist despite repeated calls for improvement. A coordinated effort among researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies, and regulators may be the most effective way of tackling these issues. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) has fostered collaboration across various stakeholders in research and are creating the infrastructure necessary to advance rigorous and reproducible research practices across the United Kingdom. Other Reproducibility Networks, modelled on UKRN, are now emerging in other countries. Canada could benefit from a comparable network to unify the voices around research quality and maximize the value of Canadian research.
- OPEN ACCESSBackground: The objective of this study was to determine the presence of a set of prespecified criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure within faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities.Methods: Each faculty guideline for assessing promotion and tenure was reviewed and the presence of five traditional (peer-reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national/international reputation) and seven nontraditional (citations, data sharing, publishing in open access mediums, accommodating leaves, alternative ways for sharing research, registering research, using reporting guidelines) criteria were collected by two reviewers.Results: Among the U15 institutions, four of five traditional criteria (80.0%) were present in at least one promotion guideline, whereas only three of seven nontraditional incentives (42.9%) were present in any promotion guidelines. When assessing full professors, there were a median of three traditional criteria listed, versus one nontraditional criterion.Conclusion: This study demonstrates that faculties of medicine among the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities base assessments for promotion and tenure on traditional criteria. Some of these metrics may reinforce problematic practices in medical research. These faculties should consider incentivizing criteria that can enhance the quality of medical research.