Search

International audience; Academic research is essential to bring disruptive innovation on medical devices market because the risk-taking is too high for companies and their investors. Performing clinical trials is essential to technical files but no one wants to accept responsibility for implanted off-label devices. The paper explains the academic process for innovation. We see that academic research depends, at the end, on the motivation of companies to develop a product. The key to innovation stands in the early collaboration between the surgeons, the research teams and the companies in a project. Innovation is a good idea supported by the expertise of the right people at the right moment. In orthopaedics, we need, more than ever, to stay focused on the patient benefits.

International audience; Although Alzheimer s disease is classified as a neurodegenerative dementia, in Alzheimer s dementia there is increasing evidence of an association with vascular risk factors and vascular pathology. These observations are supported by epidemiological and pathological studies. Vascular factors may play a significant role in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer s dementia. Further research is needed to explore this relationship. Modification of vascular risk factors could make a significant impact towards prevention and treatment of Alzheimer s disease, which is a distressing and prevalent condition in the community. This article considers the relationship of these vascular risk factors and potential mechanisms associated with the aetiopathogenesis of Alzheimer s dementia.

International audience; BACKGROUND: Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers' and applicants' perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable.

International audience; This retrospective, observational study investigated whether published studies on the use of piezoelectric surgery (PS) in the oral and craniomaxillofacial region fulfilled the requirements of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Declaration of Helsinki (DoH) with respect to human subject protections (HSP) and disclosure of financial conflicts (FC). A Medline/PUBMED search was performed in April 2008 to identify all clinical studies on PS, published in English, French and German. Disclosure of HSP (obtaining ethical approval and subjects' informed consent) and FC mentioned in the retrieved articles were analysed. 29 clinical articles were identified in 18 journals, of which 14 journals (78%) required the disclosure of both HSP and FC. Ethical approval was documented in two studies (7%); patient consent was reported in four publications (14%). Four articles disclosed no FC. 21 reports (72%) mentioned neither HSP nor FC. The relationships between funding source and study outcomes could not be identified. Most studies on the use of PS hardly adhered to the regulations recommended by the ICMJE and DoH, and do not mention HSP and FC, indicating the study results with a high degree of suspicion. It is recommended that oral and craniomaxillofacial surgery journals adhere strictly to these regulations because they carry a heavy responsibility regarding the scientific integrity of publications in this specialty.

International audience; Research misconduct is defined by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh as any behaviour by a researcher, whether intentional or not, that fails to scrupulously respect high scientific and ethical standards. Various types of research misconduct include fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, problematic data presentation or analysis, failure to obtain ethical approval by a research ethics committee or to obtain the subject's informed consent, inappropriate claims of authorship, duplicated publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest. These can result in patient injury, deterioration of the patient-physician relationship, loss of public trust in biomedical research, as well as pollution/degradation of the medical literature. Surgical research malfeasance has been underreported, and no practical guidelines for good research and publication have appeared to date in French surgical journals. In an attempt to uphold the scientific integrity of our profession, we discuss research misconduct and emphasise preventive measures and considerations for surgeons.

International audience; Financial relationships between industry, researchers and academic institutions are becoming increasingly complex, raising concern about sponsors' involvement in the conduct of biomedical research. A review of published randomised trials (RCTs) in cancer research was performed to assess adherence to the 1997 disclosure requirements and to document the nature of the disclosed interests. Source(s) of study support, author-sponsor relationships and the role of the study sponsor were assessed for all RCTs published between 1999 and 2003 in 12 international journals. A total of 655 cancer RCTs were identified. Of these, 516 (78.8%) disclosed the source of sponsorship. The nature of the relationship between the authors and the study sponsor was included in 219 of the 227 industry-sponsored studies. The most commonly cited relationships were (131 studies had multiple relations): grants (93.6%); employment (39.2%); consultant/honorarium (12.7%) and stock ownership and participation in a speaker's bureau (12, 5.5% each). Only 41 (18%) of the 227 industry-sponsored RCTs reported the role of the sponsor. Of these, 20 explicitly stated that the sponsor had no role in the study. Twenty-one papers described the sponsor's role, the degree of sponsor involvement was variable and usually described vaguely. Among these papers, four stated that researchers had full access to all data, one that the researchers had no limits on publication and one that 'the decision to submit the paper for publication was determined by the study sponsor'. In conclusion, no researcher should be expected to produce 'findings' without full access to the data, freedom from interference in analysis and interpretation and liberty to publish all results, however disappointing to the stakeholder they may be. In the meantime, researchers do well to arm themselves with the rules for research partnerships and editors to take on the role of watchdog.

Transparency: A Fundamental Social Obligation for Clinical Research .After 60 years devoted to enhancing the methodology and ethics in clinical research, the last decade has been crucial to the scientific community in refining the transparency on conducting clinical trials (CTs), from their inception to the publication of results. A myriad of articles have been published on the design, conduct, conflicts of interest, reporting, and publication of CTs...