Search

IntroductionThe need to address research integrity issues and to foster responsible research practices (RRP) is evident. A lot of initiatives that attempt to foster research integrity have been developed, but these are often hard to find. The INSPIRE project (Inventory in the Netherlands of Stakeholders’ Practices and Initiatives on Research integrity to set an Example)1 aims to collect, classify and share ‘best practices’, with the purpose of inspiring and activating stakeholders to contribute to RRP. It is through the online platform of The Embassy of Good Science2 that we have the opportunity to disseminate research integrity within a broader scope. MethodsA combination of strategies was used to conduct the inventory, including a call among our extensive network of colleagues working in the field of research integrity personal invitations to submit initiatives that we heard of, examination of existing inventories and a webcrawler with a view to add to our manual search.A checklist to assess and classify initiatives was developed following a Delphi procedure. The checklist structures the online spectrum of initiatives and helps stakeholders to take all relevant aspects into account when developing, describing and implementing an initiative to foster RRP.ResultsThe INSPIRE project identified a variety of initiatives and adds those to The Embassy of Good Science. This broad spectrum of initiatives should be easy to search through for users who are looking for inspiration to implement an initiative in their institution too. So far, 40 initiatives – and counting – are included in the spectrum of initiatives on The Embassy. A selection of best practice initiatives will be presented.ConclusionAn online platform functionality facilitates searching for potentially relevant initiatives to foster RRP based on the classification developed by the INSPIRE project. References https://www.nrin.nl/about/inspire-project/2 www.embassy.science

Objective: Several major violations of research integrity shook up academia and society during the last decade.Fostering responsible conduct of research (RCR) and preventing research misbehaviour were put high on theagenda. Teaching students and researchers about rules and norms in research is one thing, but empowering themto deal with moral dilemmas in research practice is a challenge. We argue that fictional narratives can be very usefulin exploring the tough choices scientists have to make. In this project, we investigated the usefulness andapplicability of a selection of fiction movies for RCR education.Method: A format for structured description of (fragments of) movies was developed and after pilot testingconsensus on the format was achieved. This format was applied to 31movies. Legal and practical aspects of using(fragments of) movies for educational purposes and of sharing the teaching materials online (creative commons)were explored.Results: Not all movies in our initial selection were deemed useful for RCR education. Of the 31 movies weconsidered, 20 movies remained in the final selection. The main RCR topics addressed in these movies are:conflicts of interest, selective reporting and citation, scientific writing, authorship, research waste and data collectionand study design issues.Discussion: The structured format, an annotated list of useful fiction movie fragments for RCR education, anddescriptions of the legal aspects and practicalities, will be published on the website of the Netherlands ResearchIntegrity Network (http://www.nrin.nl/). Also first experiences with the use of the selected movie fragments in RCReducation will be presented.

Recently several serious violations of research integrity have come to light in the Netherlands, which placed Research Integrity (RI) high on the public and academic agenda. More systematic and explicit attention is clearly needed, especially with respect to prevention. Although many institutions – like universities, academic hospitals and funders of research – are committed to improve the research culture and to offer better Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) education, there is little contact between the actors in the field. The newly launched Netherlands Research Integrity Network (NRIN) aims to facilitate collaboration, exchange and mutual learning, to enable consultation and intervision, to provide information and to share research/teaching materials and best practices. The NRIN does this via the website www.nrin.nl; a newsletter; discussion meetings for diverse stakeholders; seminars on education and research on RI; training and education for different audiences; small (internship) research projects; and participation in the organisation of the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (www.wcri2017.org). The website is designed to find relevant items via various routes, depending on the user’s interests.Participants of the NRIN events and users of the website include RI counsellors; RI committee chairs and members; RCR educators; and researchers and policymakers in the field of RI. All people interested in general or in specific RI topics can sign-up for the network and the newsletter. Activities are organized in cooperation with members of the network.During the first six months, we have learned some lessons in starting and maintaining this network. First of all, building and maintaining a relevant website takes a lot of time. Making use of what is already there, is essential. The website, and all other communications, are in English to serve a wide target population. The website can also be used outside the Netherlands. Visitors from already 63 countries have found the website and currently 15 % of the people who signed up for network via the website come from outside the Netherlands.Establishing and maintaining the network requires proper analyses of the needs of the target population. Also, don’t do it all by yourself but get people involved. Stimulate the snowball effect. And last but not least: be enthusiastic about your work!The NRIN is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw). The network is chaired by Prof. Lex M Bouter and coordinated by Fenneke Blom.

Many long-term prospective studies have reported on associations of cardiovascular diseases with circulating lipid markers and/or inflammatory markers. Studies have not, however, generally been designed to provide reliable estimates under different circumstances and to correct for within-person variability. The Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration has established a central database on over 1.1 million participants from 104 prospective population-based studies, in which subsets have information on lipid and inflammatory markers, other characteristics, as well as major cardiovascular morbidity and cause-specific mortality. Information on repeat measurements on relevant characteristics has been collected in approximately 340,000 participants to enable estimation of and correction for within-person variability. Re-analysis of individual data will yield up to approximately 69,000 incident fatal or nonfatal first ever major cardiovascular outcomes recorded during about 11.7 million person years at risk. The primary analyses will involve age-specific regression models in people without known baseline cardiovascular disease in relation to fatal or nonfatal first ever coronary heart disease outcomes. This initiative will characterize more precisely and in greater detail than has previously been possible the shape and strength of the age-and sex-specific associations of several lipid and inflammatory markers with incident coronary heart disease outcomes (and, secondarily,with other incident cardiovascular outcomes) under a wide range of circumstances. It will, therefore, help to determine to what extent such associations are independent from possible confounding factors and to what extent such markers (separately and in combination) provide incremental predictive value.

The ankle brachial index (ABI) is related to risk of cardiovascular events independent of the Framingham risk score (FRS). The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a risk model for cardiovascular events incorporating the ABI and FRS.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a hierarchical scale that measures activity limitations in climbing stairs in patients with lower-extremity disorders living at home.DESIGN: Cross-sectional study with Mokken scale analysis of 15 dichotomous items.SETTING: Outpatient clinics of secondary and tertiary care centers.PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N=759; mean age +/- standard deviation, 59.8+/-15.0y; 48% men) living at home, with different lower-extremity disorders: stroke, poliomyelitis, osteoarthritis, amputation, complex regional pain syndrome type I, and diabetic foot problems.INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Fit of the monotone homogeneity model, indicating whether items can be used for measuring patients; (2) fit of the double monotonicity model, indicating invariant (hierarchical) item ordering; (3) intratest reliability, indicating repeatability of the sum score; and (4) differential item functioning, addressing the validity of comparisons between subgroups of patients.RESULTS: There was (1) good fit of the monotone homogeneity model (coefficient H=.50) for all items for all patients, and for subgroups defined by age, gender, and diagnosis; (2) good fit of the double monotonicity model (coefficient H(T)=.58); (3) good intratest reliability (coefficient rho=.90); and (4) no differential item functioning with respect to age and gender, but differential item functioning for 4 items in amputees compared with nonamputees.CONCLUSIONS: A hierarchical scale, with excellent scaling characteristics, has been developed for measuring activity limitations in climbing stairs in patients with lower-extremity disorders who live at home. However, measurements should be interpreted with caution when comparisons are made between patients with and without amputation.

BACKGROUND: Lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) is a common complaint, for which corticosteroid injections are a frequently applied therapy. However, there were no up-to-date reviews available that systematically addressed the effectiveness and adverse effects, including questions concerning optimal timing of injections and composition of the injection fluid. AIM: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis (tennis elbow) by systematic review of the available randomized clinical trials. DATA SOURCES: The data sources used were randomized clinical trials identified by literature searches of the MedLine (1966-1994) and Embase (Exerpta Medica) (1980-1994) databases for the keywords epicondylitis, tendinitis and elbow, injection. References given in relevant publications were further examined. STUDY SELECTION: The criteria for selecting studies were as follows: randomized clinical trials (treatment allocation in random or alternate order); one of the treatments to include one or more corticosteroid injections (additional interventions were allowed); participants suffering from lateral epicondylitis; and publication in English, German or Dutch. Abstracts and unpublished studies were not included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Methodological quality was assessed by means of a standardized criteria list (range 1-100 points). The extracted outcomes were the general conclusion drawn by the authors of the reports on the trials, and the success rates at the various follow-up points as (re)calculated by us. The success rates were subsequently graphically displayed and statistically pooled. Separate stratified analyses were conducted according to a predetermined analysis plan. RESULTS: Twelve randomized clinical trials were identified. The median methodological score was 40 points, indicating an overall poor to moderate quality. The pooled analysis indicated short-term effectiveness (2-6 weeks): pooled odds ratio (OR) = 0.15 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.23], chi 2 [degrees of freedom (df = 5) = 13.3], indicating statistical heterogeneity. At longer term follow-up, no difference could be detected. The studies of better methodological quality indicated more favourable results than those of lesser methodological quality. The most suitable corticosteroid to use as well as dosage, injection interval and injection volume could not be derived from the various trials. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence on corticosteroid injections for the treatment of tennis elbow is not conclusive. Many trials were conducted in a secondary care setting and clearly had serious methodological flaws, and there was statistical heterogeneity among the trials. Corticosteroid injections appear to be relatively safe and seem to be effective in the short term (2-6 weeks). Although the treatment seems to be suitable for application in general practice, further trials in this setting are needed. As yet, questions regarding the optimal timing, dosage, injection technique and injection volume remain unanswered.