Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Scientific Integrity Review”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Complexities in ETS-domain transcription factor function and regulation: lessons from the TCF (ternary complex factor) subfamily. The Colworth Medal Lecture.

The ETS-domain transcription factor family can be divided into a series of subfamilies. Elk-1 represents the founding member of the ternary complex factor (TCF) subfamily. By focusing on the TCF subfamily, we can demonstrate the complexities that exist in the function and regulation of ETS-domain transcription factors. This article focuses on Elk-1 in detail and summarizes the functions of other TCFs. The key themes covered include the domain structure of the TCFs, the mechanisms of complex formation with serum response factor, regulation of TCFs by mitogen-activated protein kinase cascades, and transcriptional regulatory properties of the TCFs. Finally, the emerging role of the TCFs in vivo is discussed. A picture is developing indicating that, while these proteins exhibit significant sequence and functional conservation, key differences in their structure and regulation are being identified which may relate to unique functions of these proteins in vivo.

Amino Acid Sequence↗
PubMed2005

An overview of the integrative research review.

The integrative literature review has many benefits to the scholarly reviewer, including evaluating the strength of the scientific evidence, identifying gaps in current research, identifying the need for future research, bridging between related areas of work, identifying central issues in an area, generating a research question, identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework, and exploring which research methods have been used successfully. The 5-stage integrative review process includes (1) problem formulation, (2) data collection or literature search, (3) evaluation of data, (4) data analysis, and (5) interpretation and presentation of results. Maintaining scientific integrity while conducting an integrative research review involves careful consideration to threats to validity. Strategies to overcome these threats are reviewed. The integrative review methodology must involve detailed and thoughtful work, the outcome of which can be a significant contribution to a particular body of knowledge and, consequently, to practice and research.

Research Design↗
PubMed1998

Breast cancer advocacy in clinical care.

Although still in a continual state of evolution, breast cancer advocacy has come of age in the last few years. Advocacy is a very broad term that can be defined as the viewpoint of a breast cancer patient or survivor, or a viewpoint that is fully patient centered. In the area of clinical care and research, a cooperative atmosphere has developed that has required a close working relationship and understanding of cultures between advocates and those in the professional medical care and research communities. Interaction with patients and decision makers, which reflects individual values and preferences, requires a firm knowledge of medical outcomes; in this way, the advantages and disadvantages of a screening, diagnostic, or treatment plan can be analyzed. Moreover, a clear communication strategy needs to be in place to convey these concepts to patients and to elicit their individual choices and concerns. The development of optimal, shared decision making will require ongoing innovations in all these areas, and some are now being piloted and tested in the areas of screening, prevention, and treatment. The role of advocacy in research has likewise involved a sharp learning curve from both sides. Multiple models of mutual education, exchange of ideas, and the conversion of this interaction into research strategies are now in place in many settings. The intent of such interaction is to move forward with discovery and clinical application in a way that forces a rethinking and innovation of approaches but emphasizes proper scientific methodology. Patient-focused themes of relevance to patients with breast cancer, timely translation to the clinic, and a broader scope of research and ideas are all being integrated into the scientific review process. An emphasis on advocacy issues, along with stepwise scientific progress, will be essential in the new era of rapid technology development, clinical testing, and adoption into the standard of patient care.

Journal Article↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Conflicts of interest and scientific integrity.

The encroachment of conflicts of interest on the peer-review process of scientific journals is discussed, with particular reference to a current example. The authors stress the need for transparency of the connections among authors, reviewers, publishers, editors, and sources of funding to prevent erosion of trust in the scientific integrity of such publications.

Advertising↗
PubMed2004

ORI findings of scientific misconduct in clinical trials and publicly funded research, 1992-2002.

BACKGROUND: Since 1992 the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) had reviewed investigations of scientific misconduct in research funded by the US Public Health Service (PHS). ORI defined scientific misconduct as "fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research". PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to summarize the findings and administrative actions reported in ORI notices of scientific misconduct in clinical trials occurring between May 1992 and 2002. METHODS: Findings of misconduct were gathered from publicly available sources: the ORI annual reports and the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts. RESULTS: Clinical trials accounted for 17 (13%) of the 136 investigations that resulted in findings of scientific misconduct, and they were noted in 12 (11%) of the 113 brief reports of investigations closed with findings of no scientific misconduct. In clinical trials, the most severe sanction, debarment from US Government funding, was applied in six (35%) of the cases of misconduct compared to 79 (66%) of 119 cases from all other types of research combined. Of individuals cited for misconduct in clinical trials, three (18%) held doctorates in contrast to 81 (68%) in other types of research. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical trials, junior employees may bear the burden of sanction for scientific misconduct. The most frequently applied sanction was the requirement that a plan of supervision of the sanctioned employees accompany any future application for funding which would include them. This imposition of sanction on an individual employee does not address possible causes of misconduct which may be inherent in the overall pattern of leadership, training and supervision in the trial. Furthermore, the definition of misconduct, as interpreted by the Departmental Appeals Board, excludes carelessness and other poor research practices that may lead to dissemination of more incorrect data than misconduct.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2001

Systematic reviews: the heart of evidence-based practice.

Research utilization approaches in nursing recently have been replaced by evidence-based practice (EBP) approaches. The heart of the new EBP paradigm is the systematic review. Systematic reviews are carefully synthesized research evidence designed to answer focused clinical questions. Systematic reviews (also known as evidence summaries and integrative reviews) implement recently developed scientific methods to summarize results from multiple research studies. Specific strategies are required for success in locating systematic reviews. Major sources of systematic reviews for use by advanced practice nurses in acute and critical care are the Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Cochrane Library. This discussion describes systematic reviews as the pivotal point in today's paradigm of EBP and guides the advanced practice nurse in locating and accessing systematic reviews for use in practice.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2006

[Perioperative prevention of skin injury: an integrative literature review].

Nursing decision making in daily practice needs to be based on scientific knowledge. Evidence-based practice establishes the use of research results in clinical practice, with integrative literature review as one of its resources. This integrative review aimed to find and evaluate the available evidence on efficient nursing care interventions for the prevention of skin injuries in surgical patients, during or as a result of the perioperative period. To select the articles, we used two databases, Cinahl and Medline, resulting in a sample of 14 articles. The results of this analysis indicated that the devices considered most efficient in the prevention of skin injuries were, in decreasing order, the multi-cell pulsating dynamic mattress system, a dry visco-elastic polymer pad and gel cushions.

Humans↗
PubMed2005

Data and safety monitoring in clinical research: a National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke perspective.

The National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke supports a broad spectrum of research in the diagnosis and treatment of neurologic disease. Emergency medicine is increasingly involved in clinical research for patients with neurologic emergencies. Independent data and safety monitoring are critical components of clinical trials to ensure the protection of patients and the scientific integrity of the research. We review National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke principles of data and safety monitoring and provide examples to illustrate key concepts.

Black or African American↗