Bedside to bench: a look at experimental research with a clinical trial checklist

Editors across all disciplines and approaches ask the same questions to reviewers and judge the merit of a study against a similar checklist: is the study well designed and does it provide reliable findings? Have we learnt something new? Are the results relevant to the community of scientists and/or medical professionals? In short, does the study make an important contribution to existing knowledge? As clinical practice has become increasingly evidence-based, the number of clinical trials has increased significantly (Presently, >6500 trials with ‘heart’ as keyword are registered and are open or recruiting; www.clinicaltrials.gov.) and stringent criteria have been put into place to guide the design, execution, and analysis of clinical investigations.These are the standards of good clinical practice (“GCP is an international ethical and scientific quality standard for designing, recording, and reporting trials that involve the participation of human subjects. Compliance with this standard provides public assurance that the rights, safety, and wellbeing of trial subjects are protected, and that clinical-trial data are credible”; http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general\_content\_000072.jsp). Training courses are available to educate clinicians in GCP and the management of patient-based studies. In the past 10 years, the impact factor of journals that focus on clinical research has steadily increased, due, to a large extent, to the recognition that large, well-designed clinical trials are able to produce robust findings that are immediately relevant to patient management and underpin practice guidelines. (The AHA and ACC published more than 70 guidelines in their journals since 2005; http://my.americanheart.org/professional/StatementsGuidelines, and the ESC similarly published more than 30; http://www.escardio.org/guidelines-surveys/esc-guidelines/Pages/GuidelinesList.aspx.) Not surprisingly, this results in widespread citation of the work, reflecting its impact on the community.1,2 The care in the design, conduct, and analysis of a clinical trial, and the subsequent further scrutiny in meta-analysis, outcome research, and registries are motivated by …

[1]  Miranda Mortlock,et al.  Experimental Design 3 , 2015 .

[2]  Gillian L. Currie,et al.  Meta-analysis of data from animal studies: A practical guide , 2014, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[3]  Nobel C. Zong,et al.  Integration of Cardiac Proteome Biology and Medicine by a Specialized Knowledgebase , 2013, Circulation research.

[4]  Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility , 2013, Nature.

[5]  Minghua Zhang,et al.  A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  B. Gersh,et al.  The best of the European Heart Journal: look back with pride. , 2012, European heart journal.

[7]  Gary R. Mirams,et al.  Minimum Information about a Cardiac Electrophysiology Experiment (MICEE): Standardised Reporting for Model Reproducibility, Interoperability, and Data Sharing , 2011, Progress in biophysics and molecular biology.

[8]  G B Drummond,et al.  Show the data, don't conceal them , 2011, Experimental physiology.

[9]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[10]  Sabine Glesner,et al.  Editorial , 1864, Informatik - Forschung und Entwicklung.

[11]  Emily S. Sena,et al.  Bringing rigour to translational medicine , 2014, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[12]  V. Regitz-Zagrosek,et al.  Melusin protects from cardiac rupture and improves functional remodelling after myocardial infarction. , 2014, Cardiovascular research.

[13]  K. Sipido What does the future hold for Cardiovascular Research? , 2013, Cardiovascular research.