Paul Garner

Bio: Paul Garner is an academic researcher from Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Randomized controlled trial. The author has an hindex of 68, co-authored 327 publications receiving 16164 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul Garner include University of Paris & Cochrane Collaboration.

The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research

Abstract: Reproducible science requires transparent reporting. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) were originally developed in 2010 to improve the reporting of animal research. They consist of a checklist of information to include in publications describing in vivo experiments to enable others to scrutinise the work adequately, evaluate its methodological rigour, and reproduce the methods and results. Despite considerable levels of endorsement by funders and journals over the years, adherence to the guidelines has been inconsistent, and the anticipated improvements in the quality of reporting in animal research publications have not been achieved. Here, we introduce ARRIVE 2.0. The guidelines have been updated and information reorganised to facilitate their use in practice. We used a Delphi exercise to prioritise and divide the items of the guidelines into 2 sets, the “ARRIVE Essential 10,” which constitutes the minimum requirement, and the “Recommended Set,” which describes the research context. This division facilitates improved reporting of animal research by supporting a stepwise approach to implementation. This helps journal editors and reviewers verify that the most important items are being reported in manuscripts. We have also developed the accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document, which serves (1) to explain the rationale behind each item in the guidelines, (2) to clarify key concepts, and (3) to provide illustrative examples. We aim, through these changes, to help ensure that researchers, reviewers, and journal editors are better equipped to improve the rigour and transparency of the scientific process and thus reproducibility.

SARS: Systematic Review of Treatment Effects

Abstract: Background The SARS outbreak of 2002-2003 presented clinicians with a new, life-threatening disease for which they had no experience in treating and no research on the effectiveness of treatment options The World Health Organization ( WHO) expert panel on SARS treatment requested a systematic review and comprehensive summary of treatments used for SARS-infected patients in order to guide future treatment and identify priorities for research Methods and Findings In response to the WHO request we conducted a systematic review of the published literature on ribavirin, corticosteroids, lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r), type I interferon (IFN), intravenous immunoglobulin ( IVIG), and SARS convalescent plasma from both in vitro studies and in SARS patients We also searched for clinical trial evidence of treatment for acute respiratory distress syndrome Sources of data were the literature databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL) up to February 2005 Data from publications were extracted and evidence within studies was classified using predefined criteria In total, 54 SARS treatment studies, 15 in vitro studies, and three acute respiratory distress syndrome studies met our inclusion criteria Within in vitro studies, ribavirin, lopinavir, and type I IFN showed inhibition of SARS-CoV in tissue culture In SARS-infected patient reports on ribavirin, 26 studies were classified as inconclusive, and four showed possible harm Seven studies of convalescent plasma or IVIG, three of IFN type I, and two of LPV/r were inconclusive In 29 studies of steroid use, 25 were inconclusive and four were classified as causing possible harm Conclusions Despite an extensive literature reporting on SARS treatments, it was not possible to determine whether treatments benefited patients during the SARS outbreak Some may have been harmful Clinical trials should be designed to validate a standard protocol for dosage and timing, and to accrue data in real time during future outbreaks to monitor specific adverse effects and help inform treatment

Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0.

Abstract: Improving the reproducibility of biomedical research is a major challenge. Transparent and accurate reporting is vital to this process; it allows readers to assess the reliability of the findings and repeat or build upon the work of other researchers. The ARRIVE guidelines (Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) were developed in 2010 to help authors and journals identify the minimum information necessary to report in publications describing in vivo experiments. Despite widespread endorsement by the scientific community, the impact of ARRIVE on the transparency of reporting in animal research publications has been limited. We have revised the ARRIVE guidelines to update them and facilitate their use in practice. The revised guidelines are published alongside this paper. This explanation and elaboration document was developed as part of the revision. It provides further information about each of the 21 items in ARRIVE 2.0, including the rationale and supporting evidence for their inclusion in the guidelines, elaboration of details to report, and examples of good reporting from the published literature. This document also covers advice and best practice in the design and conduct of animal studies to support researchers in improving standards from the start of the experimental design process through to publication.

Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis

Abstract: Background Tuberculosis (TB) requires at least six months of treatment. If treatment is incomplete, patients may not be cured and drug resistance may develop. Directly Observed Therapy (DOT) is a specific strategy, endorsed by the World Health Organization, to improve adherence by requiring health workers, community volunteers or family members to observe and record patients taking each dose. Objectives To evaluate DOT compared to self-administered therapy in people on treatment for active TB or on prophylaxis to prevent active disease. We also compared the effects of different forms of DOT. Search methods We searched the following databases up to 13 January 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS and mRCT. We also checked article reference lists and contacted relevant researchers and organizations. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing DOT with routine self-administration of treatment or prophylaxis at home. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of each included trial and extracted data. We compared interventions using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a random-effects model if meta-analysis was appropriate but heterogeneity present (I2 statistic > 50%). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results Eleven trials including 5662 participants met the inclusion criteria. DOT was performed by a range of people (nurses, community health workers, family members or former TB patients) in a variety of settings (clinic, the patient's home or the home of a community volunteer). DOT versus self-administered Six trials from South Africa, Thailand, Taiwan, Pakistan and Australia compared DOT with self-administered therapy for treatment. Trials included DOT at home by family members, community health workers (who were usually supervised); DOT at home by health staff; and DOT at health facilities. TB cure was low with self-administration across all studies (range 41% to 67%), and direct observation did not substantially improve this (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; five trials, 1645 participants, moderate quality evidence). In a subgroup analysis stratified by the frequency of contact between health services in the self-treatment arm, daily DOT may improve TB cure when compared to self-administered treatment where patients in the self-administered group only visited the clinic every month (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25; two trials, 900 participants); but with contact in the control becoming more frequent, this small effect was not apparent (every two weeks: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12; one trial, 497 participants; every week: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21; two trials, 248 participants). Treatment completion showed a similar pattern, ranging from 59% to 78% in the self-treatment groups, and direct observation did not improve this (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19; six trials, 1839 participants, moderate quality evidence). DOT at home versus DOT at health facility In four trials that compared DOT at home by family members, or community health workers, with DOT by health workers at a health facility there was little or no difference in cure or treatment completion (cure: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18, four trials, 1556 participants, moderate quality evidence; treatment completion: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17, three trials, 1029 participants, moderate quality evidence). DOT by family member versus DOT by community health worker Two trials compared DOT at home by family members with DOT at home by community health workers. There was also little or no difference in cure or treatment completion (cure: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; two trials, 1493 participants, moderate quality evidence; completion: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.22; two trials, 1493 participants, low quality evidence). Specific patient categories A trial of 300 intravenous drug users in the USA evaluated direct observation with no observation in TB prophylaxis to prevent active disease and showed little difference in treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; one trial, 300 participants, low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions From the existing trials, DOT did not provide a solution to poor adherence in TB treatment. Given the large resource and cost implications of DOT, policy makers might want to reconsider strategies that depend on direct observation. Other options might take into account financial and logistical barriers to care; approaches that motivate patients and staff; and defaulter follow-up.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.