R M Kwasnicki1, L D Cato2, L Geoghegan1, G Stanley3, J Pancholi4, A Jain5, M D Gardiner5,6. 1. Department of Biosurgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College London, London, UK. 2. College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 3. Nottingham University Medical School, Nottingham, UK. 4. University of Leicester Medical School, Leicester, UK. 5. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 6. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, Frimley, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Achieving a standard of clinical research at the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid is historically expensive and logistically challenging. Research collaboratives have delivered high-impact prospective multicentre audits and clinical trials by using trainee networks with a range of enabling technology. This review outlines such use of technology in the UK and provides a framework of recommended technologies for future studies. METHODS: A review of the literature identified technology used in collaborative projects. Additional technologies were identified through web searches. Technologies were grouped into themes including access (networking and engagement), collaboration and event organisation. The technologies available to support each theme were studied further to outline relative benefits and limitations. FINDINGS: Thirty-three articles from trainee research collaboratives were identified. The most frequently documented technologies were social media applications, website platforms and research databases. The Supportive Technologies in Collaborative Research framework is proposed, providing a structure for using the technologies available to support multicentre collaboration. Such technologies are often overlooked in the literature by established and start-up collaborative project groups. If used correctly, they might help to overcome the physical, logistical and financial barriers of multicentre clinical trials.
INTRODUCTION: Achieving a standard of clinical research at the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid is historically expensive and logistically challenging. Research collaboratives have delivered high-impact prospective multicentre audits and clinical trials by using trainee networks with a range of enabling technology. This review outlines such use of technology in the UK and provides a framework of recommended technologies for future studies. METHODS: A review of the literature identified technology used in collaborative projects. Additional technologies were identified through web searches. Technologies were grouped into themes including access (networking and engagement), collaboration and event organisation. The technologies available to support each theme were studied further to outline relative benefits and limitations. FINDINGS: Thirty-three articles from trainee research collaboratives were identified. The most frequently documented technologies were social media applications, website platforms and research databases. The Supportive Technologies in Collaborative Research framework is proposed, providing a structure for using the technologies available to support multicentre collaboration. Such technologies are often overlooked in the literature by established and start-up collaborative project groups. If used correctly, they might help to overcome the physical, logistical and financial barriers of multicentre clinical trials.
Keywords:
Clinical trials; Research collaborative; Technology; Trainees
Authors: Ian C Coulter; Angelos G Kolias; Hani J Marcus; Aminul I Ahmed; Saira Alli; Rafid Al-Mahfoudh; Anouk Borg; Christopher J A Cowie; Ciaran S Hill; Alexis J Joannides; Timothy L Jones; Ahilan Kailaya-Vasan; James L Livermore; Harsha Narayanamurthy; Desire Ngoga; Jonathan Shapey; Andrew Tarnaris; Barbara A Gregson; William P Gray; Richard J Nelson; Peter J Hutchinson; Paul M Brennan Journal: Br J Neurosurg Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 1.596
Authors: Stephen J Chapman; James C D Glasbey; Chetan Khatri; Michael Kelly; Dmitri Nepogodiev; Aneel Bhangu; J Edward F Fitzgerald Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 2.463