5 results
Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review
- Beth B. Tigges, Doriane Miller, Katherine M. Dudding, Joyce E. Balls-Berry, Elaine A. Borawski, Gaurav Dave, Nathaniel S. Hafer, Kim S. Kimminau, Rhonda G. Kost, Kimberly Littlefield, Jackilen Shannon, Usha Menon, The Measures of Collaboration Workgroup of the Collaboration and Engagement Domain Task Force, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue 5 / October 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 11 October 2019, pp. 261-289
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.
Methods:Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.
Results:We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.
Conclusions:Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.
Genome-Wide Association Study for Ovarian Cancer Susceptibility Using Pooled DNA
- Yi Lu, Xiaoqing Chen, Jonathan Beesley, Sharon E. Johnatty, Anna deFazio, Australian Ovarian Cancer Study (AOCS) Study Group, Sandrina Lambrechts, Diether Lambrechts, Evelyn Despierre, Ignace Vergotes, Jenny Chang-Claude, Rebecca Hein, Stefan Nickels, Shan Wang-Gohrke, Thilo Dörk, Matthias Dürst, Natalia Antonenkova, Natalia Bogdanova, Marc T. Goodman, Galina Lurie, Lynne R. Wilkens, Michael E. Carney, Ralf Butzow, Heli Nevanlinna, Tuomas Heikkinen, Arto Leminen, Lambertus A. Kiemeney, Leon F.A.G. Massuger, Anne M. van Altena, Katja K. Aben, Susanne Krüger Kjaer, Estrid Høgdall, Allan Jensen, Angela Brooks-Wilson, Nhu Le, Linda Cook, Madalene Earp, Linda Kelemen, Douglas Easton, Paul Pharoah, Honglin Song, Jonathan Tyrer, Susan Ramus, Usha Menon, Alexandra Gentry-Maharaj, Simon A. Gayther, Elisa V. Bandera, Sara H. Olson, Irene Orlow, Lorna Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Stuart Macgregor, Georgia Chenevix-Trench
-
- Journal:
- Twin Research and Human Genetics / Volume 15 / Issue 5 / October 2012
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 July 2012, pp. 615-623
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Recent Genome-Wide Association Studies (GWAS) have identified four low-penetrance ovarian cancer susceptibility loci. We hypothesized that further moderate- or low-penetrance variants exist among the subset of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) not well tagged by the genotyping arrays used in the previous studies, which would account for some of the remaining risk. We therefore conducted a time- and cost-effective stage 1 GWAS on 342 invasive serous cases and 643 controls genotyped on pooled DNA using the high-density Illumina 1M-Duo array. We followed up 20 of the most significantly associated SNPs, which are not well tagged by the lower density arrays used by the published GWAS, and genotyping them on individual DNA. Most of the top 20 SNPs were clearly validated by individually genotyping the samples used in the pools. However, none of the 20 SNPs replicated when tested for association in a much larger stage 2 set of 4,651 cases and 6,966 controls from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium. Given that most of the top 20 SNPs from pooling were validated in the same samples by individual genotyping, the lack of replication is likely to be due to the relatively small sample size in our stage 1 GWAS rather than due to problems with the pooling approach. We conclude that there are unlikely to be any moderate or large effects on ovarian cancer risk untagged by less dense arrays. However, our study lacked power to make clear statements on the existence of hitherto untagged small-effect variants.
14 - Serum markers for gynaecological cancer in the reproductive years
- from SECTION 4 - Diagnostic Dilemmas
-
- By Ranjit Manchanda, EGA Institute for Women’s Health, Usha Menon, EGA Institute for Women’s Health
- Edited by Sean Kehoe, Eric Jauniaux, Pierre Martin-Hirsch, Philip Savage
-
- Book:
- Cancer and Reproductive Health
- Published online:
- 05 October 2014
- Print publication:
- 01 November 2008, pp 155-178
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
This chapter focuses on the various tumour markers relevant to gynaecological malignancies in premenopausal women and their role in management. No serological markers have been found to be sufficiently sensitive for early-stage disease or specific for screening purposes. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC) is probably a marker of cellular differentiation of squamous cells. Beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (ßhCG) has been described as an 'ideal tumour marker' in gestational trophoblastic tumours (GTN) and plays a primary role in its management. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) has been used as a reliable marker for monitoring treatment and detecting early relapse in nonpregnant women. None of the serum markers has a well-established role in the clinical management of endometrial cancer. The role of serum CA125 in screening women in the reproductive age group with increased risk of familial ovarian cancer is being investigated.
3 - Ovarian Cancer Screening
-
- By Adam Rosenthal, Clinical Lecturer and Subspecialty Fellow in Gynaecological Oncology., Usha Menon, Clinical Lecturer and Subspecialty Fellow in Gynaecological Oncology., Ian Jacobs, Clinical Lecturer and Subspecialty Fellow in Gynaecological Oncology.
- Edited by Rodney Reznek
-
- Book:
- Cancer of the Ovary
- Published online:
- 11 September 2009
- Print publication:
- 14 December 2006, pp 47-68
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Ovarian cancer remains not only the commonest but also the most lethal gynaecological malignancy in the UK (Table 3.1 [1]).
Despite advances in molecular biology, surgery and chemotherapy, ovarian cancer remains a difficult condition to manage and long-term survival rates have hardly improved since the 1970s [2]. The poor prognosis of the disease is believed to be due to the fact that more than 70% of women present with disease spread beyond the ovaries (Table 3.2 [3]). This probably reflects the absence of major symptoms in early stage disease, due to the location of the ovaries, which results in little interference with surrounding structures until ovarian enlargement is considerable or metastatic disease supervenes. When symptoms occur, they may be non-specific, requiring frequent consultations with a GP before further investigation is prompted. However, it should be noted that most stage I ovarian cancers have an extremely good prognosis following surgery alone. Detection of early stage disease may therefore offer an opportunity to reduce mortality. However, so far, no screening protocol for ovarian cancer has been shown to achieve this aim. Nevertheless, developments in ultrasound and tumour marker technology, combined with more sophisticated approaches to interpretation have improved the performance of the potential screening strategies to levels which may reduce mortality. These strategies are currently being tested in two large randomised controlled trials of ovarian cancer screening; one in the UK [4] and one in the USA [5]. However, neither of these is expected to report before 2012.
14 - Screening for familial ovarian cancer
-
- By Barnaby Rufford, St Bartholomew's and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK, Usha Menon, St Bartholomew's and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK, Ian Jacobs, St Bartholomew's and The Royal London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
- Edited by Patrick J. Morrison, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, Shirley V. Hodgson, Guy's Hospital, London, Neva E. Haites, University of Aberdeen
-
- Book:
- Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer
- Published online:
- 24 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 07 November 2002, pp 220-234
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Despite advances in surgery and chemotherapy, the overall prognosis for ovarian cancer remains poor. It has improved little over the last 30 years. The best way of improving outcome may be to detect the condition at an early stage through screening the population at risk. The high incidence of disease in those with a strong family history of ovarian cancer makes them particularly amenable to this strategy.
Why should we screen?
There are estimated to be approximately 50 000 women in the UK who have a significant family history of ovarian cancer with two or more affected close relatives. These women have an approximately ten-fold increased risk compared with the general population. This translates to an average lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of 15%.
The prognosis for ovarian cancer is generally poor, with an overall 5-year survival of about 30%. Seventy per cent of women are diagnosed with stage III or IV disease, with 5-year survivals of 15–20% and less than 5% respectively (Teneriello and Park, 1995). The lack of symptoms of early ovarian cancer results in women frequently presenting with advanced disease. This is due to the location of the ovaries within the peritoneal cavity, which results in minimal local irritation or interference with vital structures until ovarian enlargement is considerable, or metastasis occurs. Initial symptoms may be so vague that multiple consultations with a GP may occur before a gynaecological referral is initiated.