Project description:IntroductionDefining research priorities in intensive care is key to determining appropriate allocation of funding. Several topics were identified from the 2014 James Lind Alliance priority setting exercise conducted with the Intensive Care Society. The James Lind Alliance process included significant (and vital) patient/public contribution, but excluded professionals without a bedside role. As a result it may have failed to identify potential early-stage translational research topics, which are more likely identified by medical and/or academic members of relevant specialist basic science groups. The objective of the present project was to complement the James Lind Alliance project by generating an updated list of research priorities by facilitating academic research input.MethodA survey was conducted by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) to identify the key research priorities from intensive care clinicians, including allied health professionals and academics, along with any evolving themes arising from translational research. Feasibility of all identified topics were then discussed and allocated to themes by a joint clinical academics/NIHR focus group.ResultsThe survey was completed by 94 intensive care clinicians (including subspecialists), academics and allied health professions. In total, 203 research questions were identified, with the top five themes focusing on: appropriate case selection (e.g. who and when to treat; 24%), ventilation (7%), sepsis (6%), delirium (5%) and rehabilitation (5%).DiscussionUtilising a methodology distinct from that employed by the James Lind Alliance process, from a broad spectrum of intensive care clinicians/scientists, enabled identification of a variety of priority research areas. These topics can now inform not only the investigator-led research agenda, but will also be considered in due course by the NIHR for potential future funding calls.

| S-EPMC7401440 | biostudies-literature

Review of institute of medicine and national research council recommendations for one health initiative.

Project description:Human health is inextricably linked to the health of animals and the viability of ecosystems; this is a concept commonly known as One Health. Over the last 2 decades, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) have published consensus reports and workshop summaries addressing a variety of threats to animal, human, and ecosystem health. We reviewed a selection of these publications and identified recommendations from NRC and IOM/NRC consensus reports and from opinions expressed in workshop summaries that are relevant to implementation of the One Health paradigm shift. We grouped these recommendations and opinions into thematic categories to determine if sufficient attention has been given to various aspects of One Health. We conclude that although One Health themes have been included throughout numerous IOM and NRC publications, identified gaps remain that may warrant targeted studies related to the One Health approach.

| S-EPMC3840875 | biostudies-literature

Radboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences

Project description:Organisation EGAO00000001244

| EGAO00000001244 | EGA

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme research funding and UK burden of disease.

Project description:BACKGROUND:HTA Programme funding is governed by the need for evidence and scientific quality, reflecting funding of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) by the NHS. The need criterion incorporates covering the spectrum of diseases, but also taking account of research supported by other funders. This study compared the NIHR HTA Programme portfolio of research with the UK burden of disease as measured by Disability-adjusted Life Years (DALYs). METHODS:A retrospective cross-sectional study using a cohort of all funded primary research and evidence syntheses projects received by the HTA Programme from April 2011 to March 2016 (n = 363); to determine the proportion of spend by disease compared with burden of disease in the UK calculated using 2015 UK DALY data. RESULTS:The programme costing just under £44 million broadly reflected UK DALY burden by disease. Spend was lower than disease burden for cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, which may reflect the importance of other funders, notably medical charities, which concentrate on these diseases. CONCLUSION:The HTA Programme spend, adjusted for other relevant funders, broadly matches disease burden in the UK; no diseases are being neglected.

| S-EPMC5797405 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data