Journal publishers sometimes get a bad press for making a profit from academics’ hard work without adding much value to the scientific endeavour. Although I am a journal publisher myself, I have some sympathy with that sentiment, especially when journals simply reproduce the authors’ work without helping them to improve the communication of their data by editing the paper, improving the figures, or providing help communicating with the media. However, when journals live up to their side of the bargain, it’s clear that they (we) have a huge amount to offer to the scientific community.

Continue reading →

Journal publishers sometimes get a bad press for making a profit from academics’ hard work without adding much value to the scientific endeavour. Although I am a journal publisher myself, I have some sympathy with that sentiment, especially when journals simply reproduce the authors’ work without helping them to improve the communication of their data by editing the paper, improving the figures, or providing help communicating with the media. However, when journals live up to their side of the bargain, it’s clear that they (we) have a huge amount to offer to the scientific community.

Continue reading →

When I was an undergraduate, my tutor, a laboratory-based PhD-trained scientist, often complained that the medical students he tutored were incapable of thinking scientifically; clinicians are only able to learn by rote, not think logically, my tutor regularly said. It was only when I started working in medical publishing that I came to realise how misinformed my tutor was and how rigorous clinical research can be.

I am currently attending the American Heart Association’s annual scientific meeting and the quality of some of the science is simply breathtaking. Every day the results of massive randomised controlled trials are presented that are run by large collaborations of clinical researchers based all over the world.

I’ve already blogged about JUPITER, which may well turn out to be one of the most significant pieces of medical research published this year. Yesterday, another big trial was presented: I-PRESERVE, which enrolled 4218 patients from medical centres in 25 countries. The trial was negative—-it showed that irbesartan does not improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure who have an ejection fraction of at least 45%—-so it won’t get as much airtime as JUPITER in the popular press, but it is still an impressive piece of work all the same (see paper in the NEJM).

Continue reading →

When I was an undergraduate, my tutor, a laboratory-based PhD-trained scientist, often complained that the medical students he tutored were incapable of thinking scientifically; clinicians are only able to learn by rote, not think logically, my tutor regularly said. It was only when I started working in medical publishing that I came to realise how misinformed my tutor was and how rigorous clinical research can be.

I am currently attending the American Heart Association’s annual scientific meeting and the quality of some of the science is simply breathtaking. Every day the results of massive randomised controlled trials are presented that are run by large collaborations of clinical researchers based all over the world.

I’ve already blogged about JUPITER, which may well turn out to be one of the most significant pieces of medical research published this year. Yesterday, another big trial was presented: I-PRESERVE, which enrolled 4218 patients from medical centres in 25 countries. The trial was negative—-it showed that irbesartan does not improve the outcomes of patients with heart failure who have an ejection fraction of at least 45%—-so it won’t get as much airtime as JUPITER in the popular press, but it is still an impressive piece of work all the same (see paper in the NEJM).

Continue reading →

The biggest story to come out of the American Heart Association’s annual jamboree is undoubtedly the JUPITER randomised controlled trial, which was showcased on Monday to a packed auditorium of over 6000 cardiologists. Data from the trial suggest that even healthy people with low cholesterol may benefit from receiving rosuvastatin to prevent cardiac events, if they have high levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

The trial was due to run for 4 years, but was stopped prematurely in March after just 2 years when an interim analysis showed that patients who received rosuvastatin were approximately half as likely to have a coronary event compared with those who received placebo. The trial’s independent data and safety monitoring board decided that it would be unethical to continue giving some people placebo in light of this strong evidence of efficacy, so they voted to stop the trial.

Continue reading →

The biggest story to come out of the American Heart Association’s annual jamboree is undoubtedly the JUPITER randomised controlled trial, which was showcased on Monday to a packed auditorium of over 6000 cardiologists. Data from the trial suggest that even healthy people with low cholesterol may benefit from receiving rosuvastatin to prevent cardiac events, if they have high levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

The trial was due to run for 4 years, but was stopped prematurely in March after just 2 years when an interim analysis showed that patients who received rosuvastatin were approximately half as likely to have a coronary event compared with those who received placebo. The trial’s independent data and safety monitoring board decided that it would be unethical to continue giving some people placebo in light of this strong evidence of efficacy, so they voted to stop the trial.

Continue reading →