The PERMIT guidelines for designing and implementing all stages of personalised medicine research.

Personalised medicine (PM) research programmes represent the modern paradigm of complex cross-disciplinary research, integrating innovative methodologies and technologies. Methodological research is required to ensure that these programmes generate robust and reproducible evidence. The PERMIT project developed methodological recommendations for each stage of the PM research pipeline.

Biomedical doctoral students' research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials.

Our aim was to describe the research practices of doctoral students facing a dilemma to research integrity and to assess the impact of inappropriate research environments, i.e. exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed a Detrimental Research Practice (DRP) in a similar situation and (b) a supervisor who did not oppose the DRP.

Study designs for clinical trials applied to personalised medicine: a scoping review.

Objective: Personalised medicine (PM) allows treating patients based on their individual demographic, genomic or biological characteristics for tailoring the 'right treatment for the right person at the right time'. Robust methodology is required for PM clinical trials, to correctly identify groups of participants and treatments. As an initial step for the development of new recommendations on trial designs for PM, we aimed to present an overview of the study designs that have been used in this field.

Quality assessment practice in systematic reviews of mediation studies: results from an overview of systematic reviews.

Objective: To describe the bias assessment practice in recently published systematic reviews of mediation studies and to evaluate the quality of different bias assessment tools for mediation analysis proposed in the literature.

Method: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews by searching MEDLINE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (OvidSP), and PubMed databases for systematic reviews of mediation studies published from 2007 to 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstracts, and full texts of the identified reports and extracted the data.

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.

Objective: To develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.

Methods: We conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items.

The conduct and reporting of mediation analysis in recently published randomized controlled trials: results from a methodological systematic review.

Objectives: To describe the methodological characteristics of mediation analyses (MAs) reported in recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to propose recommendations on the planning, conduct, and reporting of MAs in practice.

Study Design And Setting: We conducted a systematic review by searching MEDLINE (January 1, 2017, to December 1, 2018) for all reports of RCTs or secondary analyses of previously published RCTs that reported a MA. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstracts, and full texts of the identified reports and extracted the data from the 98 eligible studies.

Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.

Background: A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

Methods: We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research.

Combining food-based dietary recommendations using Optifood with zinc-fortified water potentially improves nutrient adequacy among 4- to 6-year-old children in Kisumu West district, Kenya.

Children in developing countries often face multiple micronutrient deficiencies. Introduction of zinc-fortified water can increase zinc intake, but additional recommendations are required to address overall diet nutrient adequacy. We developed and tested food-based recommendations (FBRs) that included zinc-fortified water for children aged between 4 and 6 years from rural Kenya to achieve the best possible nutrient adequacy.

Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

Introduction: Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG.

Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments (HTAs), or clinical guidelines (CGs).

Study Design And Setting: We conducted an SR of studies describing one or more methods to prioritize SRs, HTAs, or CGs for updating. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed, from 1966 to August 2016) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2016).