British Journal of Biomedical Science最新文献

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer has a high prevalence and mortality rate in the United Kingdom. Cancerous colorectal lesions often bleed into the gastrointestinal lumen. The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) detects haemoglobin (Hb) in the faeces of patients and is used as a first line test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective audit of all FIT performed and all colorectal cancers diagnosed in the Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire counties of the United Kingdom (population approximately 609,300) between 2018 and 2022 was conducted. FIT were performed using a HM-JACKarc analyser from Kyowa medical. The predominant symptom suggestive of colorectal cancer which prompted the FIT was recorded. Colorectal cancer was diagnosed using the gold standard of histological biopsy following colonoscopy. Results: Between 2018 and 2022, 56,202 FIT were performed on symptomatic patients. Follow on testing identified 1,511 with colorectal cancer. Of these people, only 450 people with a confirmed colorectal cancer had a FIT within the 12 months preceding their diagnosis. Of these 450 FIT results, 36 had a concentration of <10 μg/g and may be considered to be a false negative. The sensitivity of FIT in the patients identified was 92.00%. The most common reason stated by the clinician for a FIT being performed in patients with colorectal cancer was a change in bowel habits, followed by iron deficient anaemia. The number of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer decreased in 2020, but increased significantly in 2021. Discussion: This study shows that 8.00% of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer in the Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire regions had a negative FIT. This study also shows that the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected the number of people diagnosed with colorectal cancer, and therefore skews the prevalence and pre-test probability of a positive test. There are many reasons why a FIT could produce a false negative result, the most likely being biological factors affecting the stability of haemoglobin within the gastrointestinal tract, or pre-analytical factors influencing faecal sampling preventing the detection of haemoglobin. Some colorectal lesions do not protrude into the gastrointestinal lumen and are less likely to bleed. Conclusion: This is the first study showing data from outside of a structured clinical trial and provides the largest study to date showing the sensitivity of FIT in a routine clinical setting. This study also provides evidence for the impact COVID-19 had on the rate of colorectal cancer diagnosis.

Introduction: Developing research skills enhances graduate attributes and student employability. The UG research project is coined the pedagogy of the 21st century but the diversity of supervisory styles is a source of student perceived inequality of experience. The goal of this study was to provide structure and support to undergraduate (UG) biomedical science research students and supervisors by co-creating research informed resources that are accessible, engaging and student centred. We asked 1) How do UG students experience research supervision? 2) What approaches do supervisors use to support UG project students? 3) How do students as partners benefit from being involved in pedagogical research? Materials and Methods: In Stage One, 3 UG student research partners co-developed questionnaires and followed these up with semi-structured interviews. Fifty two UG project students took part in an interactive poll and 14 supervisors answered a questionnaire. Seven students and 4 supervisors were interviewed. These were analysed by thematic analysis. In Stage Two, the questions were asked of UG project students (n = 79) via an interactive poll and the resource developed in Stage One was trialled with students (n = 68) and supervisors (n = 37). Results: The global theme identified was that students feel strongly that the student-supervisor relationship influences their experience, satisfaction and success. In all polls, >90% of students but <60% of supervisors agree that a good student/supervisor partnership has an effect on the success of the final project. A smaller percentage of students felt strongly that they were able to develop a successful partnership with their supervisor. We co-created a visual model and a list of discussion points of how the student-supervisor partnership can be developed, aimed at making supervision more effective whilst being non-prescriptive. Discussion: The resource can be easily adapted. Students believe it helped them to develop a staff-student partnership and supervisors commented that it helps to clarify roles and manage student expectations. This scalable project will support the practice of future UG biomedical science project research students and supervisors. Working with students as partners enabled the development of richer ideas whilst supporting their employability.

Reference intervals (RIs) are a range of values that are supplied alongside laboratory measurements for comparison to allow interpretation of this data. Historically, RIs were referred to as the normal range. However, the perception of what is normal can lead to confusion in clinicians and unnecessary emotional distress in patients. RIs can be acquired using several methods. Laboratories may quote published studies or derive their own using established direct or indirect methods. Alternatively, laboratories may verify RIs provided by assay manufacturers using in-house studies. RIs have several limitations that clinicians should be aware of. The statistical methodology associated with establishment of RIs means that approximately 5% of "disease free" individuals will fall outside the RI. Additionally, the higher the number of tests requested, the higher the probability that one will be abnormal, and repeat results in an individual may show regression to the mean. Completion of studies for establishment of RIs can be expensive, difficult, and time consuming. Method bias and differences in populations can greatly influence RIs and prevent them from being transferable between some laboratories. Differences in individual characteristics such as age, ethnicity, and sex can result in large variation in some analytes. Some patients, such as those whose gender differs from that which was presumed for them at birth, may require their own RIs. Alternatively, a decision will need to be made about which to use. Overall, the issue common to these factors lies within interpretation. As such, RIs can be improved with better training in their use, combined with a better understanding of influences that affect them, and more transparent communication from laboratories in how RIs were derived.

Background: Publications on the associations of genetic variants with the response to platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) in NSCLC patients have surged over the years, but the results have been inconsistent. Here, a comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted to combine eligible studies for a more accurate assessment of the pharmacogenetics of PBC in NSCLC patients. Methods: Relevant publications were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases through 15 May 2021. Inclusion criteria for eligible publications include studies that reported genotype and allele frequencies of NSCLC patients treated with PBC, delineated by their treatment response (sensitive vs. resistant). Publications on cell lines or animal models, duplicate reports, and non-primary research were excluded. Epidemiological credibility of cumulative evidence was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Venice criteria. Begg's and Egger's tests were used to assess publication bias. Cochran's Q-test and I² test were used to calculate the odds ratio and heterogeneity value to proceed with the random effects or fixed-effects method. Venice criteria were used to assess the strength of evidence, replication methods and protection against bias in the studies. Results: A total of 121 publications comprising 29,478 subjects were included in this study, and meta-analyses were performed on 184 genetic variants. Twelve genetic variants from 10 candidate genes showed significant associations with PBC response in NSCLC patients with strong or moderate cumulative epidemiological evidence (increased risk: ERCC1 rs3212986, ERCC2 rs1799793, ERCC2 rs1052555, and CYP1A1 rs1048943; decreased risk: GSTM1 rs36631, XRCC1 rs1799782 and rs25487, XRCC3 rs861539, XPC rs77907221, ABCC2 rs717620, ABCG2 rs2231142, and CDA rs1048977). Bioinformatics analysis predicted possible damaging or deleterious effects for XRCC1 rs1799782 and possible low or medium functional impact for CYP1A1 rs1048943. Conclusion: Our results provide an up-to-date summary of the association between genetic variants and response to PBC in NSCLC patients.

Introduction: Successfully completing the Institute of Biomedical Science (IBMS) registration portfolio is essential to becoming a Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) registered Biomedical Scientist. In the West Midlands, a unique collaboration between four universities (Aston, Wolverhampton, Coventry, and Keele) and local NHS Trusts supports student placements and portfolio development. The universities support Training Officers in delivering components of the registration portfolio through the delivery of eight combined placement workshops. These have been designed to align to the IBMS registration portfolio and help students meet the HCPC Standards of Proficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a redesigned workshop where students generated and presented medical case studies to peers, academics, and training leads. Materials and Methods: The three phases of the case study intervention included a pre-intervention survey, academic-led sessions focussing on medical case presentations and delivery of the presentation followed by a post-intervention survey. Results: Analysing survey responses pre- and post-intervention, students demonstrated enhanced confidence in their understanding of clinical conditions (p<0.0001), connecting lab findings to diseases, and in delivering a case presentation to their peers (p<0.001). Students reported an increased confidence in structuring case presentations and their critical thinking ability (p<0.0001). All students agreed engaging with the case study workshop improved their ability to communicate knowledge of scientific concepts orally. Thematic analysis revealed that the case presentation deepened students' understanding of multidisciplinary teams. 98% of respondents agreed patient communication should be integrated into Biomedical Sciences courses and 85% would like to see case study presentations embedded into the curriculum. Discussion: Combined placement workshops are an integral part of the Applied Biomedical Science placement journey. Case study presentations are clearly a valuable teaching and learning tool to nurture and develop key transferable skills and competencies in conjunction with Biomedical Science expertise. The collaborative approach in the West Midlands effectively prepares graduates with essential pathology knowledge, skills, and a completed IBMS registration portfolio. This study highlights a successful framework for a collaborative partnership with local NHS trusts that has allowed the completion of numerous pathology placements and could be adopted by other universities delivering accredited Biomedical Science courses.

Disruption of the female genital microbiome is associated with several pregnancy complications, including miscarriage, preterm onset of labour, and tubal pregnancy. Ectopic pregnancy is a known cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, but early diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy remain a challenge. Despite growing established associations between genital microbiome and female reproductive health, few studies have specifically focused on its link with ectopic pregnancy. Therefore, the current review aims to provide a comprehensive account of the female genital microbiome in healthy and fertile women compared to those in ectopic pregnancy and its associated risk factors. The microbial diversity from various sites of the female genital tract was explored for a reliable proxy of female reproductive health in sequencing-based ectopic pregnancy research. Our report confirmed the predominance of Lactobacillus in the vagina and the cervix among healthy women. The relative abundance decreased in the vaginal and cervical microbiome in the disease state. In contrast, there were inconsistent findings on the uterine microbiome across studies. Additionally, we explore a spectrum of opportunities to enhance our understanding of the female genital tract microbiome and reproductive conditions. In conclusion, this study identifies gaps within the field and emphasises the need for visionary solutions in metagenomic tools for the early detection of ectopic pregnancy and other gynaecological diseases.

Modern and effective patient care requires specialist healthcare professionals working together. Interprofessional learning (IPL) seeks to provide opportunities for different healthcare disciplines to learn with, from and about each other. This study focused on the delivery and evaluation of a cytomegalovirus (CMV) case study workshop to facilitate IPL between two Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) regulated courses: Biomedical Science and Audiology. The 2 h online workshop consisted of 1) defining the roles, responsibilities and skills of the two healthcare professions, 2) the structure of the Biomedical Science and Audiology departments, 3) routes to HCPC registration, 4) core curriculum of both degree programmes and 5) interpreting interdisciplinary data related to a CMV patient case. The workshop was interactive, with the virtual learning environment promoting peer discussions and the use of online polling. Student responses were collected through an online questionnaire. A total of 108 respondents completed a post-event survey and Mann-Whitney U tests revealed there were no significant differences in the responses between the two student cohorts in response to each of the survey statements (p > 0.05). A total of 82.4% of students agreed that they need to know the role of other healthcare professionals for their future practice, whilst 84.2% agreed that the CMV case study was a good format to facilitate effective IPL. A total of 93.5% of respondents recognised the importance of both professions in diagnosing a patient with CMV. Thematic analysis identified four common themes, including appreciation of shared roles, recognition of similarities in registration pathways, working together to provide holistic patient care and the role of clinicians in the patient journey. This novel collaboration between Biomedical Science and Audiology facilitated effective IPL whilst meeting the interprofessional education HCPC requirements. Collaborative working is an essential component of delivering effective patient care and allied healthcare degrees need to provide opportunities within their curriculum to foster this. We hope this study encourages other higher education institutes to expand and develop their current IPL activities to include a broader spectrum of healthcare courses.

Autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBD) comprise a heterogeneous group of uncommon disorders of the skin and mucous membranes, characterised by antibodies targeting structural proteins within epithelial tissue and the underlying basement membrane. There can be significant overlap in clinical presentation of these diseases and accurate diagnosis relies on the detection and characterisation of relevant autoantibodies. Immunofluorescence provides the gold-standard diagnostic tool for these diseases, identifying both tissue-bound autoantibodies in biopsy material using direct immunofluorescence and circulating antibodies in serum through indirect immunofluorescence. Following advances in the identification and subsequent characterisation of numerous antigenic targets in these diseases, the development of antigen-specific tests, in particular, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays on serum specimens, has provided a third key tool to not only identify, but also quantify AIBD autoantibodies. This quantification has proven particularly useful in monitoring disease activity and informing clinical management decisions. Accurate diagnosis of these diseases is important since optimal treatment strategies differ between them and, prognostically, some diagnoses are associated with an increased risk of malignancy. This review outlines the molecular pathology underlying the major AIBD and describes how the three principal techniques can be used in combination, to provide best practice for diagnosis and treatment monitoring.