Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration

Sly Saint

Sly Saint

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration

"
The BRTC designs and conducts high quality pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary and secondary care, as well as non-NHS settings such as schools and in public health. We also undertake complex trials and feasibility studies which include methodological research. We currently have 27 open trials to a value of approximately £30million.

The BRTC has considerable expertise in the key methodologies needed to design, conduct and analyse RCTs including large multicentre trials."

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/population-health-sciences/centres/brtc/

Current trials
include:
MAGENTA What is the best model for delivering specialist NHS Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalopathy

FITNET-NHS

An RCT investigating the relative clinicaL and cost-effectiveness of the FITNET-NHS (Fatigue in Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) intervention compared with Activity Management, amont children with Chronic Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) who do not hae a local NHS specialist CFS/ME service.

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/population-health-sciences/centres/brtc/current-trials/

I had not heard of this BRTC before.
Just found it when looking at a new trial for Parkinsons (it could be ok, don't know but a few alarm bells went off).

"The University of Bristol in England is leading a five-year, €10 million study aimed at finding ways to better integrate care for Parkinson’s disease patients while lowering costs, the institution recently announced. "

https://parkinsonsnewstoday.com/201...prove-parkinsons-patient-care-uk-netherlands/
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-09/uob-nm090618.php
 
If MAGENTA and FITNET are examples of their best quality clinical trials, I hate to think what their less good trials look like. No wonder Bristol Uni. does all they can to stifle criticism of Crawley and her pals. They are great money spinners for the University.

Something rotten at the heart of Bristol University. @dave30th have you seen this?
 
Sly Saint said:
The BRTC has considerable expertise in the key methodologies needed to design, conduct and analyse RCTs including large multicentre trials.
Click to expand...
It would be good to know how they might justify this. Stating past trials as 'evidence' just would not cut it. A car mechanic stating how many cars they have serviced is not much good, if the cars all broke down due to shoddy workmanship. It feels like a statement that needs calling out. @dave30th?

Maybe some of their researchers have written good works on how trials should be run? And then shown that their trials have abided to that? And very usefully, identify which of Bristol's trials have not?
 
The paediatric physio from the Bath CFS service told me at the NICE scoping mtg in May that the Magenta trial results were in and looked good, ie their treatments had worked! So watch out for some strategically timed headlines, maybe just before their safeguarding/FII/PRS training day in early December...
 
This group of researchers has learned from the exposure PACE has gotten I'm sure.

I expect that there will be some fuzziness around the initial choice of co-hort (how they qualify). It would be interesting to know if some parents tried to sign up their child for the trial but were rejected. But there may be some self-selecting going on if some people have become more wary of signing in the first place. So who would that leave?

I suppose we will be 'amazed anew' at how they find ever more insidious ways to make lousy data look like a gem.

It would also stand to reason from all this that since they seem to have access to much more money than any bio research that they have made some sort of assurances that their work will be cost effective.

Is there any means available to disprove or even render it questionable as true?
 
And then there was this today from Bristol. Ridiculous:

New network launched to enhance the rigour and reliability of UK scientific research

Share this article
Press release issued: 12 September 2018

A new Reproducibility Network that aims to improve the rigour and reliability of UK-led scientific research will launch at the University of Bristol this week [Wednesday 12 September]. The Network aims to reinforce the leading position of UK science by co-ordinating shared training and best practice across research-intensive universities.

The event will bring together representatives from some of the country's major research funders, scientific publishers and other key stakeholders. Bristol's Professor Marcus Munafò, who contributed to the recently-published Manifesto for Reproducible Science, will call on universities to do more to improve research rigour by setting out a range of measures for scientists that will optimise key elements of the scientific process.

During the Jisc-funded event, Professor Munafò will explain how the Network plans to improve scientific practices through targeted changes to research methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives.

Marcus Munafò, Professor of Biological Psychology in the School of Psychological Science, said: "Nearly all researchers go into science wanting to find out something new, and perhaps which has the potential to improve health, lives, and tackle some of society's major challenges.

"However, while UK science has an enviable reputation for being world-leading, to remain so we need to ensure the research we conduct is innovative, high quality and high integrity. The Network aims to support this through a series of measures that place extra emphasis on research rigour and reliability."

If you are interested in finding out more about the Network, or the Manifesto for Reproducible Science, please contact Marcus Munafò, email: marcus.munafo@bristol.ac.uk
Click to expand...

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2018/september/reproducibility-network-.html
 
Well good luck to them. Though in truth it sounds a lot like management at a coal plant being designated as the arbiters of what quality breathable air might be like.

ETA: If only there were the equivalent of effective gas masks for crappy psych trials. Some of them have been pretty whiffy to date.

ETA: excellent eg of my short term memory issues. Had no idea I'd already posted. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
One thing the University of Bristol has in it's favour in terms of trial design is that they have received vast amounts of world class advice on this from the many people who have commented and written on Prof Crawley's work.

I hope that the BRTC formally acknowledge the information and time people have given towards helping them at no charge to the University, certainly @dave30th deserves a special mention.
 
One of the joint heads of this unit Prof Chris Metcalfe is an author in the Magenta and Fitnet protocols.

So there expertise in allowing meaningless trials (where the outcome measures have no value). Its not clear if he knows about the issues with switching from a feasibility study to a full trial and including the feasibility patients. But its not looking good for that whole unit.
 
Adrian said:
One of the joint heads of this unit Prof Chris Metcalfe is an author in the Magenta and Fitnet protocols.

So there expertise in allowing meaningless trials (where the outcome measures have no value). Its not clear if he knows about the issues with switching from a feasibility study to a full trial and including the feasibility patients. But its not looking good for that whole unit.
Click to expand...

Is this the kind of issue where S4ME could use the amazing brainpower and knowledge of its members to contact the Prof is promoting this?
Any volunteers @Lucibee @Graham @Woolie etc, and apologies to those I've omitted.
 
Marcus Munafò, Professor of Biological Psychology in the School of Psychological Science, said: "Nearly all researchers go into science wanting to find out something new, and perhaps which has the potential to improve health, lives, and tackle some of society's major challenges.
Click to expand...
Oh, this is a name I've heard. He has some interesting things to say. ie. actual genuine expertise in research methodology. He's interested in open, reproducible science, and has been a voice for change and reform in research practices.

But I do seem to recall him defending the PACE trial. At least, that's my recollection. Perhaps I'm mistaken...
 
Woolie said:
Oh, this is a name I've heard. He has some interesting things to say. ie. actual genuine expertise in research methodology. He's interested in open, reproducible science, and has been a voice for change and reform in research practices.

But I do seem to recall him defending the PACE trial. At least, that's my recollection. Perhaps I'm mistaken...
Click to expand...

I feel like I remember him being keen to avoid criticising PACE & Crawley too. I don't remember a defence though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom