Scientific-linguistic editing of your manuscripts, before submission to journals or after an
unfavorable peer review. More:
English
Italian
Training in professional, scientific writing: write papers that more effectively communicate your research and your ideas. More:
English
Italian
This is a personal, informal and non-sponsored commentary on papers recently published by the Italian biomedical research community.
The purpose is to draw attention not only to good Italian research,
but also to good scientific reporting and publishing from Italy.
The selection of articles is purely subjective, but your suggestions are welcome. Write to me, Valerie Matarese, at vmatarese@ uptoit.org; copies of non-OA papers are welcome.
This is a free, occasional service of Up To it!
Up To it! Home > Italian biomedical research highlights > July-December 2010
Systemic sclerosis is a multisystem disease that manifests with vascular abnormalities, collagen deposition and immune dysregulation, including the expression of autoantibodies to several nuclear proteins. Individual patients vary greatly in disease severity and prognosis, and this variation is associated with the particular profile of autoantibodies circulating in serum. However, it is unknown if these antibodies have a pathogenic role. One protein targeted by autoantibodies in systemic sclerosis is centromere-associated protein (CENP)-A. Since CENP-A is a minor nuclear component, there is some doubt that it can be responsible for the genesis of autoantibodies at high titre. Therefore, efforts have been underway to identify other proteins that may prime anti-CENP-A autoantibodies or be targeted by them; this knowledge may help clarify the pathological significance of autoantibodies in systemic sclerosis.
Researchers from Bari along with a colleague from Naples used a phage display peptide library (PDPL) to search for epitopes bound by anti-CENP-A antibodies in the sera of 13 patients with systemic sclerosis. The PDPL consisted of M13 viral particles expressing random peptides 12 amino acids in length. This technique, called PDPL panning, is a sensitive approach for determining the antigenic contact sites of antibodies. It permitted the researchers to identify two overlapping motifs in CENP-A that were bound by distinct subsets of the patients' sera. The researchers then searched in the Swiss-Prot Protein Sequence Database for other human proteins that contained these antigenic motifs. They found strong sequence similarity with the forkhead box protein E3 (FOXE3), a transcription factor not previously implicated in systemic sclerosis. Binding and inhibition ELISAs confirmed the antigenic similarity of the sequences from CENP-A and FOXE3. Currently, the biological significance of the homology between a CENP-A antigenic determinant and a short stretch of FOXE3 is unknown. Future studies should determine if full-length FOXE3 protein is actually involved in the generation of anti-CENP-A antibodies and if it has a role in the pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis. The study was published online in July and should appear in print in the October issue of Clinical Immunology (PMID: 20630806). Posted 21 September 2010.
When a randomized clinical trial is conducted, it is hoped that all patients receive the treatment to which they were initially assigned and that all planned measurements are actually made. In this ideal situation, the benefits of randomization are preserved and bias is not introduced by manipulations to make up for missing data. However, in real-life situations, the planned protocol may be violated (for example, when patients do not receive the allocated treatment) or data may be missing (if researchers fail to perform all tests or patients withdraw from the study). When patients' baseline and outcome data are assessed within the context of the group to which they were originally assigned, irrespective of the treatment they actually received, the analysis is said to be done according to the "intention to treat" (ITT) principle. This way of evaluating a study avoids introducing bias from the exclusion of patients after randomization. In the case that data are missing, it is impossible to conduct a strict ITT analysis and, when the problem is severe, the RCT is compromised.
A clear summary of the ITT principle is given in the latest version of the CONSORT statement. Considering the difficulties in achieving the conditions necessary for a strict ITT analysis, the statement now recommends that authors specify how patients were included in the analysis and why any were excluded, rather than resorting to equivocal expressions such as "modified intention to treat". In fact, this term is seen in some published reports of RCTs, making these papers difficult to evaluate and raising doubts as to their quality. To determine the extent to which this ambiguous analytical approach is used—and to understand how it is defined by authors—Italian researchers Abraha and Montedori did a systematic review of RCTs in which this term was reported.
The study, recently published in BMJ (PMID: 20547685), evaluated 475 RCTs in which a modified ITT analysis was reported. The number of papers using this term increased linearly over the years from 1997 to 2006. Although this set of papers was not compared with a control set that used a strict ITT analysis, the study did document a high proportion (88%) of trials with industry funding as well as signs of poor reporting such as the absence of a flow chart (in 49%). The term "modified" was used to describe an analysis that had one or more different types of deviations from a true ITT, with patients having been eliminated because of changes in treatment, improper inclusion, or missing baseline or outcome data. These variations indicate that a single modified ITT approach does not exist, confirming the term's ambiguous nature. As the authors pointed out, use of the modified ITT analysis is "erratic" and "unpredictable", and is evidence of a growing "shortcoming in the quality of reporting". Readers of the clinical literature should be alert to the possibility that studies that used this approach may suffer from bias and may be selectively reported. Journal editors should insist that accepted papers adhere to the most recent version of the CONSORT statement. Posted 30 July 2010.
© UpTo infotechnologies. All rights reserved.