| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Rich, Rebecca L., et al.
(författare)
-
A global benchmark study using affinity-based biosensors
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Analytical Biochemistry. - : Elsevier BV. - 0003-2697 .- 1096-0309. ; 386:2, s. 194-216
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To explore the variability in biosensor studies, 150 participants from 20 countries were given the same protein samples and asked to determine kinetic rate constants for the interaction. We chose a protein system that was amenable to analysis using different biosensor platforms as well as by users of different expertise levels. The two proteins (a 50-kDa Fab and a 60-kDa glutathione S-transferase [GST] antigen) form a relatively high-affinity complex, so participants needed to optimize several experimental parameters, including ligand immobilization and regeneration conditions as well as analyte concentrations and injection/dissociation times. Although most participants collected binding responses that could be fit to yield kinetic parameters, the quality of a few data sets could have been improved by optimizing the assay design. Once these outliers were removed, the average reported affinity across the remaining panel of participants was 620 pM with a standard deviation of 980 pM. These results demonstrate that when this biosensor assay was designed and executed appropriately, the reported rate constants were consistent, and independent of which protein was immobilized and which biosensor was used.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Mullan, Rebecca J, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor.
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0895-4356 .- 1878-5921. ; 62:2, s. 138-142
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Author contact can enhance the quality of systematic reviews. We conducted a systematic review of the practice of author contact in recently published systematic reviews to characterize its prevalence, quality, and results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible studies were systematic reviews of efficacy published in 2005-2006 in the 25 journals with the highest impact factor publishing systematic reviews in clinical medicine and the Cochrane Library, identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Two researchers determined whether and why reviewers contacted authors. To assess the accuracy of the abstracted data, we surveyed reviewers by e-mail. RESULTS: Forty-six (50%) of the 93 eligible systematic reviews published in top journals and 46 (85%) of the 54 eligible Cochrane reviews reported contacting authors of eligible studies. Requests were made most commonly for missing information: 40 (76%) clinical medicine reviews and 45 (98%) Cochrane reviews. One hundred and nine of 147 (74%) reviewers responded to the survey, and reported a higher rate of author contact than apparent from the published record. CONCLUSION: Although common, author contact is not a universal feature of systematic reviews published in top journals and the Cochrane Library. The conduct and reporting of author contact purpose, procedures, and results require improvement.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
