Aggregator
Cochrane seeks Financial Accountant
Location: Flexible location (remote working) in the UK.
Specifications: Permanent contract.
Hours: Full-time week (flexible working considered) – 37.5 hours.
Salary: £42,000 per annum.
Application Closing Date: 07 April (Midnight GMT Time)
This role is an exciting opportunity to use your financial knowledge and problem-solving skills to make a difference in the field of health care research.
The Financial Accountant is responsible for supporting the day-to-day management and the smooth running of the financial accounting operations of Cochrane, which includes leading on financial accounting processes, balance sheet reconciliations and supporting the international payroll. The jobholder will have an important role to create and shape the financial procedures, improve processes, outputs, and analysis for stakeholders.
You will have a minimum of 3-5 years’ experience in a similar finance role with a recognised qualification. Part-qualified candidates with particularly strong experience will be considered and supported.
Cochrane is a global, independent network of health practitioners, researchers, patient advocates and others, responding to the challenge of making vast amounts of research evidence useful for informing decisions about health. We do this by synthesizing research findings to produce the best available evidence on what can work, what might harm and where more research is needed. Our work is recognised as the international gold standard for high quality, trusted information.
- For further information on the job description and how to apply, please click here
- The supporting statement should indicate why you are applying for the post, and how far you meet the requirements, using specific examples. Note that we will assess applications as they are received, and therefore may fill the post before the deadline.
- Deadline for applications: 07 April 2022 (Midnight GMT).
小児の扁平足を治療するための足部装具
インターロイキン‐1(免疫反応に関与するタンパク質)を阻害する薬は、COVID-19の治療に有効であり、望ましくない影響を引き起こすことはないか?
Featured review: Low-carbohydrate versus balanced-carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk
Low‐carbohydrate versus balanced‐carbohydrate diets for reducing weight and cardiovascular risk
Key messages
- There is probably little to no difference in the weight lost by people following low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets (also known as 'low-carb diets') compared to the weight lost by people following balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, for up to two years.
- Similarly, there is probably little to no difference between the diets for changes in heart disease risks, like diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c, a measure of blood sugar levels over 2-3 months) and LDL cholesterol (‘unhealthy’ cholesterol) up to two years.
- This was the case in people with and without type 2 diabetes.
What are low-carbohydrate and balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets?
People spend lots of money on trying to lose weight using diets, products, foods and books, and continue to debate about which diets are effective and safe. So, examining the scientific evidence behind claims made is important. Low-carbohydrate diets are a broad category of weight-reducing diets that manipulate and restrict carbohydrates, protein and fat in diets. There are no consistent, widely-accepted definitions of these diets and different descriptions are used (e.g. 'low-carbohydrate, high-protein’, 'low-carbohydrate, high-fat', or ‘very low-carbohydrate’).
Low-carbohydrate diets are implemented in different ways, but they restrict grains, cereals and legumes, and other carbohydrate-containing foods; such as dairy, most fruit and certain vegetables. These foods are then typically replaced with foods higher in fat and protein; such as meats, eggs, cheese, butter, cream, oils. Some low-carbohydrate diets recommend eating as desired, while others recommend restricting the amount of energy eaten.
Balanced-carbohydrate diets contain more moderate amounts of carbohydrates, protein and fats, in line with current healthy eating advice from health authorities. When used for weight reduction, balanced diets recommend restricting the amount of energy eaten by guiding people to reduce their portion sizes and choose healthier foods (e.g. lean instead of fatty meat).
Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets are widely promoted, marketed and commercialised as being more effective for weight loss, and healthier, than 'balanced'-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets.
Professor Celeste Naude explains, "The weight lost by people on low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets was similar to the weight lost by those on balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, for up to two years. Changes in heart disease risk factors were also similar in people following these diets for between one and two years. This was the case in people with and without type 2 diabetes.
"The longest of the trials lasted for two years, so we do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets beyond two years, which would be especially important for heart disease risk factors.
Most of the people in the trials did not have heart disease or related risks at the start of the studies, so we do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets in people with heart disease or risk factors, such as conditions that cause abnormal levels of fats in the blood.
Our review did not compare type or quality of carbohydrates, fats or proteins between the diets, or costs between the diets.”
What did the review authors want to find out?
They wanted to find out if low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets were better for weight loss and heart disease risk factors than balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets in adults who were overweight or living with obesity.
They wanted to find this out for people with and without type 2 diabetes.
What did they do?
They searched six electronic databases and trial registries for all trials* that compared low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets with balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets in adults who were overweight or living with obesity. The trials had to last for at least three months. The authors compared and summarised the results of the trials and rated the confidence in the combined evidence, based on factors such as study methods and sizes.
*A trial is a type of study in which participants are assigned randomly to two or more treatment groups. This is the best way to ensure similar groups of participants.
What did they find?
The authors found 61 trials involving 6925 people who were overweight or living with obesity. The biggest trial was in 419 people and the smallest was in 20 people. All except one of the trials were conducted in high-income countries worldwide, and nearly half were undertaken in the US (n=26).
Most trials were undertaken in people who did not have heart disease or risk factors (n = 36). Most people (n = 5118) did not have type 2 diabetes.
The average starting weight of people across the trials was 95 kg. Most studies lasted for six months or less (n = 37); and the longest studies (n = 6) lasted for two years.
Main results
Low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets probably result in little to no difference in weight loss over the short term (trials lasting 3 to 8.5 months) and long term (trials lasting one to two years) compared to balanced-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets, in people with and without type 2 diabetes.
In the short term, the average difference in weight loss was about 1 kg and in the long term, the average difference was less than 1 kg.
People lost weight on both diets in some trials. The amount of weight lost on average varied greatly with both diets across the trials from less than 1 kg in some trials and up to about 12 kg in others in the short term and long term.
Similarly, low-carbohydrate weight-reducing diets probably result in little to no difference in diastolic blood pressure, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and LDL cholesterol (‘unhealthy’ cholesterol) for up to two years.
The authors could not draw any conclusions about side effects reported by participants because very few trials reported these.
What are the limitations of the evidence?
The authors are moderately confident in the evidence. Confidence was lowered mainly because of concerns about how some the trials were conducted, which included that many trials did not report all their results. Further research may change these results.
How up to date is this evidence?
The evidence is up-to-date to June 2021.
What gaps did the authors identify?
They do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets beyond two years.
Since most of the people in the trials did not have heart disease or heart disease risks when they were recruited, the authors do not know if there are differences between the effects and safety of these diets in people with heart disease or risk factors, such as conditions that cause abnormal levels of fats in the blood.
What important related questions were not addressed in this review?
The author team did not compare type or quality of carbohydrates, fats or proteins between the diets. They also did not examine differences in costs between the diets.
新生児のカフ付き気管内チューブと非カフ付き気管内チューブの比較
Are medicines that block interleukin-1 effective treatments for COVID-19 and do they cause unwanted effects?
What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?: a Lifeology and Cochrane collaboration
Lifeology’s tagline is ‘The place where science and art converge’. They offer a platform that brings together scientists, artists, and storytellers to help people better understand and engage with science and health information and research. One of the main ways they meet their objectives is through beautifully illustrated, science-backed, bite-sized ‘flashcard’ courses about science and health-related topics aimed at the general public and students.
Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course
For World Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBHC) Day, they collaborated with Cochrane to create a free course. The 41 slides walk the user through the story of Ronald who has been misguided by misinformation and teaches what an infodemic is and how to slow the spread of misinformation.
Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course
Paige Jarreau, co-founder of Lifeology, said "At Lifeology, we believe that science communication in any format, including our flashcard courses, is far better when it is the product of collaboration between scientists and professional creatives like storytellers and artists. We were pleased to be able to work closely with people from Cochrane to create this course on infodemics. We've produced a beautifully illustrated free course that is practical in its tips to combat misinformation and accessible through its plain language, empathetic storytelling and relatable imagery - it's also available in English, French, German, Malay, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish !"
Image from the Lifeology's 'What is an infodemic and how can we prevent it?' course
Jordan Collver, the illustrator of the Lifeology course, said "This was an exciting project to work on. We had some fun with metaphors and with well known memes in this course while keeping the story empathic and relatable in a global context.'
View the Lifeology course 'what is an infodemic and how we can prevent it?' in:
Learn more about Lifeology:
Thursday, June 2, 2022急性心不全における体液除去療法
感冒に対する経口抗ヒスタミン剤-充血除去剤-鎮痛剤の併用療法
超低出生体重児の壊死性腸炎を予防するための経腸栄養剤の導入の段階的延期
Featured review: Adding indoor residual spraying in communities using insecticide‐treated nets for the prevention of malaria
介入のシステマティックレビューにおける健康の公平性への影響の評価方法
マラリア予防のために殺虫剤処理された蚊帳を使用しているコミュニティに屋内残留噴霧を追加すること
COVID-19のパンデミックを抑制するために学校現場で実施された対策
What's the accuracy of crowdsourcing the screening of search results? Help Cochrane find out!
Cochrane Crowd is a citizen science platform where a global community of volunteers help to classify the research needed to support informed decision-making about healthcare. Cochrane Crowd volunteers review descriptions of research studies to identify and classify clinical trials.
A new task has just gone live on Cochrane Crowd. It is a citation screening task that we are doing in partnership with The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute).
It forms a part of a methodological study that aims to assess the accuracy of crowdsourcing the screening of search results. Unlike some of the previous studies we’ve done, this one is a little bit different. Instead of asking you to assess a record for possible relevance, we want you to assess it for irrelevance! Our hypothesis is that a crowd can still make a big difference in weeding out the obviously irrelevant records, and that by framing the task in this way, we will reduce the chances of possibly relevant records being rejected.
Are you up for joining this task? If so, head to crowd.cochrane.org and log in. On your tasks page you should see a task called: Training for healthcare professionals in electronic fetal monitoring using cardiotocograph.
We are going to run this study as a randomised study. When you click on the training module, you will be randomised to one of three tasks. Each of the three tasks will look exactly the same. The difference between the three tasks is the agreement algorithm in the background. This algorithm provides a ‘final’ classification on a record based on a certain number and order of individual classifications made by contributors. We are testing three different agreement algorithms as part of this methodological study.
There is of course a training module. It should only take around 10-15 minutes to complete. Once done you will be able to screen some ‘real’ records. Do as many as you like. If you manage to do 250 or more, you will get named acknowledgement in any write-ups of this methods study and be able to download a certificate.
As always, this kind of work would not be possible without the help of this fantastic community. If you are able to take part, then thank you very much indeed from the teams at THIS Institute and Cochrane Crowd.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with me: anna.noel-storr@rdm.ox.ac.uk
With best wishes to all and happy citation screening!
Anna and Sarah
急性虚血性脳卒中に対する経口抗血小板療法
Cochrane seeks Chief Executive Officer
Location: UK based role with occasional global travel
Salary: £110-120,000 per annum
Contract type: Permanent
Date closing: 06/02/2022
Cochrane is a global independent community of more than 100,000 people who search for and summarize the best evidence from health and care research to help our beneficiaries make informed choices about health and care.
Our members and supporters come from more than 220 countries worldwide including researchers, health professionals, patients, carers, and people passionate about improving health and care outcomes for everyone, everywhere.
Chief Executive
£110, 120,000 per annum
UK based role with occasional global travel
Cochrane’s work providing accessible, credible information to improve global health - has never been more important or relevant than it is today.
This Chief Executive role is an extraordinary opportunity for an inspirational, experienced and authentic leader, passionate about evidence and health care, to join Cochrane and work with a highly committed and engaged Board and talented staff team to lead the development of a new long-term strategy.
We are seeking someone with experience working in a multi-stakeholder environment, ideally in a global context, with exceptional interpersonal and communication skills with proven capacity to develop influential internal and external relationships. Thoughtful, curious, and with a supportive leadership style; you will bring a strong track record of leading teams; fostering a high-performing culture; driving organisational change and growing income. Critically, you will share our vision of a world of better health for all people where decisions about health and care are informed by high-quality evidence.
Cochrane is a global community and we value the diverse range of experience that this brings. We strive to be an equal opportunities employer and welcome application from people from all races, religions, genders, sexual orientation, lived experience or ability.
- For further information, the role and how to apply please download the full appointment brief here
- Closing Date: Sunday 6th February 2022
- If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact executiveadmin@prospect-us.co.uk or call 020 7691 1920
Research Integrity: making sure medical trials reported in the scientific literature are real
Senior Research Integrity Editor, Lisa Bero, discusses this subject in a recent Nature article.
Never has it been more important to foster trust in scientific evidence than in the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. Cochrane is committed to independence, transparency, and integrity in healthcare research. The Research Integrity Team works to support and strengthen this commitment through research, policy development and implementation, advocacy and community outreach.
Recently, Senior Research Integrity Editor, Lisa Bero, has written a World View in Nature on the topic of working together to tackle the issue of problematic studies – studies where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings. In the article she explains the tools and resources Cochrane uses as described in its policy for ‘Managing potentially problematic studies’, to empower reviewers to act when they suspect an issue.
Research Integrity Editor, Stephanie Boughton, says “It was great to highlight Cochrane’s leading work in this area. We are building upon Cochrane’s strong history of conducting meta-research to detect research integrity problems. I hope all systematic review authors take up Lisa’s call to action and use tools described in Cochrane’s policy for ‘Managing potential problematic studies’ when they suspect an issue.”
Wednesday, January 19, 2022