Lesley Stewart

Last updated

Lesley Stewart
Born27 May 1963
Dundee, Scotland
NationalityScottish
Alma mater University of Glasgow (BSc)
University of York (MSc)
University of East Anglia (PhD)
Occupation(s)Researcher, professor
Known forResearch on systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Lesley Ann Stewart (born 27 May 1963) is a Scottish academic whose research interests are in the development and application of evidence synthesis methods, particularly systematic reviews and individual participant data meta-analysis. She is head of department for the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and director for the NIHR Evidence Synthesis Programme. She was one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993. Stewart served as president of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology (2013-2016) and was a founding co-editor in chief of the academic journal Systematic Reviews (2010–2021).

Contents

Education

Stewart attended a state comprehensive school, leaving in 1980 to attend University. She graduated with a BSc in Zoology from the University of Glasgow in 1984, an MSc in Biological Computation (mathematics, statistics and computing relating to biological science) from the University of York in 1985 and a PhD in ecology from the University of East Anglia in 1988.

Career

Stewart joined the Medical Research Council (MRC) Cancer Trials Office in Cambridge in 1988 to carry out an "overview" synthesizing individual participant data from randomized trials of chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer. She was therefore fortunate enough to be part of the early development of systematic review methods. In particular, with colleagues including Mike Clarke and later Jayne Tierney, she helped establish the methods and practical approaches of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD). Stewart and Clarke were amongst the founding members of the Cochrane Collaboration and in 1993 Stewart, Clarke and Tierney established the Cochrane IPD meta-analysis methods group. [1]

Stewart worked for the MRC for 17 years establishing a research programme in the Cancer Trials Office in Cambridge and subsequently (following a merger of two groups) in the MRC Clinical Trials Unit under the Directorship of Professor Janet Darbyshire. During this time with her research team she published many systematic reviews and IPD meta-analyses. [2]

In 2006 she was appointed as professor and Director and Head of Department of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, a research department at the University of York, [3] where alongside her role as Director she has maintained her research interests in systematic review methods and IPD. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Stewart has long standing interest in transparency and data sharing. For example, she has contributed to reporting standards for protocols and IPD meta-analysis. [4] [9] Whilst at the MRC she was responsible for launching the first completely open web based register of clinical trials, the UKCCCR of cancer trials. [10] At CRD she instigated the development of PROSPERO the open access international prospective register of systematic reviews. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] She was able to bring these research strands together and be part of the YODA initiative’s [17] [18] first project to provide independent re-analysis and synthesis of industry data.

Stewart was Co-editor in chief of the BioMed Central (BMC) journal Systematic Reviews (2010-2021). She also served on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Highly Specialised Technologies Committee (2014-2022).

Stewart was one of the first cohort of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigators (2008 – 2013). In 2013, she was elected to serve as president of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology. [19]

Personal

Stewart lives in York with her husband Simon Thornton and their two daughters.[ citation needed ]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meta-analysis</span> Statistical method that summarizes and/or integrates data from multiple sources

Meta-analysis is a method of synthesis of quantitative data from multiple independent studies addressing a common research question. An important part of this method involves computing a combined effect size across all of the studies. As such, this statistical approach involves extracting effect sizes and variance measures from various studies. By combining these effect sizes the statistical power is improved and can resolve uncertainties or discrepancies found in individual studies. Meta-analyses are integral in supporting research grant proposals, shaping treatment guidelines, and influencing health policies. They are also pivotal in summarizing existing research to guide future studies, thereby cementing their role as a fundamental methodology in metascience. Meta-analyses are often, but not always, important components of a systematic review.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cochrane (organisation)</span> British nonprofit for reviews of medical research (formed 1993)

Cochrane is a British international charitable organisation formed to synthesize medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 review groups that are based at research institutions worldwide. Cochrane has over 37,000 volunteer experts from around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Smoking cessation</span> Process of discontinuing tobacco smoking

Smoking cessation, usually called quitting smoking or stopping smoking, is the process of discontinuing tobacco smoking. Tobacco smoke contains nicotine, which is addictive and can cause dependence. As a result, nicotine withdrawal often makes the process of quitting difficult.

The health effects of tea have been studied throughout human history. In clinical research conducted over the early 21st century, tea has been studied extensively for its potential to lower the risk of human diseases, but there is no good scientific evidence to support any therapeutic uses other than possibly increasing alertness, an effect caused by caffeine in the tea leaves.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Systematic review</span> Comprehensive review of research literature using systematic methods

A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic, then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews, sometimes along with meta-analyses, are generally considered the highest level of evidence in medical research.

In statistics, (between-) study heterogeneity is a phenomenon that commonly occurs when attempting to undertake a meta-analysis. In a simplistic scenario, studies whose results are to be combined in the meta-analysis would all be undertaken in the same way and to the same experimental protocols. Differences between outcomes would only be due to measurement error. Study heterogeneity denotes the variability in outcomes that goes beyond what would be expected due to measurement error alone.

In epidemiology, reporting bias is defined as "selective revealing or suppression of information" by subjects. In artificial intelligence research, the term reporting bias is used to refer to people's tendency to under-report all the information available.

In natural and social science research, a protocol is most commonly a predefined procedural method in the design and implementation of an experiment. Protocols are written whenever it is desirable to standardize a laboratory method to ensure successful replication of results by others in the same laboratory or by other laboratories. Additionally, and by extension, protocols have the advantage of facilitating the assessment of experimental results through peer review. In addition to detailed procedures, equipment, and instruments, protocols will also contain study objectives, reasoning for experimental design, reasoning for chosen sample sizes, safety precautions, and how results were calculated and reported, including statistical analysis and any rules for predefining and documenting excluded data to avoid bias.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Doug Altman</span> English statistician (1948–2018)

Douglas Graham Altman FMedSci was an English statistician best known for his work on improving the reliability and reporting of medical research and for highly cited papers on statistical methodology. He was professor of statistics in medicine at the University of Oxford, founder and Director of Centre for Statistics in Medicine and Cancer Research UK Medical Statistics Group, and co-founder of the international Equator Network for health research reliability.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Low-level laser therapy</span> Treatment using irradiation with light of low power intensity

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT), cold laser therapy, photobiomodulation (PBM) or red light therapy is a form of medicine that applies low-level (low-power) lasers or light-emitting diodes (LEDs) to the surface of the body. Whereas high-power lasers are used in laser medicine to cut or destroy tissue, it is claimed that application of low-power lasers relieves pain or stimulates and enhances cell function. Described sometimes as Low-level Red-light Therapy (LLRL), has effects that appear to be limited to a specified set of wavelengths and new research has demonstrated effectiveness at myopia control. Several such devices are cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and research shows potential for treating a range of medical problems including rheumatoid arthritis and oral mucositis.

Critical appraisal in evidence based medicine, is the use of explicit, transparent methods to assess the data in published research, applying the rules of evidence to factors such as internal validity, adherence to reporting standards, conclusions, generalizability and risk-of-bias. Critical appraisal methods form a central part of the systematic review process. They are used in evidence synthesis to assist clinical decision-making, and are increasingly used in evidence-based social care and education provision.

The Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of health research Network is an international initiative aimed at promoting transparent and accurate reporting of health research studies to enhance the value and reliability of medical research literature. The EQUATOR Network is hosted by the University of Oxford, and was established with the goals of raising awareness of the importance of good reporting of research, assisting in the development, dissemination and implementation of reporting guidelines for different types of study designs, monitoring the status of the quality of reporting of research studies in the health sciences literature, and conducting research relating to issues that impact the quality of reporting of health research studies. The Network acts as an "umbrella" organisation, bringing together developers of reporting guidelines, medical journal editors and peer reviewers, research funding bodies, and other key stakeholders with a mutual interest in improving the quality of research publications and research itself. The EQUATOR Network comprises five centres at the University of Oxford, Bond University, Paris Descartes University, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and Hong Kong Baptiste University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses</span> Scientific reporting standard

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping scientific authors to report a wide array of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, primarily used to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure a transparent and complete reporting of this type of research. The PRISMA standard superseded the earlier QUOROM standard. It offers the replicability of a systematic literature review. Researchers have to figure out research objectives that answer the research question, states the keywords, a set of exclusion and inclusion criteria. In the review stage, relevant articles were searched, irrelevant ones are removed. Articles are analyzed according to some pre-defined categories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cynthia Mulrow</span> American physician (born 1953)

Cynthia Mulrow is an American physician and scholar from Edinburg, Texas. She has regularly contributed academic research on many topics to the medical community. Her academic work mainly focuses on systematic reviews and evidence reports, research methodology, and chronic medical conditions.

Kay Dickersin is an academic who trained first in cell biology and subsequently epidemiology. She went on to a career studying factors that influence research integrity, in particular publication bias and outcome reporting bias. She is retired Professor Emerita in the Department of Epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health where she was Director of the Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis there. She was also Director of the US Cochrane Center and the US Satellite of the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group within the Cochrane Collaboration. Dickersin received multiple awards for her research.

Individual participant data is raw data from individual participants, and is often used in the context of meta-analysis.

Metascience is the use of scientific methodology to study science itself. Metascience seeks to increase the quality of scientific research while reducing inefficiency. It is also known as "research on research" and "the science of science", as it uses research methods to study how research is done and find where improvements can be made. Metascience concerns itself with all fields of research and has been described as "a bird's eye view of science". In the words of John Ioannidis, "Science is the best thing that has happened to human beings ... but we can do it better."

Allegiance bias in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific party or school of thought. Researchers and investigators have encountered various branches of psychology and schools of thought. It is common for them to gravitate towards a school or branch that aligns with their thinking paradigm. Allegiance bias occurs when therapists, researchers, and others start to believe that their school of thought or treatment approach is superior to others. Their strong belief in specific schools of thought can introduce bias into their research on effective treatment trials or investigative scenarios, resulting in allegiance bias. This bias may arise because they have focused on treatments that have shown success in their previous experiences. Consequently, this focus can lead to misinterpretations of research results. Their commitment to adhering to their established thinking paradigm could hinder their capacity to discover more effective treatments to aid patients or address the situations under investigation. Moreover, allegiance bias in a forensic context can be attributed to the fact that experts are often hired by a particular party. Whether an expert witness is retained by the prosecution or defense can influence their assessment of the case, including their perception of the accused's level of guilt.

The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, better known as PROSPERO, is an open access online database of systematic review protocols on a wide range of topics. While it was initially restricted to medicine, as of 2021, it also accepts protocols in criminology, social care, education and international development, as long as there is a health-related outcome. Researchers can choose to have their reviews prospectively registered with PROSPERO. The database is produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York in England, and it is funded by the National Institute for Health Research. Registration of systematic reviews in the database has been supported by PLoS Medicine, BioMed Central, the EQUATOR Network, and BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, among others.

Non-pharmacological intervention (NPI) is any type of healthcare intervention which is not primarily based on medication. Some examples include exercise, sleep improvement, and dietary habits.

References

  1. ↑ "Welcome to the IPD Meta-analysis Methods Group". Cochrane Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analysis Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration. 6 January 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
  2. ↑ Stewart, LA; Parmar, MKB (1993). "Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference?". Lancet. 341 (8842): 418–422. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(93)93004-K. PMID   8094183. S2CID   34704861.
  3. ↑ "Centre for Reviews and Dissemination". The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
  4. 1 2 Stewart, LA; Clarke, M; Rovers, M; Riley, RD; Simmonds, M; Stewart, G; Tierney, JF; PRISMA-IPD, Development Group (2015). "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement". JAMA. 313 (16): 1657–1665. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.3656 . PMID   25919529.
  5. ↑ Stewart, GB; Altman, DG; Askie, LM; Duley, L; Simmonds, MC; Stewart, LA (2012). "Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta-analyses: a comparison of methods and recommendations for practice". PLOS ONE. 7 (10): e46042. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...746042S. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046042 . PMC   3463584 . PMID   23056232.
  6. ↑ Simmonds, MC; Higgins, JP; Stewart, LA; Tierney, JF; Clarke, MJ; Thompson, SG (2005). "Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice". Clin Trials. 2 (3): 209–217. doi:10.1191/1740774505cn087oa. PMID   16279144. S2CID   24916211.
  7. ↑ Tierney, JF; Stewart, LA (2005). "Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis". Int J Epidemiol. 34 (1): 79–87. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh300 . PMID   15561753.
  8. ↑ Stewart, LA; Tierney, JF (2002). "To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data". Eval Health Prof. 25 (1): 76–97. doi:10.1177/0163278702025001006. PMID   11868447. S2CID   1323552.
  9. ↑ Moher, D; Shamseer, L; Clarke, M; Ghersi, D; Liberati, A; Petticrew, M; Shekelle, P; Stewart, LA; PRISMA-P, Group (2015). "Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement". Syst Rev. 4 (1): 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 . PMC   4320440 . PMID   25554246.{{cite journal}}: |first9= has generic name (help)
  10. ↑ Vale, C; Stewart, L; Tierney, J (2005). "Trends in UK Cancer Trials: Results from the UK Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research National Register of Cancer Trials". Br J Cancer. 92 (5): 811–814. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602425. PMC   2361907 . PMID   15756251.
  11. ↑ "PROSPERO - International prospective register of systematic reviews". The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. University of York. 29 April 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
  12. ↑ Booth, A; Stewart, L (2013). "Trusting researchers to use open trial registers such as PROSPERO responsibly". BMJ. 347 (f5870): f5870. doi:10.1136/bmj.f5870. PMID   24088555. S2CID   206900112 . Retrieved 25 May 2015.
  13. ↑ Stewart, L; Moher, D; Shekelle, P (2012). "Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense". Syst Rev. 1 (7): 7. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-7 . PMC   3369816 . PMID   22588008.
  14. ↑ Booth, A; Clarke, M; Dooley, G; Ghersi, D; Moher, D; Petticrew, M; Stewart, L (2012). "The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews". Syst Rev. 1 (2): 2. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2 . PMC   3348673 . PMID   22587842.
  15. ↑ Booth, A; Clarke, M; Ghersi, D; Moher, D; Petticrew, M; Stewart, L (2011). "Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation". PLOS ONE. 6 (11): e27319. Bibcode:2011PLoSO...627319B. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0027319 . PMC   3217945 . PMID   22110625 . Retrieved 25 May 2015.
  16. ↑ Booth, A; Clarke, M; Ghersi, D; Moher, D; Petticrew, M; Stewart, L (2011). "An international registry of systematic-review protocols" (PDF). Lancet. 377 (9760): 108–109. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60903-8. PMID   20630580. S2CID   30588870 . Retrieved 25 May 2015.
  17. ↑ "YODA Project". Center for Outcomes Research & Evaluation (CORE). Yale School of Medicine. 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
  18. ↑ Rodgers, MA; Brown, JV; Heirs, MK; Higgins, JP; Mannion, RJ; Simmonds, MC; Stewart, LA (2013). "Reporting of industry funded study outcome data: comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion". BMJ. 346 (f3981): f3981. doi:10.1136/bmj.f3981. PMC   3687771 . PMID   23788229.
  19. ↑ "Society for Research Synthesis Methodology - Home". Society for Research Synthesis Methodology. 2015. Retrieved 23 May 2015.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.