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 data from multiple sources

Meta-analysis is the statistical combination of the results of multiple studies addressing a similar research question. An important part of this method involves computing an effect size across all of the studies; this involves extracting effect sizes and variance measures from various 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 procedure. For instance, a meta-analysis may be conducted on several clinical trials of a medical treatment, in an effort to obtain a better understanding of how well the treatment works.

<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 approximately 30,000 volunteer experts from around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cardiovascular disease</span> Class of diseases that involve the heart or blood vessels

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is any disease involving the heart or blood vessels. CVDs constitute a class of diseases that includes: coronary artery diseases, heart failure, hypertensive heart disease, rheumatic heart disease, cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia, congenital heart disease, valvular heart disease, carditis, aortic aneurysms, peripheral artery disease, thromboembolic disease, and venous thrombosis.

<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.

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">Forest plot</span> Graphical display of scientific results

A forest plot, also known as a blobbogram, is a graphical display of estimated results from a number of scientific studies addressing the same question, along with the overall results. It was developed for use in medical research as a means of graphically representing a meta-analysis of the results of randomized controlled trials. In the last twenty years, similar meta-analytical techniques have been applied in observational studies and forest plots are often used in presenting the results of such studies also.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Review article</span> Summary of the understanding on a topic

A review article is an article that summarizes the current state of understanding on a topic within a certain discipline. A review article is generally considered a secondary source since it may analyze and discuss the method and conclusions in previously published studies. It resembles a survey article or, in news publishing, overview article, which also surveys and summarizes previously published primary and secondary sources, instead of reporting new facts and results. Survey articles are however considered tertiary sources, since they do not provide additional analysis and synthesis of new conclusions. A review of such sources is often referred to as a tertiary review.

Peter Christian Gøtzsche is a Danish physician, medical researcher, and former leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He is a co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and has written numerous reviews for the organization. His membership in Cochrane was terminated by its Governing Board of Trustees on 25 September 2018. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Gøtzsche was criticised for spreading disinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

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.

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

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.

Tom Jefferson is a British epidemiologist, based in Rome, Italy, who works for the Cochrane Collaboration. Jefferson is an author and editor of the Cochrane Collaboration's acute respiratory infections group, as well as part of four other Cochrane groups. He was also an advisor to the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services.

Isabelle Boutron is a professor of epidemiology at the Université Paris Cité and head of the INSERM- METHODS team within the Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS). She was originally trained in rheumatology and later switched to a career in epidemiology and public health. She is also deputy director of the French EQUATOR Centre, member of the SPIRIT-CONSORT executive committee, director of Cochrane France and co-convenor of the Bias Methods group of the Cochrane Collaboration.

<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.

Allegiance bias in behavioral sciences is a bias resulted from the investigator's or researcher's allegiance to a specific school of thought. Researchers/investigators have been exposed to many types of branches of psychology or schools of thought. Naturally they adopt a school or branch that fits with their paradigm of thinking. More specifically, allegiance bias is when this leads therapists, researchers, etc. believing that their school of thought or treatment is superior to others. Their superior belief to these certain schools of thought can bias their research in effective treatments trials or investigative situations leading to allegiance bias. Reason being is that they may have devoted their thinking to certain treatments they have seen work in their past experiences. This can lead to errors in interpreting the results of their research. Their “pledge” to stay within their own paradigm of thinking may affect their ability to find more effective treatments to help the patient or situation they are investigating.

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.
  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.