Reflections

Tag: preeclampsia

  • Making Systematic Reviews Feasible for Every Clinical Trial with Loon Hatch™ and Revolutionizing Clinical Research

    Making Systematic Reviews Feasible for Every Clinical Trial with Loon Hatch™ and Revolutionizing Clinical Research

    Can starting and ending clinical trials with Systematic Reviews truly be feasible? It hasn’t been—until now!

    In the world of clinical research, systematic reviews are essential for ensuring that trials are well-informed, ethically sound, and impactful. Yet, a recent study by Clarke et al. uncovered a concerning trend: out of 175 randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports published over 25 years in five top-tier medical journals, only 2.9% referenced up-to-date systematic reviews in their Introduction sections. Even more alarming, just 3.4% incorporated their findings into an updated systematic review in the Discussion sections.

    The Problem: Research Gaps That Could Cost Lives

    These numbers are not just disappointing—they’re dangerous. Without systematic reviews, clinical trials risk:

    • 👉 Poorly designed protocols that fail to build on existing knowledge.
    • 👉 Lack of clinical equipoise, leading to ethical concerns.
    • 👉 Research waste due to duplicative or irrelevant studies.
    • 👉 Unnecessary risk to patients involved in poorly informed trials.
    • 👉 Limited dissemination of valuable results that could inform future research.

    The Reality: Systematic Reviews Are Time-Consuming and Resource-Intensive

    It’s easy to say that systematic reviews should be integrated into every stage of a clinical trial, but the reality is far from simple. The average systematic review takes 2,500 person-hours and several expert reviewers to complete. Considering that each clinical trial would require at least two systematic reviews, you’re looking at an additional 5,000 person-hours—a significant strain on already limited resources.

    The Solution: Loon Hatch™ – Automating Systematic Reviews for the Future of Clinical Research

    This is where Loon Hatch™ comes in. At Loon, we’ve developed a groundbreaking tool that automates the systematic review process, making it possible to maintain living systematic reviews—rapidly and effortlessly.

    With Loon Hatch™, the once daunting task of integrating systematic reviews into clinical trials becomes a seamless part of the research process. Imagine being able to:

    • Inform your sample size calculation with a living systematic review? ✅ Check.
    • Ethically inform on the choice of comparators? ✅ Check.
    • Ensure endpoint relevancy with up-to-date data? ✅ Check.
    • Assess the psychometric properties of PROs efficiently? ✅ Check.

    And when it comes to updating existing systematic reviews with new trial results? With Loon Hatch™, it’s as simple as publishing your findings. Our tool automatically updates your living systematic review, ensuring that your research remains at the cutting edge.

    The Future is Now: Join Us in Advancing Evidence-Informed Research

    AI-enabled technologies like Loon Hatch™ are transforming the future of clinical research, making it possible and practical to integrate systematic reviews at every stage of a clinical trial. This isn’t just a step forward, towards a more ethical, efficient, and impactful research process.

    Let’s connect and explore how we can push the boundaries of evidence-informed research together. The future of clinical research is truly exciting, and with tools like Loon Hatch™, we’re just getting started.

    Read full paper
    Request a demo
    Subscribe

    FAQs

    Why are systematic reviews important in clinical trials?

    Systematic reviews are crucial in clinical trials because they ensure that the trials are well-informed, ethically sound, and impactful. They help in designing protocols that build on existing knowledge, maintaining clinical equipoise, avoiding research waste, and reducing unnecessary risks to patients.

    What are the risks of not using systematic reviews in clinical trials?

    Without systematic reviews, clinical trials risk poorly designed protocols, lack of clinical equipoise, research waste due to duplicative or irrelevant studies, unnecessary risk to patients, and limited dissemination of valuable results that could inform future research.

    Why haven’t systematic reviews been widely integrated into clinical trials until now?

    Systematic reviews are traditionally time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring an average of 2,500 person-hours and multiple expert reviewers to complete. Given that each clinical trial would need at least two systematic reviews, the process has been seen as a significant strain on resources.

    How does Loon Hatch™ address the challenges of integrating systematic reviews into clinical trials?

    Loon Hatch™ automates the systematic review process, making it feasible to maintain living systematic reviews throughout the clinical trial process. This automation allows for seamless integration of systematic reviews, informing various aspects of the trial such as sample size calculations, choice of comparators, endpoint relevancy, and updating existing reviews with new trial results.

    What makes Loon Hatch™ different from traditional systematic review processes?

    Loon Hatch™ significantly reduces the time and effort required to perform systematic reviews by automating the process. This enables researchers to maintain up-to-date, living systematic reviews, ensuring that their research is always informed by the latest data, without the resource strain associated with traditional methods.

    How can Loon Hatch™ impact the future of clinical research?

    By automating systematic reviews, Loon Hatch™ enables a more ethical, efficient, and impactful research process. It allows for real-time integration of systematic reviews at every stage of a clinical trial, helping to advance evidence-informed research and improve the overall quality and reliability of clinical trials.

  • Do Case Reports and Case Series Generate Clinical Discoveries About Preeclampsia? A Systematic Review

    Do Case Reports and Case Series Generate Clinical Discoveries About Preeclampsia? A Systematic Review

    Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. The management of preeclampsia has not changed much in more than two decades, and its aetiology is still not fully understood. Case reports and case series have traditionally been used to communicate new knowledge about existing conditions. Whether this is true for preeclampsia is not known.

    Do Case Reports and Case Series Generate Clinical Discoveries About Preeclampsia? A Systematic Review paper

    Objective


    To determine whether recent case reports or case series have generated new knowledge and clinical discoveries about preeclampsia.


    Methods


    A detailed search strategy was developed in consultation with a medical librarian. Two bibliographic databases were searched through Ovid: Embase and MEDLINE. We selected case reports or case series published between 2015 and 2020, comprising pregnant persons diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia. Two reviewers independently screened all publications. One reviewer extracted data from included studies, while another conducted a quality check of extracted data. We developed a codebook to guide our data extraction and outcomes assessment. The quality of each report was determined based on Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for case reports and case series.


    Results


    We included 104 case reports and three case series, together comprising 118 pregnancies. A severe presentation or complication of preeclampsia was reported in 81% of pregnancies, and 84% had a positive maternal outcome, free of death or persistent complications. Only 8% of the case reports were deemed to be of high quality, and 53.8% of moderate quality; none of the case series were of high quality. A total of 26 of the 107 publications (24.3%) included a novel clinical discovery as a central theme.

    Conclusion


    Over two-thirds of recent case reports and case series about preeclampsia do not appear to present new knowledge or discoveries about preeclampsia, and most are of low quality.

    Keywords: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, study design

    Read full paper
    Request a demo
    Subscribe

    FAQs

    What is the purpose of case reports and case series in medical research?

    Case reports and case series are traditionally used to communicate new knowledge about existing medical conditions. They often highlight unique cases, rare presentations, or novel treatments that can provide valuable insights for clinical practice.

    How effective are case reports and case series in generating clinical discoveries about preeclampsia?

    According to the systematic review, only about 24.3% of the recent case reports and case series on preeclampsia included a novel clinical discovery as a central theme. This suggests that while some reports contribute new knowledge, the majority do not significantly advance understanding of the condition.

    What were the findings regarding the quality of the case reports and case series reviewed?

    The review found that only 8% of the case reports were of high quality, with 53.8% deemed moderate quality. None of the case series were considered high quality. This indicates a need for improved rigor and reporting standards in case-based research on preeclampsia.

    What is the significance of the findings related to preeclampsia in the reviewed publications?

    The findings indicate that most of the recent case reports and case series on preeclampsia do not present new discoveries or knowledge. This could imply a gap in the potential of case-based research to contribute meaningfully to the understanding and management of preeclampsia.

    Why is preeclampsia an important focus of clinical research?

    Preeclampsia is a leading cause of maternal and perinatal mortality and morbidity. Despite its significance, the management of preeclampsia has not changed much over the past two decades, and its underlying causes are still not fully understood. Research in this area is critical to improving outcomes for affected women and their babies.

    What was the scope of the systematic review conducted?

    The systematic review included 104 case reports and three case series published between 2015 and 2020, focusing on pregnant individuals diagnosed with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, including preeclampsia. The review assessed the quality and novelty of these reports to determine their contribution to clinical knowledge.