Max Butler

Background: Research methodology is insufficiently featured in undergraduate medical curricula. Student-selected components are designed to offer some research opportunities but frequently fail to meet student or supervisor expectations, such as completion or publication. We hypothesized that a collaborative, educational approach to a systematic review (SR), whereby medical students worked together, may improve student experience and increase success. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether offering a small team of students the opportunity to take part in the screening phase of SRs led by an experienced postgraduate team could enhance the learning experience of students, overcome the barriers to successful research engagement, and deliver published output. Methods: Postgraduate researchers from the University of Cambridge led a team of 14 medical students to work on 2 neurosurgical SRs. One student was appointed as the lead for each SR. All students were provided with training on SR methodology and participated in title and abstract screening using Rayyan software. Students completed prepilot, midscreening, and postscreening questionnaires on their research background, perceptions, knowledge, confidence, and experience. Questions were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). Results: Of the 14 students involved, 29% (n=4) reported that they had received sufficient training in research methodology at medical school. Positive trends in student knowledge, confidence, and experience of SR methodology were noted across the 3 questionnaire time points. Mean responses to “I am satisfied with the level of guidance I am receiving,” “I am enjoying being involved in the SR process,” and “I could not gain this understanding of research from passive learning e.g., textbook or lecture” were greater than 8.0 at all time points. Students reported “being involved in this research has made me more likely to do research in the future” (mean 8.57, SD 1.50) and that “this collaborative SR improved my research experience” (mean 8.50, SD 1.56). Conclusions: This collaborative approach appears to be a potentially useful method of providing students with research experience; however, it requires further evaluation.

BACKGROUND Research methodology is insufficiently featured in undergraduate medical curricula. Student-selected components are designed to offer some research opportunities but frequently fail to meet student or supervisor expectations, such as completion or publication. We hypothesized that a collaborative, educational approach to a systematic review (SR), whereby medical students worked together, may improve student experience and increase success. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to establish whether offering a small team of students the opportunity to take part in the screening phase of SRs led by an experienced postgraduate team could enhance the learning experience of students, overcome the barriers to successful research engagement, and deliver published output. METHODS Postgraduate researchers from the University of Cambridge led a team of 14 medical students to work on 2 neurosurgical SRs. One student was appointed as the lead for each SR. All students were provided with training on SR methodology and participated in title and abstract screening using Rayyan software. Students completed prepilot, midscreening, and postscreening questionnaires on their research background, perceptions, knowledge, confidence, and experience. Questions were scored on a Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree). RESULTS Of the 14 students involved, 29% (n=4) reported that they had received sufficient training in research methodology at medical school. Positive trends in student knowledge, confidence, and experience of SR methodology were noted across the 3 questionnaire time points. Mean responses to “I am satisfied with the level of guidance I am receiving,” “I am enjoying being involved in the SR process,” and “I could not gain this understanding of research from passive learning e.g., textbook or lecture” were greater than 8.0 at all time points. Students reported “being involved in this research has made me more likely to do research in the future” (mean 8.57, SD 1.50) and that “this collaborative SR improved my research experience” (mean 8.50, SD 1.56). CONCLUSIONS This collaborative approach appears to be a potentially useful method of providing students with research experience; however, it requires further evaluation.

Study Design: Survey. Introduction: AO Spine Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (AO Spine RECODE-DCM) is an international initiative that aims to accelerate knowledge discovery and improve outcomes by developing a consensus framework for research. This includes defining the top research priorities, an index term and a minimum data set (core outcome set and core data elements set – core outcome set (COS)/core data elements (CDE)). Objective: To describe how perspectives were gathered and report the detailed sampling characteristics. Methods: A two-stage, electronic survey was used to gather and seek initial consensus. Perspectives were sought from spinal surgeons, other healthcare professionals and people with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Participants were allocated to one of two parallel streams: (1) priority setting or (2) minimum dataset. An email campaign was developed to advertise the survey to relevant global stakeholder individuals and organisations. People with DCM were recruited using the international DCM charity Myelopathy.org and its social media channels. A network of global partners was recruited to act as project ambassadors. Data from Google Analytics, MailChimp and Calibrum helped optimise survey dissemination. Results: Survey engagement was high amongst the three stakeholder groups: 208 people with DCM, 389 spinal surgeons and 157 other healthcare professionals. Individuals from 76 different countries participated; the United States, United Kingdom and Canada were the most common countries of participants. Conclusion: AO Spine RECODE-DCM recruited a diverse and sufficient number of participants for an international PSP and COS/CDE process. Whilst PSP and COS/CDE have been undertaken in other fields, to our knowledge, this is the first time they have been combined in one process.

Study design: Systematic review.Objectives: To evaluate the impact of cannabinoids on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of nontraumatic and traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI), with the aim of determining suitability for clinical trials involving SCI patients.Methods: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase databases, following registration with PROPSERO (CRD42019149671). Studies evaluating the impact of cannabinoids (agonists or antagonists) on neurobehavioral outcomes in preclinical models of nontraumatic and traumatic SCI were included. Data extracted from relevant studies, included sample characteristics, injury model, neurobehavioural outcomes assessed and study results. PRISMA guidelines were followed and the SYRCLE checklist was used to assess risk of bias.Results: The search returned 8714 studies, 19 of which met our inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 23 to 390 animals. WIN 55,212-2 (n = 6) and AM 630 (n = 8) were the most used cannabinoid receptor agonist and antagonist respectively. Acute SCI models included traumatic injury (n = 16), ischaemia/reperfusion injury (n = 2), spinal cord cryoinjury (n = 1) and spinal cord ischaemia (n = 1). Assessment tools used assessed locomotor function, pain and anxiety. Cannabinoid receptor agonists resulted in statistically significant improvement in locomotor function in 9 out of 10 studies and pain outcomes in 6 out of 6 studies.Conclusion: Modulation of the endo-cannabinoid system has demonstrated significant improvement in both pain and locomotor function in pre-clinical SCI models; however, the risk of bias is unclear in all studies. These results may help to contextualise future translational clinical trials investigating whether cannabinoids can improve pain and locomotor function in SCI patients.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey. Objectives: Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is a common syndrome of acquired spinal cord impairment caused by canal stenosis secondary to arthritic changes of the spine. International guidelines consider physiotherapy an option for mild, stable DCM; however, few studies have been conducted on nonoperative management. The objective was to determine current usage and perceptions of nonoperative physiotherapy for DCM. Methods: Persons with DCM were recruited to a web-based survey. Participants with complete responses that had not received surgery were included (n = 167). Variables included symptom duration, treatment history, current disability, and demographic characteristics. Results: Disease and demographic characteristics were equivalent between those who did and did not receive physiotherapy. In all, 19.5% of physiotherapy recipients reported subjective benefit from physiotherapy. Those perceiving benefit had significantly higher mJOA (modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association) scores, lower neck pain scores, and shorter symptom duration. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, those with mild DCM were more likely to perceive benefit than those with severe DCM, as were those with moderate DCM (to a lesser extent). Individuals whose diagnosis was delayed 1 to 2 years were less likely to perceive benefit than those that waited 0 to 6 months. Conclusions: The provision of nonoperative physiotherapy in the management of DCM is inconsistent and appears to differ from international guidelines. Few patients perceived benefit from physiotherapy; however, this was more likely in those with mild DCM and in those with shorter symptom durations. Further work is needed to establish the appropriate role of physiotherapy for this population.