DOCSLIB.ORG

What Is Meta-Analysis?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Is Meta-Analysis? What is ...? For further titles in the series, visit: www.whatisseries.co.uk What is meta-analysis? Robert Hodgson PhD Research Consultant, York Health Economics Consortium, University of York G Meta-analysis is a set of statistical G Meta-analysis of trials provides more techniques for combining data from precise estimates of treatment effect, by independent studies to produce a single making use of all available data. estimate of effect. G Meta-analysis is often part of the systematic G Meta-analysis is often used review process, many systematic reviews within healthcare, but is also applied include one or more meta-analyses. in other disciplines including psychology and the social sciences. G The validity of any meta-analysis depends on the studies on which it is based. G Within healthcare, meta-analysis is often used to assess the clinical G Well-conducted meta-analyses aim for effectiveness of interventions; it does complete coverage of all relevant studies, this by combining data from two or look for the presence of heterogeneity more studies (usually randomised among studies, and explore the robustness of controlled trials). the main findings using sensitivity analysis. EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE • theory • knowledge • practice Copyright © Hayward Medical Communications 2014. All rights reserved. No unauthorised reproduction or distribution. For reprints or permissions, contact [email protected] What is ...? What is meta-analysis? Systematic reviews difficulties that anyone trying to make sense and meta-analysis of effectiveness research might encounter. It is common in medical research to find that several clinical trials have attempted to Small effects and trends answer similar questions about clinical Because meta-analysis may combine data effectiveness; for example: Does the new from a number of studies, it potentially treatment confer significant benefits includes a large number of patients and compared with the conventional may be better placed to examine rare treatment? Often, it is the case that these events, such as safety issues and side effects individual studies will not be able to associated with interventions. The larger conclusively demonstrate whether a sample size achieved by combining a treatment confers significant clinical benefit. number of studies also allows investigators Meta-analysis allows the data from all to examine any differences in intervention relevant trials to be combined and can help effects between specific patient groups, to establish with greater certainty the something that is often not possible within relative clinical benefit of the treatment individual studies. options. A good example of this is a retrospective review of the evidence on the Inconsistency effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy for the The results of studies evaluating a particular prevention of myocardial infarction.1 The intervention can often appear to be study showed that, had meta-analysis been inconsistent or contradictory. Meta-analysis conducted at an early stage, after only a few provides a way of not only estimating trials had been completed, it would have the average likely effect, but also a way demonstrated the benefits of thrombolytic to quantify and explain inconsistencies. therapy. Instead, experts remained unaware This can be achieved through the of its benefits for many years and patients examination of subgroups, as described were not given an effective therapy. Meta- above, or through use of the technique of analyses are now a fundamental part of meta-regression (see below). evidence-based medicine. Overcoming bias When can you When meta-analysis is undertaken as part of do a meta-analysis? a rigorously conducted systematic review, it Meta-analysis can be used whenever there can also help to overcome bias. A well- is more than one study that has estimated conducted systematic review allows data the effect of an intervention or risk factor, from all relevant studies to be included in a and the studies are sufficiently similar in meta-analysis. A meta-analysis carried out as terms of the participants, interventions, part of such a review therefore allows for outcome measurements and settings, so unbiased synthesis of the empirical data. that it is reasonable to combine the results Unsystematic reviews are less likely to of these studies. Meta-analysis need not identify all available evidence and may be only be used to combine the results of influenced by the prior beliefs of the randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but can reviewer. Meta-analysis carried out as part of also be used to combine data from other an unsystematic review is therefore more types of studies, such as case-control and likely to be based on only a proportion of cohort studies to give a relative risk, or the available evidence and also more likely diagnostic test accuracy studies to provide to produce biased estimates of effect. summary estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of a new test compared with an Transparency existing test. As well as potentially reducing bias, meta- analyses conducted as part of a rigorous Benefits of meta-analyses systematic review have the further Meta-analysis offers a rational and helpful advantage of transparency. An important way of dealing with a number of practical aspect of the systematic review approach is 2 www.whatisseries.co.uk Copyright © Hayward Medical Communications 2014. All rights reserved. No unauthorised reproduction or distribution. For reprints or permissions, contact [email protected] What is ...? What is meta-analysis? that all the decisions that have been taken (such as funnel plots) and a greater throughout the process of achieving the understanding of the pitfalls of meta- final aggregate effect sizes are made clear. analysis.5 This allows readers to determine for themselves the reasonableness of the Meta-analysis and the decisions taken and their likely impact on systematic review process the final estimate of effect size. It also allows The main requirement for a worthwhile other researchers to replicate their results, meta-analysis is a well-conducted systematic which is an important part of the scientific review.6 Such a review should include an process. extensive search, which interrogates several electronic databases and other information Criticisms of meta-analysis sources to identify as many relevant studies A common criticism of meta-analysis is that as possible. The systematic review should it seeks to combine different kinds of studies also use explicit and objective criteria for the in the same analysis, thereby ignoring inclusion or rejection of studies.7 However important differences between studies. competent the meta-analysis, if the original Careful consideration is necessary when systematic review was partial, flawed or planning a meta-analysis to ensure that the otherwise unsystematic, then the meta- studies included in the analysis are analysis may provide a precise quantitative sufficiently similar so that that any resulting estimate that is simply wrong. The main summary estimate has a clinically requirement of systematic review is easier to meaningful interpretation; for example, it state than to execute: a complete, unbiased makes no sense to combine studies that collection of all the original studies of compare different interventions. It is, acceptable quality that examine the same however, worth emphasising that one of the therapeutic question. Among the many strengths of meta-analysis is its ability to checklists for the assessment of the quality answer broader questions and allow of systematic reviews, the PRISMA statement inconsistencies to be investigated. (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Therefore, combining dissimilar studies may Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is particularly be justified when attempting to explain recommended and widely adopted by variations in clinical effectiveness. journal editors.8 Another criticism levelled at meta-analysis is that the results of meta-analyses can Conducting meta-analyses appear to contradict those of subsequent Forest plots RCTs. A number of studies have, for The usual way of displaying data from a example, compared the results of meta- meta-analysis is by a pictorial representation analyses with subsequent findings from (often known as a Forest plot). An example large-scale, well-conducted, RCTs (so-called is shown in Figure 1.9 This displays the ‘mega trials’). The results of such findings from each individual study as a comparisons have, so far, been mixed – blob or square, with squares towards the left there has been good agreement in the side indicating that the new treatment is majority of cases but some discrepancies in better, whereas blobs on the right indicate others.2,3 For example, one such exercise led that the new treatment is less effective than to publication of a paper subtitled ‘Lessons the comparator. The size of the blob or from an “effective, safe, simple intervention” square is proportional to the precision of the that wasn’t’ (use of intravenous magnesium study (roughly speaking, the sample size). A after heart attacks).4 In many of these cases, horizontal line (usually the 95% confidence it emerged that the different analyses were interval) is drawn around each of the studies’ either asking different questions or differed blobs to represent the uncertainty of the in some other way. In some cases, these estimate of the treatment effect. The differences have been explained by flaws in aggregate effect size obtained by the original meta-analyses and have led
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolution of Clinical Trials Throughout History
    Evolution of clinical trials throughout history Emma M. Nellhaus1, Todd H. Davies, PhD1 Author Affiliations: 1. Office of Research and Graduate Education, Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine, Huntington, West Virginia The authors have no financial disclosures to declare and no conflicts of interest to report. Corresponding Author: Todd H. Davies, PhD Director of Research Development and Translation Marshall University Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine Huntington, West Virginia Email: [email protected] Abstract The history of clinical research accounts for the high ethical, scientific, and regulatory standards represented in current practice. In this review, we aim to describe the advances that grew from failures and provide a comprehensive view of how the current gold standard of clinical practice was born. This discussion of the evolution of clinical trials considers the length of time and efforts that were made in order to designate the primary objective, which is providing improved care for our patients. A gradual, historic progression of scientific methods such as comparison of interventions, randomization, blinding, and placebos in clinical trials demonstrates how these techniques are collectively responsible for a continuous advancement of clinical care. Developments over the years have been ethical as well as clinical. The Belmont Report, which many investigators lack appreciation for due to time constraints, represents the pinnacle of ethical standards and was developed due to significant misconduct. Understanding the history of clinical research may help investigators value the responsibility of conducting human subjects’ research. Keywords Clinical Trials, Clinical Research, History, Belmont Report In modern medicine, the clinical trial is the gold standard and most dominant form of clinical research.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Investments in Medical and Health Research and Development 2013 - 2017 Advocacy Has Helped Bring About Five Years of Much-Needed Growth in U.S
    Fall 2018 U.S. Investments in Medical and Health Research and Development 2013 - 2017 Advocacy has helped bring about five years of much-needed growth in U.S. medical and health research investment. More advocacy is critical now to ensure our nation steps up in response to health threats that we can—we must—overcome. More Than Half Favor Doubling Federal Spending on Medical Research Do you favor or oppose doubling federal spending on medical research over the next five years? 19% Not Sure 23% 8% Strongly favor Strongly oppose 16% 35% Somewhat oppose Somewhat favor Source: A Research!America survey of U.S. adults conducted in partnership with Zogby Analytics in January 2018. Research!America 3 Introduction Investment1 in medical and health research and development (R&D) in the U.S. grew by $38.8 billion or 27% from 2013 to 2017. Industry continues to invest more than any other sector, accounting for 67% of total spending in 2017, followed by the federal government at 22%. Federal investments increased from 2016 to 2017, the second year of growth after a dip from 2014 to 2015. Overall, federal investment increased by $6.1 billion or 18.4% from 2013 to 2017, but growth has been uneven across federal health agencies. Investment by other sectors, including academic and research institutions, foundations, state and local governments, and voluntary health associations and professional societies, also increased from 2013 to 2017. Looking ahead, medical and health R&D spending is expected to move in an upward trajectory in 2018 but will continue to fall short relative to the health and economic impact of major health threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Research Services
    Clinical Research Services Conducting efficient, innovative clinical research from initial planning to closeout WHY LEIDOS LIFE SCIENCES? In addition to developing large-scale technology programs for U.S. federal f Leidos has expertise agencies with a focus on health, Leidos provides a broad range of clinical supporting all product services and solutions to researchers, product sponsors, U.S. government development phases agencies, and other biomedical enterprises, hospitals, and health systems. for vaccines, drugs, and Our broad research experience enables us to support programs throughout biotherapeutics the development life cycle: from concept through the exploratory, f Leidos understands the development, pre-clinical, and clinical phases, as well as with product need to control clinical manufacturing and launching. Leidos designs and develops customized project scope, timelines, solutions that support groundbreaking medical research, optimize business and cost while remaining operations, and expedite the discovery of safe and effective medical flexible amidst shifting products. We apply our technical knowledge and experience in selecting research requirements institutions, clinical research organizations, and independent research f Leidos remains vendor- facilities to meet the specific needs of each clinical study. We also manage neutral while fostering and team integration, communication, and contracts throughout the project. managing collaborations Finally, Leidos has a proven track record of ensuring that research involving with
    [Show full text]
  • Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials: Why Use Them, and How to Run and Report Them Philip Pallmann1* , Alun W
    Pallmann et al. BMC Medicine (2018) 16:29 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1017-7 CORRESPONDENCE Open Access Adaptive designs in clinical trials: why use them, and how to run and report them Philip Pallmann1* , Alun W. Bedding2, Babak Choodari-Oskooei3, Munyaradzi Dimairo4,LauraFlight5, Lisa V. Hampson1,6, Jane Holmes7, Adrian P. Mander8, Lang’o Odondi7, Matthew R. Sydes3,SofíaS.Villar8, James M. S. Wason8,9, Christopher J. Weir10, Graham M. Wheeler8,11, Christina Yap12 and Thomas Jaki1 Abstract Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial’s course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented. We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Statistical Practices for Contemporary Meta-Analysis: Examples Based on a Systematic Review on COVID-19 in Pregnancy
    Review Good Statistical Practices for Contemporary Meta-Analysis: Examples Based on a Systematic Review on COVID-19 in Pregnancy Yuxi Zhao and Lifeng Lin * Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been increasingly used to pool research find- ings from multiple studies in medical sciences. The reliability of the synthesized evidence depends highly on the methodological quality of a systematic review and meta-analysis. In recent years, several tools have been developed to guide the reporting and evidence appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and much statistical effort has been paid to improve their methodological quality. Nevertheless, many contemporary meta-analyses continue to employ conventional statis- tical methods, which may be suboptimal compared with several alternative methods available in the evidence synthesis literature. Based on a recent systematic review on COVID-19 in pregnancy, this article provides an overview of select good practices for performing meta-analyses from sta- tistical perspectives. Specifically, we suggest meta-analysts (1) providing sufficient information of included studies, (2) providing information for reproducibility of meta-analyses, (3) using appro- priate terminologies, (4) double-checking presented results, (5) considering alternative estimators of between-study variance, (6) considering alternative confidence intervals, (7) reporting predic- Citation: Zhao, Y.; Lin, L. Good tion intervals, (8) assessing small-study effects whenever possible, and (9) considering one-stage Statistical Practices for Contemporary methods. We use worked examples to illustrate these good practices. Relevant statistical code Meta-Analysis: Examples Based on a is also provided.
    [Show full text]
  • Short List of Commonly Used Acronyms in Clinical Research
    Short List of Commonly Used Acronyms in Clinical Research ACRP Association of Clinical Research Professionals AE Adverse Event ADR Adverse Drug Reaction AMA American Medical Association BAA Business Associate Agreement BIND Biological IND CA Coverage Analysis CAP College of American Pathologists CBCTN Community Based Clinical Trials Network CCRA Certified Clinical Research Associate (ACRP) CCRC Certified Clinical Research Coordinator (ACRP) CCRT Center for Clinical Research & Technology CCRP Certified Clinical Research Professional (SoCRA) CDA Confidential Disclosure Agreement CDC Center for Disease Control CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIRBI Center for IRB Intelligence CITI Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative CLIA Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments CME Continuing Medical Education CMS Central Management System COI Conflict of Interest CRA Clinical Research Associate CRC Clinical Research Coordinator CREC Continuing Research Education Credit CRF Case Report Form CRO Clinical Research Organization CTA Clinical Trial Agreement CTSC Clinical & Translational Science Collaborative CV Curriculum Vitae DCF Data Correction Form / Data Clarification Form DEA Drug Enforcement Agency (law enforcement division of FDA) DHHS Department of Health and Human Services DOS Date of Service DSMB or Data and Safety Monitoring Board (Plan or Committee) DSMP/C EAB Ethical Advisory Board (similar to IRB, used by other nations) EDC Electronic Data Capture FDA Food and Drug Administration FDA-482 Notice of Inspection FDA-483 Notice of Adverse
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework to Assess Empirical Reproducibility in Biomedical Research Leslie D
    McIntosh et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology (2017) 17:143 DOI 10.1186/s12874-017-0377-6 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Repeat: a framework to assess empirical reproducibility in biomedical research Leslie D. McIntosh1, Anthony Juehne1*, Cynthia R. H. Vitale2, Xiaoyan Liu1, Rosalia Alcoser1, J. Christian Lukas1 and Bradley Evanoff3 Abstract Background: The reproducibility of research is essential to rigorous science, yet significant concerns of the reliability and verifiability of biomedical research have been recently highlighted. Ongoing efforts across several domains of science and policy are working to clarify the fundamental characteristics of reproducibility and to enhance the transparency and accessibility of research. Methods: The aim of the proceeding work is to develop an assessment tool operationalizing key concepts of research transparency in the biomedical domain, specifically for secondary biomedical data research using electronic health record data. The tool (RepeAT) was developed through a multi-phase process that involved coding and extracting recommendations and practices for improving reproducibility from publications and reports across the biomedical and statistical sciences, field testing the instrument, and refining variables. Results: RepeAT includes 119 unique variables grouped into five categories (research design and aim, database and data collection methods, data mining and data cleaning, data analysis, data sharing and documentation). Preliminary results in manually processing 40 scientific manuscripts indicate components of the proposed framework with strong inter-rater reliability, as well as directions for further research and refinement of RepeAT. Conclusions: The use of RepeAT may allow the biomedical community to have a better understanding of the current practices of research transparency and accessibility among principal investigators.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Simplification of Clinical Trials in Regulated Medical Devices
    A Framework for Simplification of Clinical Trials in Regulated Medical Devices Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) Clinical Trial Innovation and Reformation (CTIR) Committee Rick Kuntz, MD, MSc, Medtronic – CTIR Chair Karim Benali, MD, MSc, Abiomed Willian D. Voorhees, III, PhD, Med Institute Susan Alpert, MD, PhD Wes Cetnarowski, MD, B Braun Chip Hance, Creganna Medical Stephanie Christopher, MDIC Bill Murray, MDIC Dan Schwartz, MDIC September 2016 www.mdic.org MDIC Framework for Simplification of Clinical Trials in Regulated Medical Devices The Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) is the first-ever public-private partnership created with the sole objective of advancing the regulatory science around the development and assessment of medical devices. Members of MDIC share a vision of providing U.S. citizens with timely access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices without unnecessary delay. Background on the MDIC CTIR Committee The MDIC Clinical Trial Innovation & Reform Steering Committee (CTIR Committee) was established to address issues of growing inefficiencies in the clinical trial ecosystem for the medical device industry. MDIC aims to improve the medical device clinical trial enterprise, driving a coordinated effort to fundamentally change how medical research is conducted. Clinical Trial Simplification is one of the projects the CTIR initiated to achieve their goal. The MDIC CTIR Committee comprises leaders from the medical device industry, Food & Drug Association (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), patient groups, and academia. Problem Statement Presently, medical device companies following the FDA Pre-Market Approval (PMA) pathway employ increasingly complex clinical trial structures that are inefficient and burden the clinical research and regulatory evaluation processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Aspects of Meningococcal Virulence: a Report to the Medical
    SOME ASPECTS OF MENINGOCOCCAL VIRULENCE A REPORT TO THE MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL ON WORK CARRIED OUT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE FIELD LABORATORIES BY E. G. D. MUREAY. CONTENTS. PAGE I. Introduction 175 II. Conditions influencing the determination of the minimal lethal dose . 177 (a) Viability and purity of culture ....... 178 (b) The health of the experimental animal 178 (c) The general influence of the nutrient medium . .178 (d) The correct measurement of the dose of living cocci . 180 (e) The strict correlation of dose to body weight of animal . 180 (/) The influence of sub-culture and age - 181 (g) Summary 183 III. The graduation of doses and the selection of the minimal lethal dose . 183 IV. The variation in virulence of freshly isolated strains .... 185 V. The fate of meningococci injected intraperitoneally into mice . 186 VI. Interference with the activity of the leucocytes and the peritoneal folds 190 VII. The raising of the virulence of the meningococcus by animal passage m. 194 VIII. The raising of the virulence of the meningococcus in vitro . 196 IX. The influence of desiccation, on virulence ...... 202 X. Discussion ........... 203 XI. Conclusions 206 XII. References 207 I. INTRODUCTION. "VIRULENCE" is an ill-defined term and its use frequently gives rise to dis- putes, which remain unresolved because the disputants have no common basis other than that the term applies to organisms which cause disease. Thus it is imperative that the writer clearly defines the meaning of the term virulence as used in this paper, that the issue may not be confused by the reader approaching the subject from a different point of view.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Designs and Methodologic Sources of Error
    General Articles E REVIEW ARTICLE CME Clinical Research Methodology 1: Study Designs and Methodologic Sources of Error Daniel I. Sessler, MD, and Peter B. Imrey, PhD * † Clinical research can be categorized by the timing of data collection: retrospective or pro- spective. Clinical research also can be categorized by study design. In case-control studies, investigators compare previous exposures (including genetic and other personal factors, envi- ronmental infuences, and medical treatments) among groups distinguished by later disease status (broadly defned to include the development of disease or response to treatment). In cohort studies, investigators compare subsequent incidences of disease among groups dis- tinguished by one or more exposures. Comparative clinical trials are prospective cohort stud- ies that compare treatments assigned to patients by the researchers. Most errors in clinical research fndings arise from 5 largely distinguishable classes of methodologic problems: selec- tion bias, confounding, measurement bias, reverse causation, and excessive chance variation. (Anesth Analg 2015;121:1034–42) or most of medical history, practice has been largely evidence-based medicine, midwifed by Sackett et al.,14 have ad hoc, based on suboptimal evidence from personal contributed greatly to revolutionary advances in clinical Fexperience and anecdotes shared among physicians. understanding and practice. The application of formal meta- Although individual cases and experiences often yield invalu- analytic techniques from education and social science to med- able insights to perceptive physicians, multiple anecdotes icine and epidemiology, through evidence-based medicine do not replace systematically collected data and organized centers and the Cochrane Collaboration,15,16 has systematized comparisons, and practice mostly based on personal experi- aggregation of research evidence for the medical community.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Report for Research on Infectious Diseases of Poverty 2012
    global reporT for research on infectious diseases of poverty 2012 wiTh financial supporT of European Union global report for research on infectious diseases of poverty with financial support of European Union WHo library Cataloguing-in-publication Data: Global report for research on infectious diseases of poverty. 1.communicable disease control. 2.research 3.poverty. 4.health behavior. 5.developing countries. i.World health organiza- tion. ii.unicef/undp/World Bank/Who special programme for research and training in tropical diseases. isBn 978 92 4 156 448 9 (nLM classification: aW 110) Copyright © World Health organization on behalf of the Special programme for research and training in tropical Diseases 2012 all rights reserved. the use of content from this health information product for all non-commercial education, training and information purposes is encouraged, including translation, quotation and reproduction, in any medium, but the content must not be changed and full acknowledgement of the source must be clearly stated. a copy of any resulting product with such content should be sent to tdr, World health organization, avenue appia, 1211 Geneva 27, switzerland. tdr is a World health organi- zation (Who) executed unicef/undp/World Bank/World health organization special programme for research and training in tropical diseases. this information product is not for sale. the use of any information or content whatsoever from it for publicity or advertising, or for any commercial or income-generating purpose, is strictly prohibited. no elements of this information product, in part or in whole, may be used to promote any specific individual, entity or product, in any manner whatsoever.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of Medical Research in Clinical Practice
    FORWARD LOOK Implementation of Medical Research in Clinical Practice www.esf.org European Science Foundation European Medical Research Councils The European Science Foundation (ESF) is an independ- The European Medical Research Councils (EMRC) is the ent, non-governmental organisation, the members of membership organisation for all the Medical Research which are 78 national funding agencies, research per- Councils in Europe under the ESF. forming agencies, academies and learned societies from The mission of EMRC is to promote innovative medical 30 countries. research and its clinical application towards improved The strength of ESF lies in its influential membership human health. EMRC offers authoritative strategic advice and in its ability to bring together the different domains for policy making, research management, ethics and of European science in order to meet the challenges of better health services. In its activities, EMRC serves as the future. a voice of its Member Organisations and the European Since its establishment in 1974, ESF, which has its scientific community through its science policy. headquarters in Strasbourg with offices in Brussels and EMRC has an important role in the future development of Ostend, has assembled a host of organisations that span medical research in Europe and it invites the European all disciplines of science, to create a common platform Commission, the European Research Council, learned for cross-border cooperation in Europe. societies, universities and academic medical centres ESF is dedicated to promoting collaboration in scientific for debate and action to bring its recommendations to research, funding of research and science policy across fruition. Europe. Through its activities and instruments ESF has www.esf.org/emrc made major contributions to science in a global context.
    [Show full text]