Nature Clinical Practice journals relaunch as Nature Reviews

Out with the old (L), in with the new (R)The eight specialty-based Nature Clinical Practice journals, which form part of the medical publishing arm of Nature Publishing Group, are to relaunch in April 2009 as Nature Reviews.

As well as joining the hugely successful Nature Reviews portfolio, which will increase in size from seven to fifteen titles in one fell swoop, the Nature Clinical Practice journals will be given a ‘facelift’ in print and online.  The previously rather austere journals are soon going to be printed in full colour, and the layout of the content has been shaken up to make the journals more eye catching and easier to navigate.

Nature Clinical Practice is a series of monthly review journals targeted at doctors and physicians. The peer-reviewed publications aim to deliver timely interpretations of key research developments, thus facilitating the translation of the latest findings into clinical practice.  Doctors often don’t have time to keep abreast of developments in their field, so Nature Clinical Practice does the reading for the clinician, filtering original research published in primary journals and highlighting the most important and relevant findings.

ncp-new-names

Launched in 2004 and 2005, the Nature Clinical Practice journals cover the fields of cardiology, clinical oncology, endocrinology, gastroenterology & hepatology, nephrology, neurology, rheumatology and urology. Articles are written by experts in the field and include editorial and opinion pieces, short highlights of research from the current literature, commentaries on the application of recent research to practical patient care, comprehensive reviews, and in-depth case studies.

“Including the eight clinical journals as part of the Nature Reviews series will enable us to bring to the clinical sciences the qualities that have made the life science Nature Reviews journals so successful,” says Dr James Butcher, Publisher of the clinical Nature Reviews titles. “No other publishing company is able to offer high quality monthly review journals covering advances in medical research from bench to bedside.”

“The clinical Nature Reviews journals will retain the high quality content that practicing clinicians rely on from the Nature Clinical Practice titles,” continues Dr Butcher. “We hope that the journals will now also become indispensable resources for clinical academics working in research settings who are familiar with the look and feel of the life science Nature Reviews titles.”

I actually used to work for Nature Clinical Practice and had the chance to check out samples of the relaunch journals before I left the company.  I thought the new full-colour Nature Reviews journals looked infinitely better than their somewhat dry and serious predessors, the vivid new layout really enhancing the high quality and rigorously edited content. I’m really looking forward to browsing the real thing once the first clinical Nature Reviews journals are published in April.

Continue Reading

Would you like a defibrillator with your coke sir?

Authorities in Japan have taken an interesting approach to improving the dire survival rates after out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), i.e. heart attack in the home or in a public place rather than in a ward on a hospital.

Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine
reports that automated external defibrillator devices (AEDs) are being placed in vending machines and advertising hoardings in public spaces in Japan. Members of the public can then use these devices to provide defibrillation at the scene of a SCA, saving precious minutes before emergency services arrive.

The American Heart Association estimates that 166,200 people die in the United States each year from out-of-hospital SCA and only 6.4% of patients who are admitted to hospital for SCA survive until discharge.

Early medical response is crucial for people who suffer an out-of-hospital SCA. For every minute that passes between collapse and defibrillation, survival from witnessed SCA falls by 7-10%. In most cases it is the emergency services who provide defibrillation, but time is lost waiting for paramedics to arrive at the scene.

An obvious way to shorten the time between SCA and defibrillation is for lay witnesses to perform the procedure. In fact, studies have found that defibrillation by members of the public considerably improves survival after SCA.

The Japanese government authorized the lay use of AEDs in July 2004. Subsequently, a study by the Japanese Fire and Disaster Management Agency in 2006 found that 32.1% of the 140 SCA victims who were defibrillated by a member of the public were still alive at 1 month, compared with 8.3% of the 18,180 people who did not receive defibrillation from a lay person.

In most countries public-access AEDs can only be used by trained individuals, be they members of the public, first aiders, paramedics and so on; however, what is interesting in Japan is that no training is necessary in order to use these devices. In addition, the Japanese government has formally declared that the liability of an individual who uses an AED is limited, irrespective of the outcome of resuscitative efforts.

Another interesting point about public-access AEDs in Japan is that rather than being directed by the government, the positioning of AEDs in public places is being spearheaded by commercial companies. As Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine reports:

“The cost of keeping an AED in a vending machine is primarily covered by the revenue from drink purchases and is shared by the manufacturer of the drink, the provider of the machine, the distributor of the AED, and the proprietor who provides the space and electricity. Allowing paid advertising on a display panel above a box housing an AED is another method of funding public access AEDs. Again, the proprietor has only to provide the space and electricity. These creative efforts are surely effective in keeping down AED dissemination costs.”

Although Japan was a little behind other countries when it came to introducing public-access AEDs, the creative approaches to accessibility undertaken by the Japanese are in a class of their own.

Continue Reading

Herbal remedies and acute kidney disease

Nature Clinical Practice Nephrology has recently published a review by Luyckx and Naicker highlighting the link between traditional medicines and kidney injury.

Traditional and herbal remedies are widely used worldwide, with as many as 80% of people in some populations using such treatments. The use of herbal remedies becoming increasing common in Western countries, as shown by a 2002 survey that found that 36% of people in the US use alternative or complementary medicines.

Herbal therapies all pass through the kidney on their way out of the body; consequently, many have been associated with acute kidney disease. Luyckx and Naicker report that “folk remedies account for up to 35% of cases of acute kidney injury and mortality rates for acute kidney injury range from 24% to 75%.”

The herbal remedies most commonly used in the US include echinacea, which is used as an immunostimulant, and St John’s wort, which is used to treat depression among other things. Echinacea, however, has been associated with acute kidney injury and St John’s Wort with kidney transplant rejection.

Various factors besides direct toxicity of the agent can contribute to kidney injury, such as contamination of the preparation or incorrect administration. In addition, the type of nephrotoxicity experienced by an individual taking a herbal remedy is dependent on which part of the kidney is affected, and the authors discuss these factors in more detail in their review.

Luyckx and Naicker do point out that the effects of herbal remedies are something of an unknown quantity; for example, some studies have shown that cranberry decreases the risk of kidney stones, whereas other studies find that cranberry increases this risk.

The review concludes by saying “The incidence and prevalence of acute kidney injury associated with the use of traditional remedies is unknown and probably varies greatly from place to place. Since the use of traditional remedies is common worldwide, it is probably safe to assume that the incidence of acute kidney injury is not high. Individual morbidity, however, can be considerable.”

Continue Reading

Randomized control freakery

Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine has recently published an interesting review article on clinical trial design – ‘From randomized trials to registry studies: translating data into clinical information‘.

This isn’t a guide on how to read a clinical paper – you should have a look at Prof Trisha Greenhalgh‘s book ‘How to read a paper‘ or the extracts published in the BMJ way back in 1997 in you need tips on that front. Rather, the NCP Cardiovascular Medicine review examines different study designs, and interestingly puts forward a case for observational trials, as compared with randomized controlled trials.

Randomization – in which patients are allocated to treatment or no treatment (or placebo) in an entirely indiscriminate manner, thus distributing both known and unknown confounders between groups – and control or placebo groups – which comprise patients who do not receive the intervention – are the benchmarks of a good clinical study, allowing an investigator to isolate the effect of a treatment from various confounding factors.

However, the NCP review argues:

“The results of observational studies are often dismissed in favor of prospective randomized studies because of the widely recognized biases inherent in observational studies. Yet such studies form the basis of much of the medical knowledge we have today. Accordingly, rather than dismiss information gained from observational studies, it is more appropriate to recognize these biases and their effect on results, and to modify interpretation appropriately. Indeed, from a practical standpoint, all studies sustain some form of bias, either implicitly or explicitly.”

In addition, the authors state:

“Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria mean that the results of randomized studies might not be as applicable to general populations as are findings from observational studies, including both clinical registries and retrospective reviews”

The take-home message of the article is that practicing clinicans should analyze the patient population of a trial carefully before applying the findings to a patients of theirs.

This paper also discusses statistical power and the use of surrogate and composite end points, the validity (or not) of post hoc analysis, and the utility of peer review for spotting trial-design pitfalls. But obviously I’m more interested in the iconoclastic view of randomized controlled trials…

Continue Reading