International Circulation: As chair of next year’s AHA scientific sessions， how will these changing RCTs effect the scientific sessions?
　　《国际循环》:作为下一年AHA学术会议的主席，您认为改变中的RCT会如何影响学术会议？
　　Dr. Harrington: You have to ask yourself， why do we have big scientific meetings like this? One reason is to share the latest science with the cardiovascular community.That is a massive effort of bringing professionals and their work together to a place where they can be group thematically. That gives opportunity to critique and comment on one another’s science. There is also peer-review scrutiny. There is a paper circulating from my former colleagues at Duke， and of the abstracts presented at this meeting， only about a third went on to be published within two years， and about half after five. Clearly， we a presenting a lot of preliminary data that does pass peer-review. Some of it， under scrutiny， is proven to not be accurate and in other cases， people lose interest. We have to figure how to bring this science together in a way that is meaningful to both the presenters and the listeners. On the question of the trials， we are trying to create some excitement. These tend to be the results that make a real difference in clinical practice， whereas much of the abstract work is the slow， incremental process of science. The late-breaking clinical trials may result in an immediate shift in practice. As the methodology behind the trial changes， you probably need to spend time discussing how the new methodology affects the quality or interpretation of the data， as trials fundamentally start to change， we will have to create new venues for hot-breaking information to hit the public scene. Part of the exercise of hosting these meetings is to figure out what is happening in greater society that should be incorporated in the meetings. A good example is using twitter， blogs， like dukecardiologyfellows.org. We are taking the tools used in other professions and bringing them to bear in ours. As the AHA， we need to create forums where this merging occurs.
　　Robert Harrington：你需要问自己，我们为什么要举行这种大型学术会议？一个原因是和心血管学术团体分享最新的科学信息，努力把教授们和他们的工作带到一起做专题讨论，为互相发表评论提供了机会，同时也有同行评审的审查机制。有一篇论文来自我过去在Duke的同事。在会议上报告的摘要，只有1/3能够在2年内发表，约一半能在5年内发表。我们很清楚的报告了很多没有通过同行评审的初步数据。其中有一些在评审中被证实不够准确，而有的则是因为人们对其失去了兴趣。我们需要寻找一种方式，能够将这些科学研究聚集在一起，并对讲者和听众都有意义。关于试验的问题，我们试图去创造些刺激，需要真正改变临床实践的研究结果，而现在大部分投递的摘要都是科学缓慢的增量过程。最新公布的临床试验可能会导致临床实践的即刻改变。随着试验背后方法学的改变，你可能需要花时间去讨论新的方法学如何影响数据的质量和解读，因为试验从根本上开始改变，我们需要创造新舞台，使热门的新消息能够冲击公共视线。举办这些会议的举措之一就是找出在外界社会中发生的事情中，哪些应当被引入会议中。很好的例子就是利用twitter和博客，如dukecardiologyfellows.org。我们拿起其他行业中使用的工具，将其收归己用。我们需要在这些融合的地方创造论坛。
　　International Circulation: In addition to the late-breaking clinical trials， there are also had clinical science special reports. What is the purpose of these reports?
　　《国际循环》:除了最新公布的临床试验之外，还有临床科学专门报告。这些报告的目的何在？
　　Dr. Harrington: It is to get people galvanized. What happened was that， as part of our call for late-breaking trials， we cast a wide net. Close to a 100 potential late-breaking clinical trials were sent in. Ordinarily， we only choose 16 of those. This year， we added a few more sessions and structured them differently， such as not needing a commentator or organizing them thematically. For this， we selected 27 trials. Finally， we selected a group of four sessions， and because they could not be considered clinical trials， we changed the name to clinical science special reports. This name reflects that they were different from the mainstream abstracts. Many were registries. We had something from Japan， from the Gulf States， we had an observation follow up from a RCT， etc. These were global and we had a commentator from China and from the Qatar. This is what the Heart Meeting should be.
　　Robert Harrington：是为了刺激人们的兴趣。作为我们号召最新试验的努力一部分，我们进行了广撒网。一共提交近100个潜在的最新临床试验。通常我们只选取16个。今年，我们增加了一些新的议程，并且进行不同的组织，例如不需要评论员或按照专题来组织。因此，我们选择了27个试验。最终，我们选择了4个议程。因为它们还不能被认为是临床试验，我们将议程的名字改为临床科学专门报告。名字反映了它们和主流的文献摘要不一样。很多都是注册研究。有来自日本，海湾国家的研究，有来自RCT的观察性随访。这些都是全球性的，我们还有来自中国和卡塔尔的评论员。一个心脏大会就应当是这样。

上一页  [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]  [5]