- Email: [email protected]
The Charles R. Ream, MD, Award for Excellence—2001
VOLUME
63, No, 3, MARCH 2002
Announcement
The Charles R. Ream, MD, Award for Excellence--2001 The Editorial Board of Current Therapeutic Research@is pleased to announce the recipient of the Charles R. Ream, MD, Award for Excellence for 2001. The winning authors are Roger Sergysels and Genevieve Art for their article “A Double Masked, PlaceboControlled Polysomnographic Study of the Antitussive Effects of Helicidine” (CUWTher Res. 2001;62:35-47). They will receive a crystal globe representing the international nature of the articles published in the journal. Based on the Editorial Board’s wide range of nominees for the awardrandomized controlled trials, critical pharmacologic studies, methodologic innovations, even reports of failures-2001 seems to have been an outstanding year for the journal. The Editor-in-Chief’s task as final arbiter, never easy, was made more difficult by the fact that several papers received the same number of votes. Nevertheless, comments from Editorial Board members as well as the solid methodologic approach of Dr. Sergysels and Ms. Art tipped the balance in their favor. Although it is not simple, 1 can hardly think of a more enjoyable kind of decision-making than having to choose from among so many worthy candidates. The winning study met the rigorous standards of regulatory bodies, 21stcentury ethical considerations, and principles developed over the years by clinical scientists. For example, whenever possible, masking procedures involved not only patients and researchers, but also the procedures involved in collecting all-night polysomnographic and earprobe data. The protocol allowed individuals who were taking therapeutic agents to participate in the study as long as there was no change in this therapy during the study. Compliance was not simply determined but was assessed and used in determining the perprotocol population. The authors carried out a prestudy pilot trial to determine the power of the conditions and methods to be used in the larger study. Data from the pilot study were summarized and reported in the final paper. Appropriately, no one who participated in the pilot study took part in the definitive trial. In writing up the statistical aspects of their study, the authors communicated directly and in plain English, acknowledging the help of 2 statisticians who controlled the analysis. The research team carried out both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of the data, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions based on a clear presentation of the information. Although the drug’s tolerability in this short-term trial of an old product (available for 40 years) could not truly be assessed in 15 people studied for 3 days, severe adverse effects might have been detected. Finally, the authors searched for a niche for their data-not a broad indication for the medication but a narrower, more focused one well within the bounds of the study.
165
CURRENTTHERAPEUTIC RESEARCH~
The staff of Current Therapeutic Research@wish to thank the members of the Editorial Board for their contributions, as well as the authors of all the articles published in the journal in 2001. This award is a true memorial to Dr. Ream, because it celebrates his understanding of the importance of striving toward seemingly unattainable goals in science. Michael Weintraub,
Editor-in-Chief
166
MD
63, No, 3, MARCH 2002
Announcement
The Charles R. Ream, MD, Award for Excellence--2001 The Editorial Board of Current Therapeutic Research@is pleased to announce the recipient of the Charles R. Ream, MD, Award for Excellence for 2001. The winning authors are Roger Sergysels and Genevieve Art for their article “A Double Masked, PlaceboControlled Polysomnographic Study of the Antitussive Effects of Helicidine” (CUWTher Res. 2001;62:35-47). They will receive a crystal globe representing the international nature of the articles published in the journal. Based on the Editorial Board’s wide range of nominees for the awardrandomized controlled trials, critical pharmacologic studies, methodologic innovations, even reports of failures-2001 seems to have been an outstanding year for the journal. The Editor-in-Chief’s task as final arbiter, never easy, was made more difficult by the fact that several papers received the same number of votes. Nevertheless, comments from Editorial Board members as well as the solid methodologic approach of Dr. Sergysels and Ms. Art tipped the balance in their favor. Although it is not simple, 1 can hardly think of a more enjoyable kind of decision-making than having to choose from among so many worthy candidates. The winning study met the rigorous standards of regulatory bodies, 21stcentury ethical considerations, and principles developed over the years by clinical scientists. For example, whenever possible, masking procedures involved not only patients and researchers, but also the procedures involved in collecting all-night polysomnographic and earprobe data. The protocol allowed individuals who were taking therapeutic agents to participate in the study as long as there was no change in this therapy during the study. Compliance was not simply determined but was assessed and used in determining the perprotocol population. The authors carried out a prestudy pilot trial to determine the power of the conditions and methods to be used in the larger study. Data from the pilot study were summarized and reported in the final paper. Appropriately, no one who participated in the pilot study took part in the definitive trial. In writing up the statistical aspects of their study, the authors communicated directly and in plain English, acknowledging the help of 2 statisticians who controlled the analysis. The research team carried out both intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses of the data, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions based on a clear presentation of the information. Although the drug’s tolerability in this short-term trial of an old product (available for 40 years) could not truly be assessed in 15 people studied for 3 days, severe adverse effects might have been detected. Finally, the authors searched for a niche for their data-not a broad indication for the medication but a narrower, more focused one well within the bounds of the study.
165
CURRENTTHERAPEUTIC RESEARCH~
The staff of Current Therapeutic Research@wish to thank the members of the Editorial Board for their contributions, as well as the authors of all the articles published in the journal in 2001. This award is a true memorial to Dr. Ream, because it celebrates his understanding of the importance of striving toward seemingly unattainable goals in science. Michael Weintraub,
Editor-in-Chief
166
MD