Jane Nikles

Dr. Jane Nikles


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
22 March 2018 in International Journal for Equity in Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CAChalachew Alemayehu
Chalachew Alemayehu
GMGeoffrey Keith Mitchell
Geoffrey Keith Mitchell
JNJane Nikles
Jane Nikles
Clinical trials for identification of efficient and effective new diagnostic and treatment modalities are needed to address disproportionately high burden of communicable (e.g., HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria) and non-communicable diseases (e.g., diabetes) in developing countries. However, gross under-representation in global clinical trial platforms contributes to sustained health inequity in these countries. We reviewed the literature on barriers facing clinical researchers in developing countries for conducting clinical trials in their countries. Literature indexed in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, WHO Global Health Library were searched. Grey literature was also searched. Search key words included barriers, challenges, clinical trials and developing countries. Articles within the scope of this review were appraised by two reviewers. Ten studies, which are reported in 15 papers, were included in this review. Following critical review we identified five unifying themes for barriers. Barriers for conducting clinical trials included lack of financial and human capacity, ethical and regulatory system obstacles, lack of research environment, operational barriers and competing demands. There were substantial barriers at system, organization and individual level. We propose that to address this problem, instituting a system for wider implementation of local investigator-initiated trials is warranted. These trials are more applicable to local populations because they build on local healthcare knowledge. They are more demand-led, influence policy and responsive to a country’s needs because they are driven by a local or national agenda.

17 July 2001 in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
LKLeisa King
Leisa King
GWG.M. Williams
G.M. Williams
JNJane Nikles
Jane Nikles
SSSusan Spence
Susan Spence
WBW. Bor
W. Bor
GSG. J. Shuttlewood
G. J. Shuttlewood

1 May 2000 in Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LKLeisa King
Leisa King
GWGail M. Williams
Gail M. Williams
JNJane Nikles
Jane Nikles
SSSue Spence
Sue Spence
WBWilliam Bor
William Bor
MAMargaret J. Andersen
Margaret J. Andersen

14 May 2015 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SVSunita Vohra
Sunita Vohra
LSLarissa Shamseer
Larissa Shamseer
MSMargaret Sampson
Margaret Sampson
CBCecilia Bukutu
Cecilia Bukutu
CSChristopher H Schmid
Christopher H Schmid
TGthe CENT group
the CENT group
N-of-1 trials provide a mechanism for making evidence based treatment decisions for an individual patient. They use key methodological elements of group clinical trials to evaluate treatment effectiveness in a single patient, for situations that cannot always accommodate large scale trials: rare diseases, comorbid conditions, or in patients using concurrent therapies. Improvement in the reporting and clarity of methods and findings in N-of-1 trials is essential for reader to gauge the validity of trials and to replicate successful findings. A CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT 2015) provides guidance on the reporting of individual and series of N-of-1 trials. CENT provides additional guidance for 14 of the 25 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and recommends a diagram for depicting an individual N-of-1 trial and modifies the CONSORT flow diagram to address the flow of a series of N-of-1 trials. The rationale, development process, and CENT 2015 checklist and diagrams are reported in this document.

1 July 2016 in Physical Therapy
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
RTRobyn L. Tate
Robyn L. Tate
MPMichael Perdices
Michael Perdices
URUlrike Rosenkoetter
Ulrike Rosenkoetter
WSWilliam Shadish
William Shadish
SVSunita Vohra
Sunita Vohra
BWBarbara Wilson
Barbara Wilson
We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Scientific Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated.Keywords: single-case design, methodology, reporting guidelines, publication standardsSupplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000026.supp

14 May 2015 in BMJ
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
LSLarissa Shamseer
Larissa Shamseer
MSMargaret Sampson
Margaret Sampson
CBCecilia Bukutu
Cecilia Bukutu
CSChristopher H Schmid
Christopher H Schmid
JNJane Nikles
Jane Nikles
TGthe CENT group
the CENT group
N-of-1 trials are a useful tool for clinicians who want to determine the effectiveness of a treatment in a particular individual. The reporting of N-of-1 trials has been variable and incomplete, hindering their usefulness in clinical decision making and by future researchers. This document presents the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT 2015). CENT 2015 extends the CONSORT 2010 guidance to facilitate the preparation and appraisal of reports of an individual N-of-1 trial or a series of prospectively planned, multiple, crossover N-of-1 trials. CENT 2015 elaborates on 14 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist, totalling 25 checklist items (44 sub-items), and recommends diagrams to help authors document the progress of one participant through a trial or more than one participant through a trial or series of trials, as applicable. Examples of good reporting and evidence based rationale for CENT 2015 checklist items are provided.