Editorial: Cancer: the revolution has begun : The Lancet

full free access: Ovarian cancer: relevant therapy, not timing, is paramount : The Lancet

Note: registration required to view (free)

media item: New Clues to Treating Ovarian Cancer Relapse

New Clues to Treating Ovarian Cancer Relapse
Starting chemotherapy when first signs reappear not especially effective, study finds "This paper, the first randomized trial to look at the timing of chemo in women with recurring ovarian cancer, appears in the Oct. 2 issue of The Lancet, a special themed issue on cancer...."

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61268-8/abstract
SOURCES: Andrew Berchuck, M.D., director, division of gynecologic oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.; Robert A. Burger, M.D., professor of surgical oncology, section of gynecologic oncology and director, Women's Cancer Center, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia; Oct. 2, 2010, The Lancet

Donald Berwick takes charge of Medicare and Medicaid : The Lancet

Berwick's Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) developed programmes in the US and around the world that focused on improved delivery systems. Among the group's innovations is the “100 000 Lives” campaign, which challenged hospitals to reduce medical errors. Altman said the programme “almost single handedly” changed attitudes among hospital administrators towards a focus on patient safety.

Genomics in our own hands : The Lancet Neurology

Note: the paper is freely accessible (requires registration (free)

Putting research into context—revisited : The Lancet - Editorial

Note: this article is free to view; requires registration

"In July, 2005, Lancet editors wrote that “we will require authors of clinical trials submitted to The Lancet to include a clear summary of previous research findings, and to explain how their trial's findings affect this summary.
They called for the relation between existing and new evidence to be referenced to a published systematic review or meta-analysis. The CONSORT statement2 first required in 1996 that findings should be interpreted to take into account the totality of the evidence.
Michael Clarke and colleagues have been monitoring since then how the five high-impact journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine) have been doing. They report in The Lancet today their latest results for May, 2009.
Their findings are discouraging: only one of 24 reports that were not first trials placed the results in the context of an updated systematic review in the Discussion.
They conclude that there is no evidence of progress since 1997, and that editors and authors are not informing sufficiently those who have to make decisions about health care."
Clearly, clinicians and others in health care need to know what the results of research mean for patients.
Authors and editors can help them by doing exactly what CONSORT4 and Clarke and colleagues call for. 
Authors need to spell out what their study adds to other work and what that means for clinical practice...."cont'd