Collaborative research has direct patient benefit and merits recognition

We are pleased that Donovan and Sangha noted our call for collaborative research to be fully recognised by postgraduate training selection panels.¹ However, we are concerned by their conflation of research collaboratives with ‘soft target’ journals which are financially motivated to publish work of such low scientific value, that it would not pass through peer review into a mainstream journal.²

Trainee research collaboratives conduct high impact multicentre studies, such as the West Midlands Research Collaborative's randomised controlled trial ‘Dexametasone reduces emesis after major surgery’ (DREAMS). This 1350 patient trial demonstrated that administration of dexamethasone at induction reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting by one-third.³ In the evidence-based medicine era, only multicentre studies like DREAMS can change clinical practice. By necessity these are delivered by large, complex teams; 300 coinvestigators contributed to DREAMS across 45 hospitals.

Although DREAMS recruited fewer than 5 patients per coinvestigator, opening the trial at each site, completing mandatory training, screening patients for eligibility, consenting and randomising patients, delivering interventions, and completing follow-up required a significant investment of time over many months; this does not equate to the ‘minimal effort’ outlined in Donovan and Sangha's letter.

Regardless of whether individuals participate ‘for the love of it’, research collaboratives enable students and trainees to lead and contribute to research that has the potential to improve patient care. Furthermore, it equips them with practical academic skills,⁴ promoting further engagement with research and quality improvement across the NHS.⁵ STARSurg's International Journal of Surgery letter argued that it is in patients’ interests for participation in high-quality research such as DREAMS to be fairly recognised by selection bodies on par with other types of publication.⁶ This position is supported by the core surgical training, neurosurgery, urology, and general surgery Specialty Association Committees who now recognise collaborative research in award of Certificates of Completion of Training.

We agree that it would be inappropriate to award points in selection processes for short letters. However, recognition of collaborative research is not only wholly merited, but also essential to ensure trainees continue to contribute to high-impact research for patient benefit.

Conflicts of interest

DN was the guarantor for Student Audit and Research in Surgery's (STARSurg) International Journal of Surgery letter. JCG is the current senior lead of STARSurg (www.starsurg.org, @STARSurgUK).