Systematic reviews

High quality research is necessary to identify the diagnostic tests that are accurate and treatments that are effective. Systematic review of randomised controlled trials in literature is currently considered the best level of evidence in assessing whether a treatment is effective. Among systematic reviews, Cochrane systematic reviews are considered the best quality systematic reviews. I am the first author or contact author in more than 70 Cochrane systematic reviews and an author in more than 100 Cochrane systematic reviews. Overall, at least 40 of my systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analyses have been used in national or international guidelines indicating that his research is not only of high quality, but also that the research topics I choose are important for patient management. A list of important national and international guidelines that have used my research to draw clinical guidelines are listed in https://sites.google.com/view/kgurusamy-guidelinescitations/home". 

Randomised controlled trials

In addition to guiding clinical practice, systematic reviews highlight the evidence gap. I have tried to address these by being involved in the design of randomised controlled trials and translational research.

Clinical practice guideline development

I have also contributed to the development of several national or international clinical practice guidelines.

Identifying research priorities that are important to patients and clinicians

Recently, I have been using a more formal approach to identify the research priorities. I have already completed one on non-alcohol related liver and gallbladder disorders in UK in partnership with patient groups in UK. This priority setting partnership has identified research gaps in this field and allows research to be conducted on topics that are important to clinicians and patients. This will lead to systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and innovative translational research, and address the issues that are most important to patients and clinicians. I am also the lead methodologist for another priority setting partnership in healthcare associated infections.

Reliability assessment of preclinical research

Only a small proportion of preclinical research translate into clinical benefit. There are significant differences in the effect of interventions observed in animal experiments and that observed in clinical trials; some of the interventions shown to be beneficial in animals have turned out to be harmful in humans. I am currently in the process of performing a Delphi consensus process to assess the reliability of preclinical research study and whether the results of the preclinical study are likely to translate into human benefit.