Anne has a background in cancer research. Her area of expertise is cancer stem cells (her group was the first to identify and isolate prostate cancer stem cells) and patient-derived cancer models (primary culture, organoids, PDX). More recent interests include the use of systematic review methodology to tackle the reproducibility crisis in biomedical research.
Shona has spent 8 years working in clinical epidemiology preparing systematic reviews, meta-analyses, rapid reviews, and health technology assessments to support policy making, licensing and reimbursement decisions in clinical research. Previous to this, she was a Wellcome Fellow in cancer research and tissue development. Her focus was alternative models to animal testing (human tissue culture, organoids, 3D models and stem cells).
We aim to provide a personalised service to our clients. Using our well-defined tools and methodology we provide a transparent summary of the evidence with a clear idea of the strengths and weaknesses to aid decision making. A personal commitment from the team will help clients succeed in any situation and with any type of project.
Our mission is to increase the success of biomedical translation using the principles of systematic review and open science. We help the expert and the non-expert understand the evidence. We provide a non-technical top-line summary of evidence, backed by detailed data and transparent judgments.
Our team has unique expertise in systematic reviews and critical appraisal combined with a deep understanding of biomedical science. This combination ensures we can bring expertise from both fields to enable a more insightful critique of research findings. We provide unbiased, critical assessments of study design and the validity of models and markers. We specialise in human cell models and their application in drug testing and precision medicine.
QED Biomedical Ltd. supports open science, the reproducibility project and the improvement of reporting in scientific journals. We advocate the submission of protocols and the publication of negative results to prevent publication bias and the prevention of wasted laboratory resources and expertise. We are interested in the development of tools and checklists to better critique the applicability of bench science to the clinic.