How to document my BURST involvement


How to document my BURST involvement


For BURST prizes:

Order your prizes where you are part of the main authorship list first “Prizes, contributing as Steering Committee”, followed by “Writing Group”, “Regional lead”, Local lead”

Followed by as subsection “Prizes, contributing as Collaborator” where you can include all of the relevant prizes

For example: Prizes, contributing as Collaborator: Best Resident Abstract for IDENTIFY Study. European Association of Urology (EAU) 2019, Barcelona.


For BURST publications:

You can list all papers that you were collaborator in under your main publications.

For each paper, you list the title, main authorship line, indexing links and PubMed ID and at the end of each paper you should specify“Collaborative authorship”.

For example: Factors associated with spontaneous stone passage in a contemporarycohort of patients presenting with acute ureteric colic: results from the Multi-centre cohort study evaluating the role of Inflammatory Markers In patients presenting with acute ureteric Colic (MIMIC) study.Shah TT, Gao C, Peters M, et al. BJU Int. 2019;124(3):504-513. doi:10.1111/bju.14777. Collaborative authorship


As per National Research Collaborative & Association of Surgeons in Training Collaborative Consensus Group. Recognising contributions to work in research collaboratives: Guidelines for standardising reporting of authorship in collaborative research.Int J Surg. 2018;52:355-360. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.12.019 ,definitions of your role in a BURST Study may include one of the following:

1. Steering committee

A member of the steering committee is involved in the conception, development, administration and delivery of a study. They will typically be involved in study design, development of tools, preparation of the protocol, and dissemination plan. They will have in depth understanding of governance and research principles behind the study. The steering group will have critically appraised the literature in order to understand ap- propriate study methods and relevant data points.

2. Writing group

The writing group is responsible for reviewing existing evidence, assessing and/or analysing data from the project, and preparing a manuscript for publication. In order to do so, they will have critically appraised the literature and synthesised knowledge in context of project findings.

3. Regional lead

Not all studies will require a regional lead and it is likely to be an ‘optional’ role depending onthe structure of the study. Large multi-centre national studies often require individuals at a regional level to coordinate centres in that region to take part in the study. The regional lead is involved in the recruitment and support of participating sites. They share information between regions and the steering group. These individuals need to have an understanding of the research governance processes in order to open the study at local sites. The regional leads will be circulated summaries of analyses, and be required to approve a final manuscript for submission ahead of peer-review.

4. Local lead

The local lead is responsible for hospital or trust level co-ordination. They identify and confirm the names of local collaborators and support the named local clinician (where applicable). They should ensure that an appropriate number of local collaborators are involved and listed accordingly in any documentation. A key role of the local lead is to ensurelocal clinical governance approvals are obtained and adhered to. They should also ensure that the findings of the study are presented locally, or have a date arranged for local presentation, as part of audit sign-off. They are usually involved in collecting data for the project. Similarly, the local leads will be circulated summaries of analyses, and be required toapprove a final manuscript for submission ahead of peer-review.

5. Local collaborator

Local collaborators are responsible for the collection and return of data during the study. Each site may have more than one local collaborator. As well as trainees, a local consultant providing oversight to the group may be listed as a local collaborator. The collaborator will befamiliar with the study protocol and operate within local governance frameworks and approvals. Depending on the nature of the study, eligible patient numbers may vary. It is important that this is recognised by each steering group and targets adjusted accordingly. A final manuscript is circulated and reviewed by local collaborators ahead of peer-review.

6. Data validator

A data validator is typically involved in confirming case ascertainment and establishing data accuracy. This should ideally be someone who is independent from the data collection phase. The validator will be familiar with the study protocol and operate within local governance frameworks and approvals. Depending on the nature of the study, eligible patient numbers may vary. It is important that this is recognised by each steering group and targets adjusted accordingly. Similarly, a final manuscript is circulated and reviewed by local collaborators ahead of peer-review.

7. Data analysis group

This is someone who may be involved in formulating the statistical analysis plan and/or usesthe data produced in a study to summarise results, carry out statistical tests and draw conclusions, ready for presentation or publication.

8. Advisory group

This is someone who provides expert advice on the design and feasibility of a collaborative project. This includes pre-publication peer review, expert advice and guidance.

Copyright British Urology Researchers in Surgical Training (BURST) Research Collaborative @ 2020.