Selected papers
Inflammation and Healing Lab
Early blood markers and complications after bowel surgery: a cohort study
Ashdown M, Vossberg C, Pemberley N, et al. Journal of Example Surgery, 2026. doi:10.5555/example.2026.001
In plain language: We measured inflammation in the blood of 400 people on the second day after bowel surgery. People with high levels were three times more likely to develop a complication, which suggests a simple test could help teams decide who needs closer monitoring.
Perioperative Outcomes Group
Home-based prehabilitation before major abdominal surgery: a pilot randomised trial
Wrenfield T, Fenwright S, Aldous M, et al. Example Perioperative Medicine, 2025. doi:10.5555/example.2025.014
In plain language: Sixty people did a four-week home exercise programme before surgery, or usual care. Most people finished the programme, and those who did walked further after surgery. A larger trial is now recruiting.
Critical Care Recovery Group
One year after intensive care: recovery trajectories of patients and families
Brannagan I, Strand L, et al. Example Critical Care Journal, 2025. doi:10.5555/example.2025.022
In plain language: We followed 250 people for a year after intensive care. Half still had problems with fatigue at six months, and family members reported high levels of stress. Support needs to start before people leave hospital.
Digital Rehabilitation Lab
Agreement between smartphone step counts and the six-minute walk test
Ormsby F, Quill J, et al. Example Digital Health, 2026. doi:10.5555/example.2026.009
In plain language: Step counts from ordinary smartphones tracked closely with a standard clinic walking test. This means rehabilitation progress could be checked at home without extra equipment.
Community Trials Unit
Returning trial results to participants: a comparison of three approaches
Castellane P, Hartigan R, et al. Example Trials Methodology, 2025. doi:10.5555/example.2025.031
In plain language: We asked trial participants how they preferred to hear about results. Short videos and community meetings were both understood better than printed summaries, and people valued hearing from the research team directly.