Is requiring Research Integrity Advisors a useful policy for improving research integrity? A census of advisors in Australia

Research Integrity Advisor s are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness.

Evaluating an audit and feedback intervention for reducing overuse of pathology test requesting by Australian general practitioners: protocol for a factorial cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Consistent evidence shows pathology services are overused worldwide and that about one-third of testing is unnecessary. Audit and feedback (AF) is effective for improving care but few trials evaluating AF to reduce pathology test requesting in primary care have been conducted. The aim of this trial is to estimate the effectiveness of AF for reducing requests for commonly overused pathology test combinations by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs) compared with no intervention control. A secondary aim is to evaluate which forms of AF are most effective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a factorial cluster randomised trial conducted in Australian general practice. It uses routinely collected Medicare Benefits Schedule data to identify the study population, apply eligibility criteria, generate the interventions and analyse outcomes. On 12 May 2022, all eligible GPs were simultaneously randomised to either no intervention control or to one of eight intervention groups. GPs allocated to an intervention group received individualised AF on their rate of requesting of pathology test combinations compared with their GP peers. Three separate elements of the AF intervention will be evaluated when outcome data become available on 11 August 2023: (1) invitation to participate in continuing professional development-accredited education on appropriate pathology requesting, (2) provision of cost information on pathology test combinations and (3) format of feedback. The primary outcome is the overall rate of requesting of any of the displayed combinations of pathology tests of GPs over 6 months following intervention delivery. With 3371 clusters, assuming no interaction and similar effects for each intervention, we anticipate over 95% power to detect a difference of 4.4 requests in the mean rate of pathology test combination requests between the control and intervention groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was received from the Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee (#JH03507; approved 30 November 2021). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. Reporting will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12622000566730.

Low-risk prostate lesions: An evidence review to inform discussion on losing the "cancer" label

BACKGROUND

Active surveillance (AS) mitigates harms from overtreatment of low-risk prostate lesions. Recalibration of diagnostic thresholds to redefine which prostate lesions are considered "cancer" and/or adopting alternative diagnostic labels could increase AS uptake and continuation.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and EMBASE to October 2021 for evidence on: (1) clinical outcomes of AS, (2) subclinical prostate cancer at autopsy, (3) reproducibility of histopathological diagnosis, and (4) diagnostic drift. Evidence is presented via narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

AS: one systematic review (13 studies) of men undergoing AS found that prostate cancer-specific mortality was 0%-6% at 15 years. There was eventual termination of AS and conversion to treatment in 45%-66% of men. Four additional cohort studies reported very low rates of metastasis (0%-2.1%) and prostate cancer-specific mortality (0%-0.1%) over follow-up to 15 years. Overall, AS was terminated without medical indication in 1%-9% of men. Subclinical reservoir: 1 systematic review (29 studies) estimated that the subclinical cancer prevalence was 5% at <30 years, and increased nonlinearly to 59% by >79 years. Four additional autopsy studies (mean age: 54-72 years) reported prevalences of 12%-43%. Reproducibility: 1 recent well-conducted study found high reproducibility for low-risk prostate cancer diagnosis, but this was more variable in 7 other studies. Diagnostic drift: 4 studies provided consistent evidence of diagnostic drift, with the most recent (published 2020) reporting that 66% of cases were upgraded and 3% were downgraded when using contemporary diagnostic criteria compared to original diagnoses (1985-1995).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence collated may inform discussion of diagnostic changes for low-risk prostate lesions.

Quantifying the psychological and behavioural consequences of a diagnostic label for non-cancer conditions: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Screening for asymptomatic health conditions is perceived as mostly beneficial, with possible harms receiving little attention.

AIMS

To quantify proximal and longer-term consequences for individuals receiving a diagnostic label following screening for an asymptomatic, non-cancer health condition.

METHOD

Five electronic databases were searched (inception to November 2022) for studies that recruited asymptomatic screened individuals who received or did not receive a diagnostic label. Eligible studies reported psychological, psychosocial and/or behavioural outcomes before and after screening results. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions). Results were meta-analysed or descriptively reported.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. Twelve studies addressed psychological outcomes, four studies examined behavioural outcomes and none reported psychosocial outcomes. Risk of bias was judged as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 5) or serious (n = 3). Immediately after receiving results, anxiety was significantly higher for individuals receiving versus not receiving a diagnostic label (mean difference -7.28, 95% CI -12.85 to -1.71). On average, anxiety increased from the non-clinical to clinical range, but returned to the non-clinical range in the longer term. No significant immediate or longer-term differences were found for depression or general mental health. Absenteeism did not significantly differ from the year before to the year after screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The impacts of screening asymptomatic, non-cancer health conditions are not universally positive. Limited research exists regarding longer-term impacts. Well-designed, high-quality studies further investigating these impacts are required to assist development of protocols that minimise psychological distress following diagnosis.

We extended the two-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology to larger, more complex systematic reviews: a case series

OBJECTIVE

In 2019, we invented the two-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology, to complete full, PRISMA-compliant systematic reviews in approximately 2 weeks. Since then, we have continued to develop and adapt the 2weekSR methodology for completing larger, and more complex systematic reviews, including less experienced or inexperienced team members.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For ten 2weekSRs, we collected data on: 1) systematic review characteristics; 2) systematic review teams; and 3) time to completion and publication. We have also continued to develop new tools and integrate them into the 2weekSR processes.

RESULTS

The 10 2weekSRs addressed intervention, prevalence and utilisation questions, and included a mix of randomised and observational studies. Reviews involved screening from 458 to 5,471 references, and included between 5 and 81 studies. Median team size was 6. Most reviews (7/10) included team-members with limited systematic review experience; three included team-members with no prior experience. Reviews required a median of 11 work-days (range: 5-20) and 17 calendar days (range: 5-84) to complete; time from journal submission to publication ranged from 99-260 days.

CONCLUSION

The 2weekSR methodology scales with review size and complexity, offering a considerable time-saving over traditionally conducted systematic reviews without relying on methodological shortcuts associated with 'rapid reviews.'

Non-drug interventions for reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission are frequently incompletely reported

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the completeness of reporting of behavioural, environmental, social and system interventions (BESSI) for reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 evaluated in randomised trials, to obtain missing intervention details and to document the interventions assessed.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We assessed completeness of reporting in randomised trials of BESSI using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Investigators were contacted to provide missing intervention details and if provided, intervention descriptions were reassessed and documented according to the TIDieR items.

RESULTS

Forty-five trials (planned or complete) describing 21 educational interventions, 15 protective measures and 9 social distancing interventions were included. In 30 trials with a protocol or study report, 30% (9/30) of interventions were completely described; this increased to 53% (16/30) after contacting 24 trial investigators (11 responded). Across all interventions, intervention provider training (35%) was the most frequently incompletely described checklist item, followed by the 'when and how much' intervention item.

CONCLUSION

Incomplete reporting of BESSI is a substantial problem, with essential information necessary for implementation of interventions and for building on existing knowledge frequently missing and unable to be obtained. Such reporting is an avoidable source of research waste.

Effect of covid-19 vaccination on long covid: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of covid-19 vaccination, given before and after acute infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid, on the rates and symptoms of long covid.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane covid-19 trials, and Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC) for preprints, from 1 January 2020 to 3 August 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies reporting on patients with long covid and symptoms of long covid, with vaccination before and after infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, or after a diagnosis of long covid. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

1645 articles were screened but no randomised controlled trials were found. 16 observational studies from five countries (USA, UK, France, Italy, and the Netherlands) were identified that reported on 614 392 patients. The most common symptoms of long covid that were studied were fatigue, cough, loss of sense of smell, shortness of breath, loss of taste, headache, muscle ache, difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, worry or anxiety, and memory loss or confusion. 12 studies reported data on vaccination before infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and 10 showed a significant reduction in the incidence of long covid: the odds ratio of developing long covid with one dose of vaccine ranged from 0.22 to 1.03; with two doses, odds ratios were 0.25-1; with three doses, 0.16; and with any dose, 0.48-1.01. Five studies reported on vaccination after infection, with odds ratios of 0.38-0.91. The high heterogeneity between studies precluded any meaningful meta-analysis. The studies failed to adjust for potential confounders, such as other protective behaviours and missing data, thus increasing the risk of bias and decreasing the certainty of evidence to low.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies suggest that covid-19 vaccines might have protective and therapeutic effects on long covid. More robust comparative observational studies and trials are needed, however, to clearly determine the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing and treating long covid.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/e8jdy.

Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Full texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996-2017 were automatically identified and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs.

RESULTS

We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using Robot Reviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs.

CONCLUSION

This comprehensive analysis provides an insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance.

METHODS

Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus.

RESULTS

The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research. This study aims to prioritise candidate reporting items to inform a reporting guideline for PC research.

DESIGN

Delphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group.

SETTING

International online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Interdisciplinary PC researchers and research users.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We drew potential reporting items from literature review and a series of international, interdisciplinary surveys. Using an anonymous, online survey, we asked participants to vote on and whether each candidate item should be included, required or recommended in a PC research reporting guideline. Items advanced to the next Delphi round if they received>50% votes to include. Analysis used descriptive statistics plus synthesis of free-text responses.

RESULTS

98/116 respondents completed round 1 (84% response rate) and 89/98 completed round 2 (91%). Respondents included a variety of healthcare professions, research roles, levels of experience and all five world regions. Round 1 presented 29 potential items, and 25 moved into round 2 after rewording and combining items and adding 2 new items. A majority of round 2 respondents voted to include 23 items (90%-100% for 11 items, 80%-89% for 3 items, 70%-79% for 3 items, 60%-69% for 3 items and 50%-59% for 3 items).

CONCLUSION

Our Delphi study identified items to guide the reporting of PC research that has broad endorsement from the community of producers and users of PC research. We will now use these results to inform the final development of the CRISP guidance for reporting PC research.

Approaches to prioritising research for clinical trial networks: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Prioritisation of clinical trials ensures that the research conducted meets the needs of stakeholders, makes the best use of resources and avoids duplication. The aim of this review was to identify and critically appraise approaches to research prioritisation applicable to clinical trials, to inform best practice guidelines for clinical trial networks and funders.

METHODS

A scoping review of English-language published literature and research organisation websites (January 2000 to January 2020) was undertaken to identify primary studies, approaches and criteria for research prioritisation. Data were extracted and tabulated, and a narrative synthesis was employed.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight primary studies and 18 websites were included. The majority of research prioritisation occurred in oncology and neurology disciplines. The main reasons for prioritisation were to address a knowledge gap (51 of 78 studies [65%]) and to define patient-important topics (28 studies, [35%]). In addition, research organisations prioritised in order to support their institution's mission, invest strategically, and identify best return on investment. Fifty-seven of 78 (73%) studies used interpretative prioritisation approaches (including Delphi surveys, James Lind Alliance and consensus workshops); six studies used quantitative approaches (8%) such as prospective payback or value of information (VOI) analyses; and 14 studies used blended approaches (18%) such as nominal group technique and Child Health Nutritional Research Initiative. Main criteria for prioritisation included relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Current research prioritisation approaches for groups conducting and funding clinical trials are largely interpretative. There is an opportunity to improve the transparency of prioritisation through the inclusion of quantitative approaches.

Instruments assessing risk of bias of randomized trials frequently included items that are not addressing risk of bias issues

OBJECTIVES

To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two reviewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.

RESULTS

Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items.

CONCLUSION

Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.

Knowledge of Musculoskeletal Medicine in Junior Doctors in Australia: Is It Adequate?

PURPOSE

The incidence of musculoskeletal disease is increasing in Australia and around the world. However, medical student education does not necessarily reflect current and projected trends in musculoskeletal medicine. The aim of this study was to assess junior doctors' competency in musculoskeletal medicine using the Freedman and Bernstein Basic Competency Examination in Musculoskeletal Medicine questionnaire.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of interns (first year post medical school) across four teaching hospitals in Australia. Interns were asked to take the Freedman and Bernstein examination during organised intern teaching sessions, and results were analysed using the original Freedman and Bernstein marking criteria and validated pass mark.

RESULTS

The mean score for the 92 interns was 13.9 out of 25 (55%) with scores ranging from 8 to 20.8 (29-83%). Only 8 of the 92 interns (8.7%) achieved a score of greater than 73%, the pre-specified pass mark.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies inadequacies in musculoskeletal medical knowledge in Australian interns. Review of undergraduate medical education may be required to reflect current and predicted trends in the prevalence of musculoskeletal disease and adequately prepare junior doctors.

Including Information on Overdiagnosis in Shared Decision Making: A Review of Prostate Cancer Screening Decision Aids

Background. Overdiagnosis is an accepted harm of cancer screening, but studies of prostate cancer screening decision aids have not examined provision of information important in communicating the risk of overdiagnosis, including overdiagnosis frequency, competing mortality risk, and the high prevalence of indolent cancers in the population. Methods. We undertook a comprehensive review of all publicly available decision aids for prostate cancer screening, published in (or translated to) the English language, without date restrictions. We included all decision aids from a recent systematic review and screened excluded studies to identify further relevant decision aids. We used a Google search to identify further decision aids not published in peer reviewed medical literature. Two reviewers independently screened the decision aids and extracted information on communication of overdiagnosis. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third author. Results. Forty-one decision aids were included out of the 80 records identified through the search. Most decision aids (n = 32, 79%) did not use the term overdiagnosis but included a description of it (n = 38, 92%). Few (n = 7, 17%) reported the frequency of overdiagnosis. Little more than half presented the benefits of prostate cancer screening before the harms (n = 22, 54%) and only 16, (39%) presented information on competing risks of mortality. Only 2 (n = 2, 5%) reported the prevalence of undiagnosed prostate cancer in the general population. Conclusion. Most patient decision aids for prostate cancer screening lacked important information on overdiagnosis. Specific guidance is needed on how to communicate the risks of overdiagnosis in decision aids, including appropriate content, terminology and graphical display.

Highlights

Most patient decision aids for prostate cancer screening lacks important information on overdiagnosis.Specific guidance is needed on how to communicate the risks of overdiagnosis.

Kidney trajectory charts to assist general practitioners in the assessment of patients with reduced kidney function: a randomised vignette study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the decisional impact of an age-based chart of kidney function decline to support general practitioners (GPs) to appropriately interpret estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and identify patients with a clinically relevant kidney problem.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Randomised vignette study PARTICIPANTS: 372 Australian GPs from August 2018 to November 2018.

INTERVENTION

GPs were given two patient case scenarios: (1) an older woman with reduced but stable renal function and (2) a younger Aboriginal man with declining kidney function still in the normal range. One group was given an age-based chart of kidney function to assist their assessment of the patient (initial chart group); the second group was asked to assess the patients without the chart, and then again using the chart (delayed chart group).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

GPs' assessment of the likelihood-on a Likert scale-that the patients had chronic kidney disease (CKD) according to the usual definition or a clinical problem with their kidneys.

RESULTS

Prior to viewing the age-based chart GPs were evenly distributed as to whether they thought case 1-the older woman-had CKD or a clinically relevant kidney problem. GPs who had initial access to the chart were less likely to think that the older woman had CKD, and less likely to think she had a clinically relevant problem with her kidneys than GPs who had not viewed the chart. After subsequently viewing the chart, 14% of GPs in the delayed chart group changed their opinion, to indicate she was unlikely to have a clinically relevant problem with her kidneys.Prior to viewing the chart, the majority of GPs (66%) thought case 2-the younger man-did not have CKD, and were evenly distributed as to whether they thought he had a clinically relevant kidney problem. In contrast, GPs who had initial access to the chart were more likely to think he had CKD and the majority (72%) thought he had a clinically relevant kidney problem. After subsequently viewing the chart, 37% of GPs in the delayed chart group changed their opinion to indicate he likely had a clinically relevant problem with his kidneys.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the chart changed GPs interpretation of eGFR, with increased recognition of the younger male patient's clinically relevant kidney problem, and increased numbers classifying the older female patient's kidney function as normal for her age. This study has shown the potential of an age-based kidney function chart to reduce both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis.

Telehealth v. face-to-face provision of care to patients with depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ensuring continuity of care for patients with major depressive disorders poses multiple challenges. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing real-time telehealth to face-to-face therapy for individuals with depression. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (to November 2020), conducted a citation analysis (January 2021), and searched clinical trial registries (March 2021). We included randomised controlled trials comparing similar or identical care, delivered via real-time telehealth (phone, video) to face-to-face. Outcomes included: depression severity, quality of life, therapeutic alliance, and care satisfaction. Where data were sufficient, mean differences were calculated. Nine trials (1268 patients) were included. There were no differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for depression severity at post-treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.13, p = 0.67) or at other time points, except at 9 months post-treatment (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.02, p = 0.04). One trial reported no differences in quality-of-life scores at 3- or 12-months post-treatment. One trial found no differences in therapeutic alliance at weeks 4 and 14 of treatment. There were no differences in treatment satisfaction between telehealth and face-to-face immediately post-treatment (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.28, p = 0.51) or at 3 or 12-months. Evidence suggests that for patients with depression or depression symptoms, the provision of care via telehealth may be a viable alternative to the provision of care face-to-face. However, additional trials are needed with longer follow-up, conducted in a wider range of settings, and with younger patients.

Effect of an Individualized Audit and Feedback Intervention on Rates of Musculoskeletal Diagnostic Imaging Requests by Australian General Practitioners: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Audit and feedback can improve professional practice, but few trials have evaluated its effectiveness in reducing potential overuse of musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging in general practice.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of audit and feedback for reducing musculoskeletal imaging by high-requesting Australian general practitioners (GPs).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This factorial cluster-randomized clinical trial included 2271 general practices with at least 1 GP who was in the top 20% of referrers for 11 imaging tests (of the lumbosacral or cervical spine, shoulder, hip, knee, and ankle/hind foot) and for at least 4 individual tests between January and December 2018. Only high-requesting GPs within participating practices were included. The trial was conducted between November 2019 and May 2021, with final follow-up on May 8, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1:1 ratio to 1 of 4 different individualized written audit and feedback interventions (n = 3055 GPs) that varied factorially by (1) frequency of feedback (once vs twice) and (2) visual display (standard vs enhanced display highlighting highly requested tests) or to a control condition of no intervention (n = 764 GPs). Participants were not masked.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the overall rate of requests for the 11 targeted imaging tests per 1000 patient consultations over 12 months, assessed using routinely collected administrative data. Primary analyses included all randomized GPs who had at least 1 patient consultation during the study period and were performed by statisticians masked to group allocation.

RESULTS

A total of 3819 high-requesting GPs from 2271 practices were randomized, and 3660 GPs (95.8%; n = 727 control, n = 2933 intervention) were included in the primary analysis. Audit and feedback led to a statistically significant reduction in the overall rate of imaging requests per 1000 consultations compared with control over 12 months (adjusted mean, 27.7 [95% CI, 27.5-28.0] vs 30.4 [95% CI, 29.8-30.9], respectively; adjusted mean difference, -2.66 [95% CI, -3.24 to -2.07]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among Australian general practitioners known to frequently request musculoskeletal diagnostic imaging, an individualized audit and feedback intervention, compared with no intervention, significantly decreased the rate of targeted musculoskeletal imaging tests ordered over 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12619001503112.

Testing behaviour may bias observational studies of vaccine effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Recent observational studies suggest that vaccines may have little effect in preventing infection with the Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the observed effects may be confounded by patient factors, preventive behaviours, or differences in testing behaviour. To assess potential confounding, we examined differences in testing behaviour between unvaccinated and vaccinated populations.

METHODS

We recruited 1,526 Australian adults for an online randomized study about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing in late 2021, collecting self-reported vaccination status and three measures of COVID-19 testing behaviour: testing in past month or ever and test intention if they woke with a sore throat. We examined the association between testing intentions and vaccination status in the trial's baseline data.

RESULTS

Of the 1,526 participants (mean age 31 y), 22% had a COVID-19 test in the past month and 61% ever; 17% were unvaccinated, 11% were partially vaccinated (one dose), and 71% were fully vaccinated (two or more doses). Fully vaccinated participants were twice as likely as those who were unvaccinated (relative risk [RR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 2.8, p < 0.001) to report positive COVID testing intentions. Partially vaccinated participants had less positive intentions than fully vaccinated participants (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89, p < 0.001) but higher intentions than unvaccinated participants (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.6, p = 0.002).

DISCUSSION

Vaccination predicted greater COVID-19 testing intentions and would substantially bias observed vaccine effectiveness. To account for differential testing behaviours, test-negative designs are currently the preferred option, but their assumptions need more thorough examination.

Evaluation of the Incremental Value of a Coronary Artery Calcium Score Beyond Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Coronary artery calcium scores (CACS) are used to help assess patients' cardiovascular status and risk. However, their best use in risk assessment beyond traditional cardiovascular factors in primary prevention is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To find, assess, and synthesize all cohort studies that assessed the incremental gain from the addition of a CACS to a standard cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator (or CVD risk factors for a standard calculator), that is, comparing CVD risk score plus CACS with CVD risk score alone.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Eligible studies needed to be cohort studies in primary prevention populations that used 1 of the CVD risk calculators recommended by national guidelines (Framingham Risk Score, QRISK, pooled cohort equation, NZ PREDICT, NORRISK, or SCORE) and assessed and reported incremental discrimination with CACS for estimating the risk of a future cardiovascular event.

FINDINGS

From 2772 records screened, 6 eligible cohort studies were identified (with 1043 CVD events in 17 961 unique participants) from the US (n = 3), the Netherlands (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), and South Korea (n = 1). Studies varied in size from 470 to 5185 participants (range of mean [SD] ages, 50 [10] to 75.1 [7.3] years; 38.4%-59.4% were women). The C statistic for the CVD risk models without CACS ranged from 0.693 (95% CI, 0.661-0.726) to 0.80. The pooled gain in C statistic from adding CACS was 0.036 (95% CI, 0.020-0.052). Among participants classified as being at low risk by the risk score and reclassified as at intermediate or high risk by CACS, 85.5% (65 of 76) to 96.4% (349 of 362) did not have a CVD event during follow-up (range, 5.1-10.0 years). Among participants classified as being at high risk by the risk score and reclassified as being at low risk by CACS, 91.4% (202 of 221) to 99.2% (502 of 506) did not have a CVD event during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the CACS appears to add some further discrimination to the traditional CVD risk assessment equations used in these studies, which appears to be relatively consistent across studies. However, the modest gain may often be outweighed by costs, rates of incidental findings, and radiation risks. Although the CACS may have a role for refining risk assessment in selected patients, which patients would benefit remains unclear. At present, no evidence suggests that adding CACS to traditional risk scores provides clinical benefit.

Real-Time Telehealth Versus Face-to-Face Management for Patients With PTSD in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing real-time telehealth (video, phone) with face-to-face therapy delivery to individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), by primary or allied health care practitioners. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central (inception to November 18, 2020); conducted a citation analysis on included studies (January 7, 2021) in Web of Science; and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP (March 25, 2021). No language or publication date restrictions were used. Study Selection: From 4,651 individual records screened, 13 trials (27 references) met the inclusion criteria. Data Extraction: Data on PTSD severity, depression severity, quality of life, therapeutic alliance, and treatment satisfaction outcomes were extracted. Results: There were no differences between telehealth and face-to-face for PTSD severity (at 6 months: standardized mean difference [SMD]  = -0.11; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.06), depression severity (at 6 months: SMD = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.22; P = .87), therapeutic alliance (at 3 months: SMD = 0.04; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.59; P = .90), or treatment satisfaction (at 3 months: mean difference = 3.09; 95% CI, -7.76 to 13.94; P = .58). One trial reported similar changes in quality of life in telehealth and face-to-face. Conclusions: Telehealth appears to be a viable alternative for care provision to patients with PTSD. Trials evaluating therapy provision by telephone, and in populations other than veterans, are warranted.

The impact of antibiotics on clinical response over time in uncomplicated cellulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis is highly variable with respect to agent, dose, and route of administration. As there is uncertainty about optimal/appropriate time to reassess, we aimed to assess time to clinical response.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials reporting clinical response of uncomplicated cellulitis to antibiotic treatment over multiple timepoints. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to June 2021 without language restrictions. The primary outcome was time to clinical response. Other outcomes were components of clinical response (pain, severity score, redness, edema measured at ≥ 2 timepoints) and the proportion of patients with treatment failure. We performed a pooled estimate of the average time to clinical response together with 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We included 32 randomized controlled trials (n = 13,576 participants). The mean time to clinical response was 1.68 days (95%CI 1.48-1.88; I² = 76%). The response to treatment for specific components was as follows: ~ 50% reduction of pain and severity score by day 5, a ~ 33% reduction in area of redness by day 2-3, and a 30-50% reduction of proportion of patients with edema by day 2-4. Treatment failure was variably defined with an overall failure rate of 12% (95%CI 9-16%).

CONCLUSION

The best available data suggest the optimal time to clinical reassessment is between 2 and 4 days, but this must be interpreted with caution due to considerable heterogeneity and small number of included studies.