Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonogaphy: a study in a symptomatic population

CT colonography (CTC) is increasingly used to detect colonic polyps and cancers, but its impact in practice is also influenced by frequent detection of extracolonic lesions. We have previously documented the frequency and nature of such lesions. The current study was performed to assess the clinical resources and costs associated with the investigation and treatment of extracolonic lesions. We reviewed the reports of 225 consecutive CTC examinations carried out on patients with symptoms of bowel cancer. 116 of the 225 were reported to have one or more extracolonic findings. All 116 patients with an abnormality were followed up for 12-24 months. 24 patients underwent further actions (outpatient attendance, investigations, or surgical procedures) as a result of previously undiagnosed lesions unrelated to bowel cancer. The costs of these further actions were derived from the NHS Reference Costs manual 2004. The total cost for further investigations and interventions was 34,329 pounds sterling and the mean cost over the sample of 225 patients was 153 pounds sterling--more than the cost of the CTC itself. The costs were mainly generated by surgical procedures. Resources consumed as a result of extracolonic findings approximately doubled the costs of diagnostic CTC. These costs, along with inconvenience, anxiety, morbidity and occasionally even mortality suffered by patients, must be offset by the good done to some of those with sub-clinical but potentially lethal diseases.

Laparoscopic "drilling" by diathermy or laser for ovulation induction in anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome

BACKGROUND

Problems in inducing ovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and anovulation (failure to ovulate) are well recognised. Surgical ovarian wedge resection was the first established treatment for anovulatory PCOS patients but was largely abandoned due to the risk of post-surgical adhesions and the introduction of medical ovulation induction with clomiphene and gonadotrophins. However patients with PCOS treated with gonadotrophins often have an over-production of follicles and are exposed to the risks of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple pregnancy. Moreover ovulation induction with gonadotrophins, though effective, is an expensive, inconvenient and time-consuming treatment requiring intensive monitoring. Surgical therapy with laparoscopic ovarian "drilling" (LOD) may avoid or reduce the need for gonadotrophins or may facilitate their use. The procedure can be done on an outpatient basis with less trauma and fewer postoperative adhesions. Many uncontrolled observational studies have claimed that ovarian drilling is followed, at least temporarily, by a high rate of spontaneous ovulation and conception, and/or that subsequent medical ovulation induction becomes easier.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of laparoscopic ovarian drilling compared with ovulation induction for subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We used the search strategy of the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of subfertile women with clomiphene-resistant PCOS that undertook laparoscopic ovarian drilling in order to induce ovulation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fifteen trials were identified and six were included in the review. All trials were assessed for quality criteria. The primary outcomes were live birth, ovulation and pregnancy rates and the secondary outcomes were rates of miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and cost.

MAIN RESULTS

There was no evidence of a difference in live births or ongoing pregnancies between LOD and gonadotrophins and the pooled Odds Ratio (OR) (all studies) was 1.04 (95% CI 0.74, 1.99) and 1.16 (95% CI 0.72, 1.86) respectively. Multiple pregnancy rates were lower with ovarian drilling than with gonadotrophins (1% vs 16%, OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.59). There was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates between the two groups (OR 0.81, 955% 0.36, 1.86).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a difference in the live birth rate and miscarriage rate in women with clomiphene resistant PCOS undergoing LOD compared to gonadotrophin treatment. The reduction in multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing LOD makes this option attractive. However, there are ongoing concerns about long term effects of LOD on ovarian function.

Lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To research the lay public's understanding of equipoise and randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and to look at why information on this may not be not taken in or remembered, as well as the effects of providing information designed to overcome barriers.

DESIGN

Investigations were informed by an update of systematic review on patients' understanding of consent information in clinical trials, and by relevant theory and evidence from experimental psychology. Nine investigations were conducted with nine participants.

SETTING

Access (return to education), leisure and vocational courses at Further Education Colleges in the Midlands, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthy adults with a wide range of educational backgrounds and ages.

INVESTIGATIONS

Participants read hypothetical scenarios and wrote brief answers to subsequent questions. Sub-samples of participants were interviewed individually to elaborate on their written answers. Participants' background assumptions concerning equipoise and randomisation were examined and ways of helping participants recognise the scientific benefits of randomisation were explored.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Judgments on allocation methods; treatment preferences; the acceptability of random allocation; whether or not individual doctors could be completely unsure about the best treatment; whether or not doctors should reveal treatment preferences under conditions of collective equipoise; and how sure experts would be about the best treatment following random allocation vs doctor/patient choice. Assessments of understanding hypothetical trial information.

RESULTS

Recent literature continues to report trial participants' failure to understand or remember information about randomisation and equipoise, despite the provision of clear and readable trial information leaflets. In current best practice, written trial information describes what will happen without offering accessible explanations. As a consequence, patients may create their own incorrect interpretations and consent or refusal may be inadequately informed. In six investigations, most participants identified which methods of allocation were random, but judged the random allocation methods to be unacceptable in a trial context; the mere description of a treatment as new was insufficient to engender a preference for it over a standard treatment; around half of the participants denied that a doctor could be completely unsure about the best treatment. A majority of participants judged it unacceptable for a doctor to suggest letting chance decide when uncertain of the best treatment, and, in the absence of a justification for random allocation, participants did not recognise scientific benefits of random allocation over normal treatment allocation methods. The pattern of results across three intervention studies suggests that merely supplementing written trial information with an explanation is unlikely to be helpful. However, when people manage to focus on the trial's aim of increasing knowledge (as opposed to making treatment decisions about individuals), and process an explanation actively, they may be helped to understand the scientific reasons for random allocation.

CONCLUSIONS

This research was not carried out in real healthcare settings. However, participants who could correctly identify random allocation methods, yet judged random allocation unacceptable, doubted the possibility of individual equipoise and saw no scientific benefits of random allocation over doctor/patient choice, are unlikely to draw upon contrasting views if invited to enter a real clinical trial. This suggests that many potential trial participants may have difficulty understanding and remembering trial information that conforms to current best practice in its descriptions of randomisation and equipoise. Given the extent of the disparity between the assumptions underlying trial design and the assumptions held by the lay public, the solution is unlikely to be simple. Nevertheless, the results suggest that including an accessible explanation of the scientific benefits of randomisation may be beneficial provided potential participants are also enabled to reflect on the trial's aim of advancing knowledge, and to think actively about the information presented. Further areas for consideration include: the identification of effective combinations of written and oral information; helping participants to reflect on the aim of advancing knowledge; and an evidence-based approach to leaflet construction.

Incidental lesions found on CT colonography: their nature and frequency

CT colonography has been used to detect colonic polyps and cancers, but its effect in practice will also be influenced by the frequency with which extracolonic lesions of various types are detected. We performed a systematic review of the types of incidental lesions found on CT colonography. This is necessary to model the benefits and harms of detecting extracolonic lesions. Primary clinical studies of extracolonic findings on CT colonography were identified from electronic databases, scanning reference lists and hand searches of relevant journals and conference proceedings. A data collection proforma was used to collect information on extracolonic findings. 17 discreet studies were identified, involving 3488 patients. In total 40% of patients were recorded to have abnormalities and many had more than one abnormality. Nearly 14% of patients had further investigations and 0.8% were given immediate treatment. Extracolonic cancers were detected in 2.7% (0.9% had N0M0 cancers) and 0.9% had an aortic aneurysm. The number of extracolonic findings was high in all studies. While only a small population were judged "important", the prevalence of serious lesions outside the colon was nevertheless higher than in many other screening programs.

Organizing patient safety research to identify risks and hazards

Patient safety has become an international priority with major research programmes being carried out in the USA, UK, and elsewhere. The challenge is how to organize research efforts that will produce the greatest yield in making health care safer for patients. Patient safety research initiatives can be considered in three different stages: (1) identification of the risks and hazards; (2) design, implementation, and evaluation of patient safety practices; and (3) maintaining vigilance to ensure that a safe environment continues and patient safety cultures remain in place. Clearly, different research methods and approaches are needed at each of the different stages of the continuum. A number of research approaches can be used at stage 1 to identify risks and hazards including the use of medical records and administrative record review, event reporting, direct observation, process mapping, focus groups, probabilistic risk assessment, and safety culture assessment. No single method can be universally applied to identify risks and hazards in patient safety. Rather, multiple approaches using combinations of these methods should be used to increase identification of risks and hazards of health care associated injury or harm to patients.

The measurement of active errors: methodological issues

The value of research in any topic area turns on its validity. Patient safety research has revealed--or, at least, given renewed urgency to--a raft of methodological issues. The meaning and thus the value of empirical research in this field is contingent on getting the methodology right. The need for good methods for the measurement of error is necessary whenever an inference is intended and, since inferences lie at the heart of research and management, there is a huge need to understand better how to make measurements that are meaningful, precise, and accurate. In this paper we consider issues relating to the measurement of error and the need for more research.

Redesigning postnatal care: a randomised controlled trial of protocol-based midwifery-led care focused on individual women's physical and psychological health needs

OBJECTIVES

To develop, implement and test the cost-effectiveness of redesigned postnatal care compared with current care on women's physical and psychological health.

DESIGN

A cluster randomised controlled trial, with general practice as the unit of randomisation. Recruited women were followed up by postal questionnaire at 4 and 12 months postpartum and further data collected from midwife and general practice sources.

SETTING

Thirty-six randomly selected general practice clusters in the West Midlands Health Region, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

All women expected to be resident within recruited practices for postnatal care were eligible for inclusion. Attached midwives recruited 1087 women in the intervention and 977 in the control practice clusters.

INTERVENTIONS

The systematic identification and management of women's health problems, led by midwives with general practitioner contact only when required. Symptom checklists and the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) were used at various times to maximise the identification of problems, and individual care and visit plans based on needs. Evidence-based guidelines were used to manage needs. Care was delivered over a longer period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Women's health at 4 and 12 months, assessed by the Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and the EPDS. Women's views about care, reported morbidity at 12 months, health service usage during the year, 'good practice' indicators and health professionals' views about care were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

At 4 and 12 months postpartum the mean MCS and EPDS scores were significantly better in the intervention group and the proportion of women with an EPDS score of 13+ (indicative of probable depression) was significantly lower relative to controls. The physical health score (PCS) did not differ. Health service usage was significantly less in the intervention group as well as reported psychological morbidity at 12 months. Women's views about care were either more positive or did not differ. Intervention midwives were more satisfied with redesigned care than control midwives were with standard care. Intervention care was cost-effective since outcomes were better and costs did not differ substantially.

CONCLUSIONS

The redesigned community postnatal care led by midwives and delivered over a longer period, resulted in an improvement in women's mental health at 4 months postpartum, which persisted at 12 months and at equivalent overall cost. It is suggested that further research should focus on: the identification of postnatal depression through screening; whether fewer adverse longer term effects might be demonstrated among the children of the women who had the intervention care relative to the controls; testing interventions to reduce physical morbidity, including studies to validate measures of physical health in postpartum women. Further research is also required to investigate appropriate postnatal care for ethnic minority groups.

Top-rated British business research: has the emperor got any clothes?

Business schools have great prestige and charge large amounts of money for their courses. But how good is the science on which they base their prescriptions for action? To find out we examined the published output from the only three British business schools with the highest (5*) research assessment ranking at the time the articles were published. We conclude that theory development and model construction are often elegant. However, the methods used to obtain primary empirical information to confirm or refute the theories or populate models are poor, at least from a positivist or pragmatic ontological perspective. Large scale comparative studies made up only a small proportion of research output from the business schools. Literature reviews were not systematic. The sampling frame and rationale for selection of cases for study are inadequately described. The methods of data collection were frequently not given in sufficient detail to enable the study to be replicated and the conclusions tended to go far beyond what the data by themselves could support. However, this does not have to be the case-there are excellent examples of research in social sciences. We conclude, therefore, that top-rated British business research is a scantily clad emperor.

The Leeds University Maternity Audit Project

OBJECTIVES

To measure levels of and changes in compliance with evidence-based recommendations in obstetrics in the UK. To identify barriers to and factors associated with compliance.

DESIGN

A quantitative case-note audit for 1988 and 1996, and a qualitative interview study of key staff.

SETTING

Twenty maternity units, selected at random from all UK units

SUBJECTS

Fifty consecutive cases of pre-term delivery (PTD), Caesarean section (CS), instrumental delivery (ID), and perineal repair (PR) operations in each period in each unit. The lead clinician, midwifery manager, a senior midwife, neonatologist, and middle-grade obstetrician in each unit.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Maternal steroid use in PTD, antibiotic use in CS, use of the ventouse (vacuum extractor) rather than forceps as instrument of first choice for ID, and use of polyglycolic acid (PGA) sutures for PR in each time period. Facilities for implementing, staff attitudes to, and the degree of planning to follow each recommendation.

MAIN RESULTS

The median proportion of ventouse as instrument of first choice in each unit was 8% (range 0-32%) in 1988, rising to 64% (range 0-98%) in 1996. PGA use for PR was 0% (range 0-30%) in 1988, and 72% (range 0-100%) in 1996. Steroid use for eligible PTD was median 0% (range 0-23%) in 1988, rising to 82% (range 63-95%) in 1996. Antibiotic use for CS was 7% (range 0-25%) rising to 84% (range 10-100%) in 1996. There was no relationship between unit size, type of unit, facilities, staff attitudes or degree of planning, and compliance with the recommendations, nor was the level of adherence to one standard typically correlated with adherence to the others. However, there was a positive correlation (R = 0.6, P < 0.005) between local availability of the Cochrane database of perinatal trials and unit compliance with the audit standards in the latter time period.

CONCLUSIONS

We have documented a massive shift in practice in line with the evidence, although many units still have substantial room for improvement. About 2000 wound infections, 200 deaths due to prematurity, nearly 8000 women in pain from catgut sutures, and 1500 cases of severe perineal trauma from forceps remain preventable. The reasons why units vary remain obscure, although the qualitative interviews often revealed local factors such as key enthusiastic staff. There was no sign of evidence being positively driven into practice by any systematic managerial process. The relationship between Cochrane availability and high-standard care may be simply a marker of commitment to the evidence, but it remains plausible that if senior staff make Cochrane available for their juniors, audit compliance improves.

Different perspectives of patients and health care professionals on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple embryo transfer

BACKGROUND

A trade-off exists between the risk of multiple pregnancy and prospects of pregnancy itself in assisted reproduction. Blastocyst culture and embryo transfer after approximately 5 days may be one method of reconciling this dilemma, although a controversial one.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We presented a questionnaire to groups of patients, embryologists and clinicians to solicit views on the potential benefits and risks of blastocyst culture and multiple pregnancy. The results indicate that patients are more accepting of multiple pregnancy as a prospective outcome of treatment than those involved in their treatment, despite awareness of the risks. Our data tend to support a genuine difference in values on this point. We also sought views on the patient selection criteria and treatment protocols which should apply in a planned randomized controlled trial comparing blastocyst culture with cleaving embryo transfer (e.g. numbers of embryos to transfer, acceptable levels of risk of twin and triplet pregnancy, the proportion of patients who would be put off from entering the trial by the risk of no embryo transfer). These are presented and discussed with reference to their likely impact on trial recruitment, highlighting differences in perspective between patients and professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that there are differences among patients, embryologists and clinicians in their perceptions of the desirability of multiple pregnancy, their preferences in certain practical aspects of treatment such as embryo transfer numbers, and their ideas on blastocyst culture and its prospective outcomes and risks.

Clinical trials. A place for randomization in the interval between the end of recruitment and availability of results

There is a time delay between the final recruitment of patients to a randomized controlled trial and the publication of results. The practical options available to decision makers during this gap can be listed according to whether all treatments are already widely available or whether at least one has been restricted to the trial. When the treatments are already in widespread use, the options are simply either to stop randomizing or to continue. When one trial treatment is restricted, there are further options: a) withdraw the restricted treatment altogether, pending the final analysis; b) continue to offer randomization, with a view to providing further data should these be needed; or c) make the intervention widely available to patients who would have previously been eligible for the trial. In this paper, we discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of each option and discuss their attendant ethical implications. In particular, we suggest that continuing randomization is an option worthy of serious consideration. Randomizing patients acts as a "hedge" against the need for more data, given that sample size calculation is an inexact science. However, patients must be made aware of the basis on which randomization is offered.

Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a "trial effect"

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether there is evidence that randomized controlled trials are systematically beneficial, or harmful, for patients. In other words, is there a "trial effect"? If so, to examine whether the evidence sheds light on the likely sources of the difference in outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

We set out in some detail potential sources of a "trial effect" and potential biases. We found only 14 research articles (covering more than 21 trials) with relevant primary data. We extracted, with difficulty, quantitative data-sets from the articles, and classified these according to likely source of any apparent trial effect. The categories used were: differences in prognosis; superior treatment in the trial; and "protocol/Hawthorne effect" (benefit from improved routine care within a trial).

ANALYSIS

The evidence available is limited in breadth (coming largely from cancer trials) and quality, as well as quantity. There is weak evidence to suggest that clinical trials have a positive effect on the outcome of participants. This does not appear to depend strongly on the trial demonstrating that an experimental treatment is superior. However, benefit to participants is less evident where scope for a "protocol/Hawthorne effect" was apparently limited (because there was no effective routine treatment or because the comparison group also received protocol care). A form of bias, arising if clinicians who tend to recruit to trials also tend to be better clinicians, could also explain these results.

CONCLUSION

While the evidence is not conclusive, it is more likely that clinical trials have a positive rather than a negative effect on the outcome of patients. In the limited data available, the effect seems to be larger in trials where an effective treatment already exists and is included in the trial protocol.

RECOMMENDATION

That carefully researched treatment protocols, and monitoring of outcomes, be used for all patients, not just those in trials.

Issues in methodological research: perspectives from researchers and commissioners

OBJECTIVES

(1) Methodological research has few well-defined tools and processes analogous to those available for reviews and data collection in substantive health technology assessment. (2) This project was set up to obtain researchers' and others' views on the innovative projects on research methodology under the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme and the usefulness of the research. (3) The study was intended to span both epistemological and management issues. (4) The following issues were explored: (a) the degree to which researchers would feel constrained by the "Cochrane" approach to systematic reviews when undertaking reviews of a methodological nature; (b) whether methodological projects may require exceptional design and management arrangements, in view of their novelty, subjectivity and complexity; (c) whether researchers would seek out other methods, in addition to undertaking reviews of argument, as a means of extending their understanding of methodological issues (there may be three categories of research methods in methodology: reviews of methodological argument, studies that use the literature as a source of data, and research that collects new primary data); (d) whether the Methodology Programme overall can be considered a "success".

METHODS

(1) Telephone interviews were carried out on researchers (one senior and one junior per project), resulting in 35 interviews from 19 of the 20 target projects. (2) A qualitative postal survey was sent to 12 people who had played a key role in the development of the Methodology Programme; replies were received from six of them. (3) Analysis was undertaken of the hit rates for 29 projects on the NCCHTA website by the end of February and the end of May 1999, comparing those concerned with methodology (n = 10) and those concerned with other issues (n = 19).

RESULTS

UNDERTAKING METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: VIEWS OF RESEARCHERS: This section summarises the views of 35 researchers who were interviewed by telephone.

RESULTS

UNDERTAKING METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: VIEWS OF RESEARCHERS: (THE NATURE OF METHODOLOGICAL REVIEWS): (1) There was a reluctance among researchers to use the term "systematic review" in the methodological context. (2) Practical problems in undertaking methodological reviews were found at every stage of the research process. (a) In the initial search stage, preplanned strategies were difficult to maintain, owing to the need to respond to the problems of too few or too many references. (b) At the analysis stage, most studies were not formally weighted, but there was implicit weighting in researchers' views of their merits or relevance. (c) It was often only at the synthesis stage that researchers could see clearly what their study was able to do; iteration was frequently necessary at this point. (d) It was difficult to form simple conclusions and recommendations beyond summaries of what was known in the field. (e) Dissemination activities were most often directed to other health service researchers, with some attention to NHS policy makers and research commissioners.

RESULTS

UNDERTAKING METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: VIEWS OF RESEARCHERS (THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY): (1) Few researchers had amended their topic or methods once their research was under way, although some had made minor changes to their original plan, generally to refine the topic to fit the time or data available. (2) Changing a topic was seen as inappropriate unless checked with funders, but changes in research methods were viewed as reasonable because questions might be refined in the light of information gained or early thinking.

RESULTS

UNDERTAKING METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: VIEWS OF RESEARCHERS (THE QUESTION OF BIAS): (1) Few researchers considered that this kind of research could be undertaken or presented in a wholly unbiased way because of the need to assess the research studied. (2) Objectivity was nonetheless seen as something that researchers should strive towards. Efforts to do so included presenting data clearly, separating findings from discussion, covering all points of view, setting out their own assumptions and values, and testing their ideas on others known to have differing views. (3) The formal peer-review process was not seen to have made a difference here, primarily because of the stage at which referees become involved.

RESULTS

UNDERTAKING METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH: VIEWS OF RESEARCHERS (PROJECT MANAGEMENT--TIMING AND TIME MANAGEMENT): (1) A majority of projects were completed within 3 months of their due date. Those studies completed roughly on time were considered to have efficient junior researchers and good project management, including clear deadlines for different stages of the research. (2) Some studies had severe problems of time management. Too much time tended to be spent on collecting and reading the literature and the writing stage was not always well planned. Referees' comments were also slow in coming. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Who's afraid of Thomas Bayes?

Sometimes direct evidence is so strong that a prescription for practice is decreed. Usually, things are not that simple-leaving aside the possibility that important trade offs may be involved, direct comparative data may be imprecise (especially in crucial sub-groups) or subject to possible bias, or there may be no direct comparative evidence; but still decisions have to be made. In these circumstances, indirect evidence-the plausibility of effects-enters the frame. But how should we describe the extent of plausibility and, having done so, how can this be integrated with any direct evidence that might exist. Also, how can allowance be made in a transparent (that is, explicit) way for perceptions of the size of bias in the direct evidence. Enter the Reverend Thomas Bayes; plausibility (however derived-laboratory experiment, qualitative study or just "experience") is captured numerically as degrees of belief ("prior" to the direct data) and updated (by the direct evidence) to yield "posterior" probabilities for use in decision making. The mathematical model used for this purpose must explicitly take account of assumptions about bias in the direct data. This paradigm bridges theory and practice, and provides the intellectual scaffold for those who recognise that (numerically definable) probabilities, and values (also numerically definable) underlie decisions, but who also realise that subjectivity is ineluctable in science.