Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

OBJECTIVE

To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study, and to evaluate a study's generalisability.

METHODS

The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two day consensus meeting, with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25 item checklist, by using evidence, whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and the reference standard, or both.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the STARD checklist and flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalizability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding, and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale, and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalisability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in healthcare.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy

BACKGROUND

To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors.

OBJECTIVE

To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability.

METHODS

The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative

BACKGROUND

To comprehend the results of diagnostic accuracy studies, readers must understand the design, conduct, analysis, and results of such studies. That goal can be achieved only through complete transparency from authors.

OBJECTIVE

To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalizability.

METHODS

The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, methodologists and statisticians, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The search for published guidelines on diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. The consensus meeting shortened the list to 25 items, using evidence on bias whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate its generalisability.

METHODS

The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a two-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, using evidence, whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard or both.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of the clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details.

DESIGN

Analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

All reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria.

DATA COLLECTION

Using an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed.

RESULTS

Of 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the "intervention materials" (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

Missing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications.

An evidence based approach to individualising treatment

To which groups of patients can the results of clinical trials be applied? This question is often inappropriately answered by reference to the trial entry criteria. Instead, the benefit and harm (adverse events, discomfort of treatment, etc) of treatment could be assessed separately for individual patients. Patients at greatest risk of a disease will have the greatest net benefit as benefit to patients usually increases with risk while harm remains comparatively fixed. To assess net benefit, the relative risks should come from (a meta-analysis of) randomised trials; the risk in individual patients should come from multivariate risk equations derived from cohort studies. However, before making firm conclusions, the assumptions of fixed adverse effects and constant reduction in relative risk need to be checked.

Effects of fenofibrate on renal function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) Study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

Fenofibrate caused an acute, sustained plasma creatinine increase in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) and Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) studies. We assessed fenofibrate's renal effects overall and in a FIELD washout sub-study.

METHODS

Type 2 diabetic patients (n = 9,795) aged 50 to 75 years were randomly assigned to fenofibrate (n = 4,895) or placebo (n = 4,900) for 5 years, after 6 weeks fenofibrate run-in. Albuminuria (urinary albumin/creatinine ratio measured at baseline, year 2 and close-out) and estimated GFR, measured four to six monthly according to the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study, were pre-specified endpoints. Plasma creatinine was re-measured 8 weeks after treatment cessation at close-out (washout sub-study, n = 661). Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

During fenofibrate run-in, plasma creatinine increased by 10.0 μmol/l (p < 0.001), but quickly reversed on placebo assignment. It remained higher on fenofibrate than on placebo, but the chronic rise was slower (1.62 vs 1.89 μmol/l annually, p = 0.01), with less estimated GFR loss (1.19 vs 2.03 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) annually, p < 0.001). After washout, estimated GFR had fallen less from baseline on fenofibrate (1.9 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2), p = 0.065) than on placebo (6.9 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2), p < 0.001), sparing 5.0 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) (95% CI 2.3-7.7, p < 0.001). Greater preservation of estimated GFR with fenofibrate was observed with baseline hypertriacylglycerolaemia (n = 169 vs 491 without) alone, or combined with low HDL-cholesterol (n = 140 vs 520 without) and reductions of ≥ 0.48 mmol/l in triacylglycerol over the active run-in period (pre-randomisation) (n = 356 vs 303 without). Fenofibrate reduced urine albumin concentrations and hence albumin/creatinine ratio by 24% vs 11% (p < 0.001; mean difference 14% [95% CI 9-18]; p < 0.001), with 14% less progression and 18% more albuminuria regression (p < 0.001) than in participants on placebo. End-stage renal event frequency was similar (n = 21 vs 26, p = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Fenofibrate reduced albuminuria and slowed estimated GFR loss over 5 years, despite initially and reversibly increasing plasma creatinine. Fenofibrate may delay albuminuria and GFR impairment in type 2 diabetes patients. Confirmatory studies are merited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN64783481.

A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of natriuretic peptides for heart failure

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of heart failure is difficult, with both overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis occurring commonly in practice. Natriuretic peptides have been proposed as a possible test for assisting diagnosis. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), including a comparison with atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP).

METHODS

Electronic searches were conducted of MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1994 to December 2002 and handsearches of reference lists of included studies. We included studies that assessed the diagnostic accuracy of BNP against echocardiographic or clinical criteria or that compared the diagnostic accuracy of BNP with ANP. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion and quality and extracted the relevant data. A meta-analysis was performed by pooling the diagnostic odds ratios for studies that used a common reference standard.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included. For the 8 studies (n = 4086) that measured BNP against the criterion of left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less (or equivalent), the pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 11.6 (95% confidence interval, 8.4-16.1). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was greater, 30.9 (95% confidence interval, 27.0-35.4), in the 7 studies (n = 2374) that measured BNP against clinical criteria (generally a consensus view using all other clinical information). The diagnostic odds ratio was similar in studies conducted in general practice and in hospital settings. Three studies compared BNP with N-terminal-ANP, a precursor form of ANP, and pooling of the results of these studies showed BNP to be a more accurate marker of heart failure than NT-ANP.

CONCLUSIONS

Brain natriuretic peptide is an accurate marker of heart failure. Use of a cutoff value of 15 pmol/L achieves high sensitivity, and BNP values below this exclude heart failure in patients in whom disease is suspected. As the diagnostic odds ratio for BNP is greater when assessed against clinical criteria than against left ejection fraction alone, BNP may also be detecting patients with "diastolic" heart failure.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.

Quality adjusted survival analysis

We present a technique, quality adjusted survival analysis, for the analysis of controlled trials where patients may experience several health states which differ in their quality of life. When the data are censored, a survival analysis of the quality adjusted life years achieved may involve informative censoring, and produce biased estimates. To overcome this, we partition the survival curve; the resulting areas, which represent the mean time in each state, are multiplied by utility weights to provide an unbiased estimate of (restricted) quality adjusted survival. If the appropriate weights are in doubt, the results are best presented as a threshold analysis over the utility weights, allowing individual recommendation to be read from a simple graph. The certainty of the conclusions can be presented as confidence bands on the threshold line. The techniques are illustrated with a re-analysis of a large three-arm trial of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for stage II breast cancer in postmenopausal women. This shows that if the value of time spent in toxicity is greater than the time spent in relapse, we can be 95 per cent confident that chemoendocrine therapy is the preferred option.

Vitamin A supplementation in infectious diseases: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To study the effect of vitamin A supplementation on morbidity and mortality from infectious disease.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis aimed at identifying and combining mortality and morbidity data from all randomised controlled trials of vitamin A.

RESULTS

Of 20 controlled trials identified, 12 trials were randomised trials and provided "intention to treat" data: six community trials in developing countries, three in children admitted to hospital with measles, and three in very low birth weight infants. Combined results for community studies suggest a reduction of 30% (95% confidence interval 21% to 38%; two tailed p < 0.0000001) in all cause mortality. Analysis of cause specific mortality showed a reduction in deaths from diarrhoeal disease (in community studies) by 39% (24% to 50%; two tailed p < 0.00001); from respiratory disease (in measles studies) by 70% (15% to 90%; two tailed p = 0.02); and from other causes of death (in community studies) by 34% (15% to 48%; two tailed p = 0.001). Reductions in morbidity were consistent with the findings for mortality, but fewer data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate supply of vitamin A, either through supplementation or adequate diet, has a major role in preventing morbidity and mortality in children in developing countries. In developed countries vitamin A may also have a role in those with life threatening infections such as measles and those who may have a relative deficiency, such as premature infants.

Antibiotics for sore throat

BACKGROUND

Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat for patients in primary care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July week 1, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted trial authors from three studies for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 trials with 12,835 cases of sore throat. We did not identify any new trials in this 2013 update. 1. Symptoms Throat soreness and fever were reduced by about half by using antibiotics. The greatest difference was seen at day three. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 21. 2. Non-suppurative complications The trend was antibiotics protecting against acute glomerulonephritis but there were too few cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two-thirds within one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.60). 3. Suppurative complications Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); acute sinusitis within 14 days (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and quinsy within two months (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47) compared to those taking placebo. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction Antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day three (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if throat swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97 if negative. Similarly at week one the RR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative Streptococcus swabs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non-suppurative complications in high-income countries requires treating many with antibiotics for one to benefit. This NNTB may be lower in low-income countries. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about 16 hours overall.

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results.

METHODS

The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation and/or the reference standard.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals and the public.

The Ariadne principles: how to handle multimorbidity in primary care consultations

Multimorbidity is a health issue mostly dealt with in primary care practice. As a result of their generalist and patient-centered approach, long-lasting relationships with patients, and responsibility for continuity and coordination of care, family physicians are particularly well placed to manage patients with multimorbidity. However, conflicts arising from the application of multiple disease oriented guidelines and the burden of diseases and treatments often make consultations challenging. To provide orientation in decision making in multimorbidity during primary care consultations, we developed guiding principles and named them after the Greek mythological figure Ariadne. For this purpose, we convened a two-day expert workshop accompanied by an international symposium in October 2012 in Frankfurt, Germany. Against the background of the current state of knowledge presented and discussed at the symposium, 19 experts from North America, Europe, and Australia identified the key issues of concern in the management of multimorbidity in primary care in panel and small group sessions and agreed upon making use of formal and informal consensus methods. The proposed preliminary principles were refined during a multistage feedback process and discussed using a case example. The sharing of realistic treatment goals by physicians and patients is at the core of the Ariadne principles. These result from i) a thorough interaction assessment of the patient's conditions, treatments, constitution, and context; ii) the prioritization of health problems that take into account the patient's preferences - his or her most and least desired outcomes; and iii) individualized management realizes the best options of care in diagnostics, treatment, and prevention to achieve the goals. Goal attainment is followed-up in accordance with a re-assessment in planned visits. The occurrence of new or changed conditions, such as an increase in severity, or a changed context may trigger the (re-)start of the process. Further work is needed on the implementation of the formulated principles, but they were recognized and appreciated as important by family physicians and primary care researchers.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/222.

Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes

AIMS

To evaluate whether a year long clinical pharmacy program involving development of professional relationships, nurse education on medication issues, and individualized medication reviews could change drug use, mortality and morbidity in nursing home residents.

METHODS

A cluster randomised controlled trial, where an intervention home was matched to three control homes, was used to examine the effect of the clinical pharmacy intervention on resident outcomes. The study involved 905 residents in 13 intervention nursing homes and 2325 residents in 39 control nursing homes in south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales, Australia. The outcome measures were: continuous drug use data from government prescription subsidy claims, cross-sectional drug use data on prescribed and administered medications, deaths and morbidity indices (hospitalization rates, adverse events and disability indices).

RESULTS

This intervention resulted in a reduction in drug use with no change in morbidity indices or survival. Differences in nursing home characteristics, as defined by cluster analysis with SUDAAN, negated intervention-related apparent significant improvements in survival. The use of benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, laxatives, histamine H2-receptor antagonists and antacids was significantly reduced in the intervention group, whereas the use of digoxin and diuretics remained similar to controls. Overall, drug use in the intervention group was reduced by 14.8% relative to the controls, equivalent to an annual prescription saving of A64 dollars per resident (approximately 25 pound sterling).

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention improved nursing home resident outcomes related to changes in drug use and drug-related expenditure. The continuing divergence in both drug use and survival at the end of the study suggests that the difference would have been more significant in a larger and longer study, and even more so using additional instruments specific for measuring outcomes related to changes in drug use.

Prolotherapy injections, saline injections, and exercises for chronic low-back pain: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of a prolotherapy injection and exercise protocol in the treatment of chronic nonspecific low back pain.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial with two-by-two factorial design, triple-blinded for injection status, and single-blinded for exercise status.

SETTING

General practice.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred ten participants with nonspecific low-back pain of average 14 years duration were randomized to have repeated prolotherapy (20% glucose/0.2% lignocaine) or normal saline injections into tender lumbo-pelvic ligaments and randomized to perform either flexion/extension exercises or normal activity over 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain intensity (VAS) and disability scores (Roland-Morris) at 2.5, 4, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

Follow-up was achieved in 96% at 12 months and 80% at 2 years. Ligament injections, with exercises and with normal activity, resulted in significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability throughout the trial, but no attributable effect was found for prolotherapy injections over saline injections or for exercises over normal activity. At 12 months, the proportions achieving more than 50% reduction in pain from baseline by injection group were glucose-lignocaine: 0.46 versus saline: 0.36. By activity group these proportions were exercise: 0.41 versus normal activity: 0.39. Corresponding proportions for >50% reduction in disability were glucose-lignocaine: 0.42 versus saline 0.36 and exercise: 0.36 versus normal activity: 0.38. There were no between group differences in any of the above measures.

CONCLUSIONS

In chronic nonspecific low-back pain, significant and sustained reductions in pain and disability occur with ligament injections, irrespective of the solution injected or the concurrent use of exercises.

Investigating causes of heterogeneity in systematic reviews

What causes heterogeneity in systematic reviews of controlled trials? First, it may be an artefact of the summary measures used, of study design features such as duration of follow-up or the reliability of outcome measures. Second, it may be due to real variation in the treatment effect and hence provides the opportunity to identify factors that may modify the impact of treatment. These factors may include features of the population such as: severity of illness, age and gender; intervention factors such as dose, timing or duration of treatment; and comparator factors such as the control group treatment or the co-interventions in both groups. The ideal way to study causes of true variation is within rather than between studies. In most situations however, we will have to make do with a study level investigation and hence need to be careful about adjusting for potential confounding by artefactual factors such as study design features. Such investigation of artefactual and true causes of heterogeneity form essential steps in moving from a combined effect estimate to application to particular populations and individuals.