Need for expertise based randomised controlled trials

Moving towards evidence-based healthcare for musculoskeletal injuries: featuring the work of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group

Due to their high incidence and associated morbidity and mortality, musculoskeletal injuries place an enormous burden on society. For example, in the 2004 to 2005 period 62,000 people with hip fracture accounted for 2.9% of the total number of hospital bed days in England. Between 12% and 37% of people with hip fracture die in the first year. Of the survivors, most are less mobile and many lose their independence. Soft-tissue joint injuries during sports and exercise-related activities in young adults constitute another important group. Of these, ankle sprain is the most common single injury and it predisposes people to further recurrence.

Members of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group prepare systematic reviews (Cochrane Reviews) of the evidence for interventions used in the prevention and management of musculoskeletal injuries. These reviews serve to facilitate evidence-based decision making by policy makers, healthcare professionals and consumers, and to guide future research.

This article focuses on two major groups of injuries: osteoporotic fractures and soft-tissue joint injuries, and discusses some of the fundamental issues and questions associated with the prevention and management of these. Drawing insights from relevant Cochrane Reviews, this article examines the different approaches used for preventing, and the role of surgery and immobilisation for treating, these injuries. Brief illustrations of the inherent complexity of rehabilitation are also provided.

This article also gives examples of how these reviews are helping to inform healthcare choices and practice, and guide research in this area.

Cluster Sampling Bias in Government-Sponsored Evaluations: A Correlational Study of Employment and Welfare Pilots in England

For pilot or experimental employment programme results to apply beyond their test bed, researchers must select ‘clusters’ (i.e. the job centres delivering the new intervention) that are reasonably representative of the whole territory. More specifically, this requirement must account for conditions that could artificially inflate the effect of a programme, such as the fluidity of the local labour market or the performance of the local job centre. Failure to achieve representativeness results in Cluster Sampling Bias (CSB). This paper makes three contributions to the literature. Theoretically, it approaches the notion of CSB as a human behaviour. It offers a comprehensive theory, whereby researchers with limited resources and conflicting priorities tend to oversample ‘effect-enhancing’ clusters when piloting a new intervention. Methodologically, it advocates for a ‘narrow and deep’ scope, as opposed to the ‘wide and shallow’ scope, which has prevailed so far. The PILOT-2 dataset was developed to test this idea. Empirically, it provides evidence on the prevalence of CSB. In conditions similar to the PILOT-2 case study, investigators (1) do not sample clusters with a view to maximise generalisability; (2) do not oversample ‘effect-enhancing’ clusters; (3) consistently oversample some clusters, including those with higher-than-average client caseloads; and (4) report their sampling decisions in an inconsistent and generally poor manner. In conclusion, although CSB is prevalent, it is still unclear whether it is intentional and meant to mislead stakeholders about the expected effect of the intervention or due to higher-level constraints or other considerations.

Evaluation of the effects of multiple providers in complex surgical interventions

In contrast to new medicinal products, surgical interventions have many features that complicate their formal assessment through Randomised Clinical Trials. For example, surgery is delivered by multidisciplinary teams; hence, differential effects on the outcome are not solely caused by differences in the leading operator's skill but are also induced by surgical team differences and patient characteristics. This study focuses on how statistical methods can be used to accommodate the multicomponent nature of the delivery of surgical interventions. Hierarchical models with cross-classifications between components of surgery, applied to historic datasets, can be used during the trial planning phase to establish the effects and interactions between different components. Methods are illustrated using two influential components of the intervention, the surgeon and the anaesthetist, in a cohort of cardiac surgery cases. The statistical implications for trial design and analysis are presented. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Beyond the treatment effect: Evaluating the effects of patient preferences in randomised trials

The treatments under comparison in a randomised trial should ideally have equal value and acceptability – a position of equipoise – to study participants. However, it is unlikely that true equipoise exists in practice, because at least some participants may have preferences for one treatment or the other, for a variety of reasons. These preferences may be related to study outcomes, and hence affect the estimation of the treatment effect. Furthermore, the effects of preferences can sometimes be substantial, and may even be larger than the direct effect of treatment. Preference effects are of interest in their own right, but they cannot be assessed in the standard parallel group design for a randomised trial. In this paper, we describe a model to represent the impact of preferences on trial outcomes, in addition to the usual treatment effect. In particular, we describe how outcomes might differ between participants who would choose one treatment or the other, if they were free to do so. Additionally, we investigate the difference in outcomes depending on whether or not a participant receives his or her preferred treatment, which we characterise through a so-called preference effect. We then discuss several study designs that have been proposed to measure and exploit data on preferences, and which constitute alternatives to the conventional parallel group design. Based on the model framework, we determine which of the various preference effects can or cannot be estimated with each design. We also illustrate these ideas with some examples of preference designs from the literature.

[Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): extending the CONSORT statement (Chinese version)]

The STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) were published in five journals in 2001 and 2002. These guidelines, in the form of a checklist and explanations for use by authors and journal editors, were designed to improve reporting of acupuncture trials, particularly the interventions, thereby facilitating their interpretation and replication. Subsequent reviews of the application and impact of STRICTA have highlighted the value of STRICTA as well as scope for improvements and revision. To manage the revision process a collaboration between the STRICTA Group, the CONSORT Group and the Chinese Cochrane Centre was developed in 2008. An expert panel with 47 participants was convened that provided electronic feedback on a revised draft of the checklist. At a subsequent face-to-face meeting in Freiburg, a group of 21 participants further revised the STRICTA checklist and planned dissemination. The new STRICTA checklist, which is an official extension of CONSORT, includes 6 items and 17 subitems. These set out reporting guidelines for the acupuncture rationale, the details of needling, the treatment regimen, other components of treatment, the practitioner background and the control or comparator interventions. In addition, and as part of this revision process, the explanations for each item have been elaborated, and examples of good reporting for each item are provided. In addition, the word "controlled" in STRICTA is replaced by "clinical", to indicate that STRICTA is applicable to a broad range of clinical evaluation designs, including uncontrolled outcome studies and case reports. It is intended that the revised STRICTA checklist, in conjunction with both the main CONSORT statement and extension for non-pharmacological treatment, will raise the quality of reporting of clinical trials of acupuncture.

Does Participation in a Randomized Clinical Trial Change Outcomes? An Evaluation of Patients Not Enrolled in the SPRINT Trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the extent to which knowledge from clinical trial protocols is transferred to nonparticipating patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data from a large clinical trial.

SETTING

Six level-1 international trauma centers.

METHODS

We compared rates and timing of reoperation in a subset of patients enrolled in the Study to Prospectively evaluate Reamed Intramedullary Nails in Patients with Tibial Fractures (SPRINT) to concurrent patients who were eligible but not enrolled. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected trial data. The records of 6 of the original SPRINT centers were searched for non-SPRINT patients who underwent intramedullary nailing of a closed tibial fracture. The rate and timing of reoperation were compared. A P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen non-SPRINT patients were compared with 328 patients enrolled in SPRINT from those same sites. There were 7 reoperations (6.1%) in non-SPRINT patients versus 18 (5.2%) in SPRINT patients [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 3.13; P = 0.811]. There was no difference in the time to reoperation between the SPRINT and non-SPRINT patients (6.2 vs. 6.8 months, 95% CI of the difference -3.8 to 2.6; P = 0.685) or in the proportion of patients who underwent reoperation before 6 months (29% vs. 43%; OR 1.75; 95% CI 0.18 to 15.41; P = 0.647).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients not enrolled in SPRINT had similarly low rates of reoperation for nonunion, and the average time to reoperation for both groups was longer than 6 months. A 6-month waiting period may have allowed slow-to-heal fractures adequate time to heal, thereby reducing the rate of diagnosis of nonunion. As such, this waiting period could contribute to lower-than-expected reoperation rates for nonunion. It is possible that clinical trials may beneficially influence the care of nonenrolled patients.

A decisional model to individualize warfarin recommendations: Expected impact on treatment and outcome rates in a real-world population with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

How the adoption of prediction models to decide which patient with atrial fibrillation (AF) to anticoagulate can affect prescription rates and outcomes is unclear.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from Danish registries on patients with a first-time recorded AF from 2005 to 2010. We simulated the adoption of a decisional model based on the individual absolute risk reduction of stroke and absolute risk increase of bleeding with warfarin, as expected from the patient CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED, adjusted for a 0.6 relative value for bleeding versus stroke. We studied 3 different model versions and calculated for each of them the net benefit associated with its adoption, measured as the value-adjusted reduction in stroke and bleeding events at 1 year, compared with i) the actual practice, or ii) recommending warfarin consistently with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines, irrespective of HAS-BLED.

RESULTS

We included 41,455 patients; 31.9% actually received warfarin. The expected treatment rate with the model ranged from 21% to 87% according to the version used. The model version resulting into the highest treatment rate (i.e. treating any patient with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 1) was associated with the greatest net benefit (0.98; 95% credible interval 0.72-1.23), compared with the actual practice, with a 1/3 reduction in overall mortality, as with the adoption of ESC guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminarily to a randomized impact study, our analysis suggests that individualizing anticoagulation for AF using a decisional model might have a clinical advantage over actual practice, and no added advantage over following ESC guidelines.

A comprehensive in vivo kinematic, quantitative MRI and functional evaluation following ACL reconstruction--A comparison between mini-two incision and anteromedial portal femoral tunnel drilling

BACKGROUND

Multiple techniques are used for femoral tunnel drilling in ACL reconstruction, including the Mini-two Incision Method (MT) and Anteromedial Portal Technique (AM). Both techniques allow for independent placement of the femoral tunnel, though there are no reports comparing kinematics and cartilage health after these reconstructions. We hypothesized that both techniques would result in the restoration of normal knee kinematics and show no evidence of early cartilage degeneration.

METHODS

A total of 20 patients were evaluated one year after ACL reconstruction, including 10 patients after MT and 10 patients after AM. MR-imaging was acquired bilaterally with the knee loaded in extension and flexion to evaluate the kinematics of the reconstructed knee compared with the normal knee. Quantitative cartilage imaging was obtained and compared with 10 matched control subjects. The Marx Activity Rating Scale and KOOS survey were administered.

RESULTS

The tibia was positioned significantly more anteriorly in extension and flexion relative to the contralateral knee for the MT group. The tibial position in the AM group was not significantly different from the patient's contralateral knee. T1ρ values in the central-medial tibia were significantly elevated in the MT group compared with the Control group. KOOS Symptom scores were significantly better for the MT group compared with the AM group.

CONCLUSIONS

We have observed in vivo differences in knee kinematics and early cartilage degeneration between patients following MT and AM ACL reconstructions. Both techniques allow for anatomic ACL reconstruction, though the MT group shows significant early differences compared with the patient's normal knee.

Evaluating the Generalisability of Trial Results: Introducing a Centre- and Trial-Level Generalisability Index

BACKGROUND

Few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruit centres representatively, which may limit the external validity of trial results.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to propose a proof-of-concept method of assessing the generalisability of the clinical and cost-effectiveness findings of a given RCT.

METHODS

We developed a generalisability index (Gix), informed by centre-level characteristics, as a measure of centre and trial representativeness. The centre-level Gix quantifies how representative a centre is in relation to its jurisdiction, e.g. a country or health authority. The trial-level Gix quantifies how representative trial recruitment is in relation to clinical practice in the jurisdiction. Taking a real-world RCT as a case study and assuming trial-wide results to represent 'true jurisdiction values', we used simulation methods to recreate 5000 RCTs and investigate the relationship between trial representativeness, reflected by the standardised trial-Gix, and the deviation of simulated trial results from the 'true values'.

RESULTS

The simulation study provides evidence that trial results (odds ratio for the primary outcome and incremental quality-adjusted life-years) were influenced by the representativeness of the sample of recruiting centres. Simulated RCTs with the closest results to the 'true values' were those whose recruitment closely mirrored the jurisdiction-wide context. Results appeared robust to six alternative specifications of the Gix.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that an unrepresentative selection of centres limits the external validity of trial results. The Gix may be a valuable tool to help facilitate rational selection of trial centres and ensure the generalisability of results at the jurisdiction level.

Medicinal clays improve the endurance of loaded inspiratory muscles in COPD: a randomized clinical trial of nonpharmacological treatment

BACKGROUND

Inspiratory resistive breathing (IRB) challenges affect respiratory muscle endurance in healthy individuals, which is considered to be an interleukin 6 (IL-6)-dependent mechanism. Whether nonpharmacological thermal therapies promote the endurance of loaded inspiratory muscles in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is unclear. The objectives of this study were to compare the effects of two thermal interventions on endurance time (ET) and plasma IL-6 concentration following an IRB challenge.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, parallel-group, unblinded clinical trial in a single-center setting. Forty-two patients (aged 42-76 years) suffering from mild to severe COPD participated in this study. Both groups completed 12 sessions of the mud bath therapy (MBT) (n=22) or leisure thermal activity (LTA) (n=19) in a thermal spa center in Italy. Pre- and postintervention spirometry, maximum inspiratory pressure, and plasma mediators were obtained and ET and endurance oxygen expenditure (VO2Endur) were measured following IRB challenge at 40% of maximum inspiratory pressure.

RESULTS

There was no difference in ΔIL-6 between the intervention groups. But, IRB challenge increased cytokine IL-6 plasma levels systematically. The effect size was small. A statistically significant treatment by IRB challenge effect existed in ET, which significantly increased in the MBT group (P=0.003). In analysis of covariance treatment by IRB challenge analysis with LnVO2Endur as the dependent variable, ΔIL-6 after intervention predicted LnVO2Endur in the MBT group, but not in the LTA group. Adverse events occurred in two individuals in the MBT group, but they were mainly transient. One patient in the LTA group dropped out.

CONCLUSION

MBT model improves ET upon a moderate IRB challenge, indicating the occurrence of a training effect. The LnVO2Endur/ΔIL-6 suggests a physiologic adaptive mechanism in respiratory muscles of COPD patients allocated to treatment. Both thermal interventions are safe.

The fragility of statistically significant findings from randomized trials in spine surgery: a systematic survey

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the most trustworthy source for evaluating treatment effects, but RCTs of spine surgery interventions often produce discordant results. The Fragility Index is a novel metric to inform about the robustness of statistically significant results.

PURPOSE

The aim was to determine the robustness of statistically significant results from RCTs of spine surgery interventions.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This was a systematic survey.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The sample included RCTs of spine surgery interventions.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The Fragility Index is the minimum number of patients in a trial whose status would have to change from a nonevent to an event to change a statistically significant result to a nonsignificant result. Events refer to the occurrence of any dichotomous outcome, such as successful fusion, incident fracture, adjacent segment degeneration, or achievement of a certain functional score. A small Fragility Index indicates that the statistical significance of a result hinges on only a few events, and a large Fragility Index increases one's confidence in the observed treatment effects.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed a database for evidence-based orthopedics and identified all the RCTs that reported at least one positive outcome (ie, p<.05). Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility and extracted data. We used the Fisher exact test to compute Fragility Index values and multivariable linear regression to evaluate potential associated factors.

RESULTS

We identified 40 eligible RCTs with a median sample size of 132 patients (interquartile range [IQR] 79-208) and a median total number of outcome events for the chosen outcome of 31 (IQR 13-63). The median Fragility Index was two (IQR 1-3), which means that adding two events to one of the trial's treatment arms eliminated its statistical significance. The Fragility Index was less than or equal to three events in 75% of the trials, and was less than or equal to the number of patients lost to follow-up in 65% of the trials. Fragility Index values correlated positively with total sample size (r=0.35; p<.05). When adjusted for losses to follow-up and risk of bias, increasing Fragility Index values were associated only with increasingly significant reported p values (p<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Statistically significant results in spine surgery RCTs are frequently fragile. The addition of only a small number of outcome events can completely eliminate significance. Surgeons, researchers, and other evidence users should exercise caution when interpreting the findings from RCTs with low Fragility Index values and applying these results to patient care.

Component Separation vs. Bridged Repair for Large Ventral Hernias: A Multi-Institutional Risk-Adjusted Comparison, Systematic Review, and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Repair of large ventral hernia defects is associated with high rates of surgical site occurrences (SSO), including surgical site infection (SSI), site dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, and site necrosis. Two common operative strategies exist: Component separation (CS) with primary fascial closure and mesh reinforcement (PFC-CS) and bridged repair (mesh spanning the hernia defect). We hypothesized that: (1) ventral hernia repair (VHR) of large defects with bridged repair is associated with more SSOs than is PFC, and (2) anterior CS is associated with more SSOs than is endoscopic, perforator-sparing, or posterior CS.

METHODS

Part I of this study was a review of a multi-center database of patients who underwent VHR of a defect ≥8 cm from 2010-2011 with at least one month of follow-up. The primary outcome was SSO. The secondary outcome was recurrence. Part II of this study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing bridged repair with PFC and studies comparing different kinds of CS.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were followed for a median of 16 months (range 1-50 months), of whom 84 underwent PFC-CS and 24 had bridged repairs. Unadjusted results demonstrated no differences between the groups in SSO or recurrence; however, the study was underpowered for this purpose. On meta-analysis, PFC was associated with a lower risk of SSO (odds ratio [OR] = 0.569; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34-0.94) and recurrence (OR = 0.138; 95% CI = 0.08-0.23) compared with bridged repair. On multiple-treatments meta-analysis, both endoscopic and perforator-sparing CS were most likely to be the treatments with the lowest risk of SSO and recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Bridged repair was associated with more SSOs than was PFC, and PFC should be used whenever feasible. Endoscopic and perforator-sparing CS were associated with the fewest complications; however, these conclusions are limited by heterogeneity between studies and poor methodological quality. These results should be used to guide future trials, which should compare the risks and benefits of each CS method to determine in which setting each technique will give the best results.

Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: a single-institution study

OBJECTIVE

Craniopharyngiomas and similar midline suprasellar tumors have traditionally been resected via transcranial approaches. More recently, expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approaches have gained interest. Surgeons have advocated for both approaches, and at present there is no consensus whether one approach is superior to the other. The authors therefore compared surgical outcomes between craniotomy and endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal surgery (EETS) for suprasellar tumors treated at their institution.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing resection of suprasellar lesions at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center between 2000 and 2013 was performed. Patients harboring suspected craniopharyngioma were selected for extensive review. Other pathologies or predominantly intrasellar masses were excluded. Cases were separated into 2 groups, based on the surgical approach taken. One group underwent EETS and the other cohort underwent craniotomy. Patient demographic data, presenting symptoms, and previous therapies were tabulated. Preoperative and postoperative tumor volume was calculated for each case based on MRI. Student t-test and the chi-square test were used to evaluate differences in patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and outcomes between the 2 cohorts. To assess for selection bias, 3 neurosurgeons who did not perform the surgeries reviewed the preoperative imaging studies and clinical data for each patient in blinded fashion and indicated his/her preferred approach. These data were subject to concordance analysis using Cohen's kappa test to determine if factors other than surgeon preference influenced the choice of surgical approach.

RESULTS

Complete data were available for 53 surgeries; 19 cases were treated via EETS, and 34 were treated via craniotomy. Patient demographic data, preoperative symptoms, and tumor characteristics were similar between the 2 cohorts, except that fewer operations for recurrent tumor were observed in the craniotomy cohort compared with EETS (17.6% vs 42.1%, p = 0.05). The extent of resection was similar between the 2 groups (85.6% EETS vs 90.7% craniotomy, p = 0.77). An increased rate of cranial nerve injury was noted in the craniotomy group (0% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 0.04). Postoperative CSF leak rate was higher in the EETS group (26.3% EETS vs 0% craniotomy, p = 0.004). The progression-free survival curves (log-rank p = 0.99) and recurrence rates (21.1% EETS vs 23.5% craniotomy, p = 1.00) were similar between the 2 groups. Concordance analysis of cases reviewed by 3 neurosurgeons indicated that individual surgeon preference was the only factor that determined surgical approach (kappa coefficient -0.039, p = 0.762) CONCLUSIONS: Surgical outcomes were similar for tumors resected via craniotomy or EETS, except that more CSF leaks occurred in the EETS cohort, whereas more neurological injuries occurred in the craniotomy cohort. Surgical approach appears to mostly reflect surgeon preference rather than specific tumor characteristics. These data support the view that EETS is a viable alternative to craniotomy, providing a similar extent of resection with less neurological injury.

Interventions in randomised controlled trials in surgery: issues to consider during trial design

Until recently, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that surgical interventions are complex. This complexity has several implications, including the way in which surgical interventions are described and delivered in trials. In order for surgeons to adopt trial findings, interventions need to be described in sufficient detail to enable accurate replication; however, it may be permissible to allow some aspects to be delivered according to local practice. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for general guidance on the design of surgical interventions in trial protocols and reports. Key issues to consider when designing surgical interventions include the identification of each surgical intervention and their components, who will deliver the interventions, and where and how the interventions will be standardised and monitored during the trial. The trial design (pragmatic and explanatory), comparator and stage of innovation may also influence the extent of detail required. Thoughtful consideration of surgical interventions in this way may help with the interpretation of trial results and the adoption of successful interventions into clinical practice.

Completion and Publication Rates of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery: An Empirical Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical versus medical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore risk factors for discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical RCTs.

BACKGROUND

Trial discontinuation has significant scientific, ethical, and economic implications. To date, the prevalence of discontinuation of surgical RCTs is unknown.

METHODS

All RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by 6 ethics committees in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland were screened. Baseline characteristics were collected and, if published, full reports retrieved. Risk factors for early discontinuation for slow recruitment and nonpublication were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 863 RCT protocols involving adult patients were identified, 127 in surgery (15%) and 736 in medicine (85%). Surgical trials were discontinued for any reason more often than medical trials [43% vs 27%, risk difference 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%-26%); P = 0.001] and more often discontinued for slow recruitment [18% vs 11%, risk difference 8% (95% CI: 0.1%-16%); P = 0.020]. The percentage of trials not published as full journal article was similar in surgical and medical trials (44% vs 40%, risk difference 4% (95% CI: -5% to 14%); P = 0.373). Discontinuation of surgical trials was a strong risk factor for nonpublication (odds ratio = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.45-12.06; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Discontinuation and nonpublication rates were substantial in surgical RCTs and trial discontinuation was strongly associated with nonpublication. These findings need to be taken into account when interpreting surgical literature. Surgical trialists should consider feasibility studies before embarking on full-scale trials.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Blended Versus Face-to-Face Delivery of Evidence-Based Medicine to Medical Students

BACKGROUND

Blended learning describes a combination of teaching methods, often utilizing digital technologies. Research suggests that learner outcomes can be improved through some blended learning formats. However, the cost-effectiveness of delivering blended learning is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of a face-to-face learning and blended learning approach for evidence-based medicine training within a medical program.

METHODS

The economic evaluation was conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the evidence-based medicine (EBM) competency of medical students who participated in two different modes of education delivery. In the traditional face-to-face method, students received ten 2-hour classes. In the blended learning approach, students received the same total face-to-face hours but with different activities and additional online and mobile learning. Online activities utilized YouTube and a library guide indexing electronic databases, guides, and books. Mobile learning involved self-directed interactions with patients in their regular clinical placements. The attribution and differentiation of costs between the interventions within the RCT was measured in conjunction with measured outcomes of effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated comparing the ongoing operation costs of each method with the level of EBM proficiency achieved. Present value analysis was used to calculate the break-even point considering the transition cost and the difference in ongoing operation cost.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio indicated that it costs 24% less to educate a student to the same level of EBM competency via the blended learning approach used in the study, when excluding transition costs. The sunk cost of approximately AUD $40,000 to transition to the blended model exceeds any savings from using the approach within the first year of its implementation; however, a break-even point is achieved within its third iteration and relative savings in the subsequent years. The sensitivity analysis indicates that approaches with higher transition costs, or staffing requirements over that of a traditional method, are likely to result in negative value propositions.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the study conditions, a blended learning approach was more cost-effective to operate and resulted in improved value for the institution after the third year iteration, when compared to the traditional face-to-face model. The wider applicability of the findings are dependent on the type of blended learning utilized, staffing expertise, and educational context.

The Chiropractic Hospital-Based Interventions Research Outcomes Study: Consistency of Outcomes Between Doctors of Chiropractic Treating Patients With Acute Lower Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if effectiveness differs between community-based doctors of chiropractic administering standardized evidence-based care that includes high-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for acute low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

A secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial and observational pilot study data was performed with nonrandom allocation to 4 DCs. Patients included those with Quebec Task Force categories less than or equal to 2 and acute LBP of 2 to 4 weeks' duration. The intervention provided was clinical practice guidelines-based care including high-velocity low-amplitude SMT. Primary outcomes included changes from baseline in modified Roland Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) at 24 weeks. Comparisons of simple main effects at 24 weeks and of marginal main effects in repeated-measures analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Between groups, adjusted point-specific differences in RDQ change were minimally clinically important but not statistically significant at 24 weeks (largest pairwise difference, -3.1; 95% confidence interval, -6.3 to 0.1; overall P = .10). However, in optimal analyses that considered the repeated nature of the measurements for each outcome, significant differences in marginal mean RDQ changes were found between groups (largest pairwise difference, -3.8; 95% confidence interval, -4.9 to 2.6; overall P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, DCs differed modestly in their effectiveness in improving LBP-specific disability. The point estimates mirrored typically reported effect sizes from recent systematic reviews of SMT; however, confidence limits did not exclude clinically negligible effects.

A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design

BACKGROUND

Under a conventional two-arm randomised trial design, participants are allocated to an intervention and participating health professionals are expected to deliver both interventions. However, health professionals often have differing levels of expertise in a skill-based interventions such as surgery or psychotherapy. An expertise-based approach to trial design, where health professionals only deliver an intervention in which they have expertise, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this project was to systematically review the use of an expertise-based trial design in the medical literature.

METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive search of nine databases--AMED, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and PsycINFO--from 1966 to 2012 and performed citation searches using the ISI Citation Indexes and Scopus. Studies that used an expertise-based trial design were included. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports. Data were extracted and summarised on the study characteristics, general and expertise-specific study methodology, and conduct.

RESULTS

In total, 7476 titles and abstracts were identified, leading to 43 included studies (54 articles). The vast majority (88%) used a pure expertise-based design; three (7%) adopted a hybrid design, and two (5%) used a design that was unclear. Most studies compared substantially different interventions (79%). In many cases, key information relating to the expertise-based design was absent; only 12 (28%) reported criteria for delivering both interventions. Most studies recruited the target sample size or very close to it (median of 101, interquartile range of 94 to 118), although the target was reported for only 40% of studies. The proportion of participants who received the allocated intervention was high (92%, interquartile range of 82 to 99%).

CONCLUSIONS

While use of an expertise-based trial design is growing, it remains uncommon. Reporting of study methodology and, particularly, expertise-related methodology was poor. Empirical evidence provided some support for purported benefits such as high levels of recruitment and compliance with allocation. An expertise-based trial design should be considered but its value seems context-specific, particularly when interventions differ substantially or interventions are typically delivered by different health professionals.

Research gaps in pancreatic cancer research and comparative effectiveness research methodologies

Despite advances in cancer care, pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal tumors. Most patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed with late stage disease, and approximately 6 % of patients are alive 5 years after diagnosis. Of the 10-20 % of patients who are candidates for resection and multi-modality therapy, most will succumb to the disease with 5-year survival rates only reaching approximately 25 % (Lim et al. in Annals of surgery 237(1):74-85, 2003 [1]; Trede et al. in Annals of surgery 211(4):447-458, 1990 [2]; Crist et al. in Annals of surgery 206(3):358-365, 1987 [3]). Clearly, there is a need to improve the management of this disease. To identify gaps in research and formulate strategies to address these issues, we designed a framework to encompass the scope of research for pancreatic cancer. In this chapter, we will examine each topic heading within this framework for gaps in knowledge and present research strategies focusing on diverse comparative effectiveness research (CER) methodologies to address the identified gaps.

Hip fracture evaluation with alternatives of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Hip fractures are a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, and the number of hip fractures is expected to rise to over 6 million per year by 2050. The optimal approach for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures remains unknown. Current evidence suggests the use of arthroplasty; however, there is lack of evidence regarding whether patients with displaced femoral neck fractures experience better outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial compares outcomes following THA versus HA in patients 50 years of age or older with displaced femoral neck fractures.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

HEALTH is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial where 1434 patients, 50 years of age or older, with displaced femoral neck fractures from international sites are randomised to receive either THA or HA. Exclusion criteria include associated major injuries of the lower extremity, hip infection(s) and a history of frank dementia. The primary outcome is unplanned secondary procedures and the secondary outcomes include functional outcomes, patient quality of life, mortality and hip-related complications-both within 2 years of the initial surgery. We are using minimisation to ensure balance between intervention groups for the following factors: age, prefracture living, prefracture functional status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class and centre number. Data analysts and the HEALTH Steering Committee are blinded to the surgical allocation throughout the trial. Outcome analysis will be performed using a χ(2) test (or Fisher's exact test) and Cox proportional hazards modelling estimate. All results will be presented with 95% CIs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The HEALTH trial has received local and McMaster University Research Ethics Board (REB) approval (REB#: 06-151).

RESULTS

Outcomes from the primary manuscript will be disseminated through publications in academic journals and presentations at relevant orthopaedic conferences. We will communicate trial results to all participating sites. Participating sites will communicate results with patients who have indicated an interest in knowing the results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The HEALTH trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00556842).

Learning from the QUEST multicentre feasibility randomization trials in breast reconstruction after mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Breast reconstruction aims to improve health-related quality of life after mastectomy. However, evidence guiding patients and surgeons in shared decision-making concerning the optimal type or timing of surgery is lacking.

METHODS

QUEST comprised two parallel feasibility phase III randomized multicentre trials to assess the impact of the type and timing of latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction on health-related quality of life when postmastectomy radiotherapy is unlikely (QUEST A) or highly probable (QUEST B). The primary endpoint for the feasibility phase was the proportion of women who accepted randomization, and it would be considered feasible if patient acceptability rates exceeded 25 per cent of women approached. A companion QUEST Perspectives Study (QPS) of patients (both accepting and declining trial participation) and healthcare professionals assessed trial acceptability.

RESULTS

The QUEST trials opened in 15 UK centres. After 18 months of recruitment, 17 patients were randomized to QUEST A and eight to QUEST B, with overall acceptance rates of 19 per cent (17 of 88) and 22 per cent (8 of 36) respectively. The QPS recruited 56 patients and 51 healthcare professionals. Patient preference was the predominant reason for declining trial entry, given by 47 (53 per cent) of the 88 patients approached for QUEST A and 22 (61 per cent) of the 36 approached for QUEST B. Both trials closed to recruitment in December 2012, acknowledging the challenges of achieving satisfactory patient accrual.

CONCLUSION

Despite extensive efforts to overcome recruitment barriers, it was not feasible to reach timely recruitment targets within a feasibility study. Patient preferences for breast reconstruction types and timings were common, rendering patients unwilling to enter the trial.

Pancreatic fistulae after a pancreatico-duodenectomy: are pancreatico-gastrostomies safer than pancreatico-jejunostomies? An expertise-based trial and propensity-score adjusted analysis

BACKGROUND

A pancreatic fistula (PF) is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality after a pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). There remains debate as to whether re-establishing pancreaticoenteric continuity by a pancreatico-gastrostomy (PG) can decrease the risk of a PF and complications compared with a pancreatico-jejunostomy (PJ). The outcomes of patients undergoing these reconstructions after a PD were compared.

METHOD

Patients undergoing a PD between 1999 and 2011 were selected from a prospective database and having undergone either a PG or PJ reconstruction. A propensity-score adjusted multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the effect of surgical technique on outcomes of PF, delayed gastric emptying (DGE) and total complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-three out of 103 and 20 out of 103 (P = 0.49) patients had PF and 74 out of 103 and 55 out of 103 patients had all-grades DGE in the PG and PJ groups, respectively (P = 0.02). The groups did not differ with regards to Clavien-Dindo grade of complications (P = 0.29) but did differ with regards to the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) (38.4 versus 31.4 for PG versus PG, respectively, P = 0.02.) Propensity-score adjusted multivariate analysis showed no effect of PG on PF (P = 0.89), DGE grades B/C (P = 0.9) or CCI (P = 0.41). There remained an effect on all-grades of DGE (P = 0.012.)

DISCUSSION

Patients undergoing PG reconstruction had a similar rate of PF as those undergoing a PJ after a PD.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for discectomy may accelerate recovery and reduce pain, but it also requires technical expertise and is associated with increased risks. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of minimally invasive versus open surgery on functional outcomes, pain, complications and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for reports of relevant randomized controlled trials published to Jan. 12, 2014. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. We analyzed functional outcomes and pain using standardized mean differences (SMDs) that were weighted and pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 4 trials in the cervical discectomy group (n = 431) and 10 in the lumbar discectomy group (n = 1159). Evidence overall was of low to moderate quality. We found that minimally invasive surgery did not improve long-term function (cervical: SMD 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to 0.31; lumbar: SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.20) or reduce long-term extremity pain (cervical: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10; lumbar: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32) compared with open surgery. The evidence suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.84), incidental durotomy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.05) and reoperation (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26) with minimally invasive surgery than with open surgery. Infections were more common with open surgery than with minimally invasive surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38), although the difference was not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Current evidence does not support the routine use of minimally invasive surgery for cervical or lumbar discectomy. Well-designed trials are needed given the lack of high-quality evidence.

Minimally invasive versus open surgery for cervical and lumbar discectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Minimally invasive surgery for discectomy may accelerate recovery and reduce pain, but it also requires technical expertise and is associated with increased risks. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effects of minimally invasive versus open surgery on functional outcomes, pain, complications and reoperations among patients undergoing cervical or lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for reports of relevant randomized controlled trials published to Jan. 12, 2014. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. We analyzed functional outcomes and pain using standardized mean differences (SMDs) that were weighted and pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 4 trials in the cervical discectomy group (n = 431) and 10 in the lumbar discectomy group (n = 1159). Evidence overall was of low to moderate quality. We found that minimally invasive surgery did not improve long-term function (cervical: SMD 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to 0.31; lumbar: SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.20) or reduce long-term extremity pain (cervical: SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.10; lumbar: SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.32) compared with open surgery. The evidence suggested overall higher rates of nerve-root injury (risk ratio [RR] 1.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.84), incidental durotomy (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.05) and reoperation (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.26) with minimally invasive surgery than with open surgery. Infections were more common with open surgery than with minimally invasive surgery (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.38), although the difference was not statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Current evidence does not support the routine use of minimally invasive surgery for cervical or lumbar discectomy. Well-designed trials are needed given the lack of high-quality evidence.

Methodological choices for the clinical development of medical devices

Clinical evidence available for the assessment of medical devices (MDs) is frequently insufficient. New MDs should be subjected to high quality clinical studies to demonstrate their benefit to patients. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the study design reaching the highest level of evidence in order to demonstrate the efficacy of a new MD. However, the clinical context of some MDs makes it difficult to carry out a conventional RCT. The objectives of this review are to present problems related to conducting conventional RCTs and to identify other experimental designs, their limitations, and their applications. A systematic literature search was conducted for the period January 2000 to July 2012 by searching medical bibliographic databases. Problems related to conducting conventional RCTs of MDs were identified: timing the assessment, eligible population and recruitment, acceptability, blinding, choice of comparator group, and learning curve. Other types of experimental designs have been described. Zelen's design trials and randomized consent design trials facilitate the recruitment of patients, but can cause ethical problems to arise. Expertise-based RCTs involve randomization to a team that specializes in a given intervention. Sometimes, the feasibility of an expertise-based randomized trial may be greater than that of a conventional trial. Cross-over trials reduce the number of patients, but are not applicable when a learning curve is required. Sequential trials have the advantage of allowing a trial to be stopped early depending on the results of first inclusions, but they require an independent committee. Bayesian methods combine existing information with information from the ongoing trial. These methods are particularly useful in situations where the number of subjects is small. The disadvantage is the risk of including erroneous prior information. Other types of experimental designs exist when conventional trials cannot always be applied to the clinical development of MDs.

Comparative clinical study of locking screws versus smooth locking pegs in volar plating of distal radius fractures

The present study was performed to test the null hypothesis on no difference in stability of fixation after volar plating of intra-articular distal radius fractures (AO C2-C3) with either locking smooth pegs or locking screws in a clinical setting. A retrospective evaluation included adult patients with C2-C3 AO fractures treated with a volar plate with locking smooth pegs or locking screws. Radiographic assessment was performed to evaluate extra- and intra-articular parameters in the early postoperative period and after bone union. Twenty-seven consecutive patients were included. Thirteen cases had fixation with locking screws and 14 had fixation with locking smooth pegs. Both groups had bone fragment displacement after fixation. However, there were no significant differences between the groups either in extra- or intra-articular parameters defined by Kreder et al. (1996). Our study shows that, in a clinical setting, there is no difference in stability fixation between locking screws or smooth locking pegs in C2-C3 distal radius fractures.

25th RCOphth Congress, President's Session paper: 25 years of progress in vitreoretinal surgery

Over the past 25 years, vitreoretinal surgery has undergone considerable change in technology, techniques, and professional organisation. Many conditions that were considered untreatable in 1988 are now treated routinely by vitreoretinal surgeons. Over the same period, vitreoretinal surgery has become a separate subspecialty with its own scientific meetings and professional organisation. This article describes a noncomprehensive selection of some of the highlights of the past 25 years, including the establishment and growth of BEAVRS (British and Eire Association of Vitreoretinal Surgeons), the revolution in the management of macular holes, the development of submacular surgery, and the introduction of sutureless vitrectomy.

Fixation using alternative implants for the treatment of hip fractures (FAITH): design and rationale for a multi-centre randomized trial comparing sliding hip screws and cancellous screws on revision surgery rates and quality of life in the treatment of femoral neck fractures

BACKGROUND

Hip fractures are a common type of fragility fracture that afflict 293,000 Americans (over 5,000 per week) and 35,000 Canadians (over 670 per week) annually. Despite the large population impact the optimal fixation technique for low energy femoral neck fractures remains controversial. The primary objective of the FAITH study is to assess the impact of cancellous screw fixation versus sliding hip screws on rates of revision surgery at 24 months in individuals with femoral neck fractures. The secondary objective is to determine the impact on health-related quality of life, functional outcomes, health state utilities, fracture healing, mortality and fracture-related adverse events.

METHODS/DESIGN

FAITH is a multi-centre, multi-national randomized controlled trial utilizing minimization to determine patient allocation. Surgeons in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia will recruit a total of at least 1,000 patients with low-energy femoral neck fractures. Using central randomization, patients will be allocated to receive surgical treatment with cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Patient outcomes will be assessed at one week (baseline), 10 weeks, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post initial fixation. We will independently adjudicate revision surgery and complications within 24 months of the initial fixation. Outcome analysis will be performed using a Cox proportional hazards model and likelihood ratio test.

DISCUSSION

This study represents major international efforts to definitively resolve the treatment of low-energy femoral neck fractures. This trial will not only change current Orthopaedic practice, but will also set a benchmark for the conduct of future Orthopaedic trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The FAITH trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT00761813).

What is the risk of death or severe harm due to bone cement implantation syndrome among patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur? A patient safety surveillance study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the risk of death or severe harm due to bone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) among patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur.

SETTING

Hospitals providing secondary and tertiary care throughout the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Cases reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in which the reporter clearly describes severe acute patient deterioration associated with cement use in hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur (assessed independently by two reviewers).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary-number of reported deaths, cardiac arrests and periarrests per year. Secondary-timing of deterioration and outcome in relation to cement insertion.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2012, the NRLS received 62 reports that clearly describe death or severe harm associated with the use of cement in hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur. There was one such incident for every 2900 hemiarthroplasties for fractured neck of femur during the period. Of the 62 reports, 41 patients died, 14 were resuscitated from cardiac arrest and 7 from periarrest. Most reports (55/62, 89%) describe acute deterioration occurring during or within a few minutes of cement insertion. The vast majority of deaths (33/41, 80%) occurred on the operating table.

CONCLUSIONS

These reports provide narrative evidence from England and Wales that cement use in hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur is associated with instances of perioperative death or severe harm consistent with BCIS. In 2009, the National Patient Safety Agency publicised this issue and encouraged the use of mitigation measures. Three-quarters of the deaths in this study have occurred since that alert, suggesting incomplete implementation or effectiveness of those mitigation measures. There is a need for stronger evidence that weighs the risks and benefits of cement in hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur.

A randomized clinical trial comparing open and arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent traumatic anterior shoulder instability: two-year follow-up with disease-specific quality-of-life outcomes

BACKGROUND

The literature comparing open and arthroscopic repair for glenohumeral instability is conflicting. We performed a prospective, expertise-based, randomized clinical trial to compare open shoulder stabilization with arthroscopic shoulder stabilization by measuring quality-of-life outcomes and recurrence rates at two years among patients treated for traumatic anterior shoulder instability.

METHODS

Computer-generated, variable-block-size, concealed randomization allocated 196 patients to either the open-repair group (n = 98) or the arthroscopic-repair group (n = 98). An expertise-based randomization design was employed to avoid a differential bias in terms of physician experience. Outcomes were measured at baseline, at three and six months postoperatively, and at one and two years postoperatively with use of the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) functional outcome scale. Recurrent instability was also analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in outcome scores at baseline. At two years, seventy-nine patients in the open group and eighty-three patients in the arthroscopic group were available for follow-up. There was no significant difference in mean WOSI scores between the groups; the mean WOSI score (and standard deviation) for the open group was 85.2 ± 20.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 80.5 to 89.8), and for the arthroscopic group, 81.9 ± 19.8 (95% CI = 77.4 to 86.4); p = 0.31. There was also no significant difference in mean ASES scores: 91.4 ± 12.7 (95% CI = 88.5 to 94.4) for the open group and 88.2 ± 15.9 (95% CI = 84.6 to 91.8) for the arthroscopic group; p = 0.17. Recurrence rates at two years were significantly different: 11% in the open group and 23% in the arthroscopic group (p = 0.05). Recurrent instability was more likely in patients with a preoperative Hill-Sachs lesion and in male patients who were twenty-five years old and younger. There was no significant difference in shoulder motion between the groups at two years.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between open and arthroscopic repair in terms of patient quality of life. Open repair resulted in a significantly lower risk of recurrence. Secondary outcome data from this trial suggest that open surgical repair may be recommended to reduce the risk of recurrent instability in younger male patients with a Hill-Sachs lesion.

How to write a medical original article: Advice from an Editor

Objectives

To provide guidelines for potential authors on how to increase the chances of their manuscript being accepted, with a review focusing on writing an original medical article.

Methods

This review reflects the personal experience of the present author, who has extensive experience as an author, reviewer and editor.

Results

To write an original article successfully, there are three essential requirements, the ‘basic triad’ of an original article. These are subjects worth reporting, knowledge of the basic structure of an article, and knowledge of the essential mechanics of good writing. This review details each of the three items.

Conclusions

Writing, like every other art, cannot be learned wholly from books or lectures, but can be learned largely by experience. The best training is to start the task and persevere. The act of writing, like surgical techniques, must be learned the hard way, by practice and perseverance. Anyone can start writing but only a good writer can finish the task.