Radiographs of hip fractures were digitally altered to mask surgeons to the type of implant without compromising the reliability of quality ratings or making the rating process more difficult

Effects of Diathermy on Pain in Women with Fibromyalgia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: The main characteristic of fibromyalgia (FM) is generalized musculoskeletal pain. This may be accompanied by muscle and joint stiffness, sleep and mood disorders, anxiety and depression, cognitive dysfunction, and chronic fatigue. It is endemic in developed countries, with a higher prevalence among women than men, and its etiology is still unknown. Diagnosis is made based on chronic generalized pain and through the presence of tender points. The objective of this study was to analyze the efficacy of diathermy on pain in patients with fibromyalgia. (2) Methods: A single, blind, randomized experimental study was developed with a sample of 31 participants. Measurements were taken and recorded at three different intervals using the following measurement tools: the pressure pain threshold (PPT) at the tender points (TP) of the right and left trochanteric prominence with an algometer, the pain measurement scale, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, the sleep quality index (PSQI, Pittsburgh), the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-S), and the scale for anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Sociodemographic data were collected through Google Forms (age, height, weight, Body Mass Index). The intervention took place twice weekly across four weeks of sessions. (3) Results: Statistically significant results were obtained in the right and left trochanter PPT, as well as for anxiety and fatigue in the experimental group. The results obtained show that this treatment has managed to improve the quality of sleep, the impact of disease, chronic fatigue, and anxiety in patients with FM. (4) Conclusions: Diathermy is a tool that can help reduce pain. It can also improve the baseline levels of chronic fatigue, anxiety, the impact of the disease, and sleep quality in patients with fibromyalgia.

Effectiveness of manual lymphatic drainage in women with fibromyalgia: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Currently there is no treatment capable of significantly alleviating all the symptoms of fibromyalgia (FM), even though it is a complex syndrome with a high prevalence in the population.

DESIGN

Experimental study using a single-blind, randomised, clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the efficacy of manual lymphatic drainage (MLD) as an alternative to traditional treatment of fibromyalgia (FM) in women.

METHODS

This was an experimental study using a single-blind, randomised, clinical trial of 20 women between 30 and 55 years old with FM. Patients were divided into an experimental group (n = 10) and a control group (n = 10). During the study, 3 measurements of pain (visual analogue scale and algometry), FM impact (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire), sleep quality (Index Pittsburgh), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were recorded. Treatment of the experimental group consisted of 2 weekly MLD sessions for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

The effect of the interaction of MLD showed statistically significant results in Right intercostal space (F2,36 = 3.54; p = 0.04; n2p = 0.16). The sleep quality was significantly better favour of the treatment (F2,36 = 4.16; p = 0.01; n2p = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

MLD therapy demonstrated effects in the experimental group in contrast to the control group across the intervention period concerning the right intercostal space and sleep-related factors. However, MLD did not result in observable alterations in pain perception.

Blinding in Clinical Trials: Seeing the Big Picture

Blinding mitigates several sources of bias which, if left unchecked, can quantitively affect study outcomes. Blinding remains under-utilized, particularly in non-pharmaceutical clinical trials, but is often highly feasible through simple measures. Although blinding is generally viewed as an effective method by which to eliminate bias, blinding does also pose some inherent limitations, and it behooves clinicians and researchers to be aware of such caveats. This article will review general principles for blinding in clinical trials, including examples of useful blinding techniques for both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical trials, while also highlighting the limitations and potential consequences of blinding. Appropriate reporting on blinding in trial protocols and manuscripts, as well as future directions for blinding research, will also be discussed.

Psychometric Properties of Cognitive Assessment in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A Systematic Review

Purpose

We aimed to list all tests used to assess cognitive change in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and to provide a descriptive synthesis of the psychometric properties of tests that were evaluated in a population of ALS patients.

Materials and Methods

The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42017055603). We systematically search for literature in 11 databases. Full-text articles, in any language, with original research were included. All included articles were scrutinised by two independent authors. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. The framework of Lezak informed conceptualises of the tests identified. To evaluate methodological quality, we used the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). Data were synthesised using criteria proposed by the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Results

Of 319 included articles, 46 articles reported information on the psychometric properties of cognitive tests used in patients with ALS. We found that the highest level of evidence was supported for the Reading the Mind in the Eye Test (RME), Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Evaluation (ACE) and Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB). Moderate level of evidence was found for the screening tests; Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural ALS Screen (ECAS) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA).

Conclusion

The screening test, ECAS and the social cognition test, RME, may have some advantages over other tests that have been used for assessing cognitive change in ALS patients. Recommendations of ALS-specific tests with sound psychometric properties are urgently needed.

Digital blinding of radiographs to mask allocation in a randomized control trial

AIM

To demonstrate the effectiveness of a digital radiographic altering technique in concealing treatment allocation to blind outcome assessment of distal femur fracture fixation.

METHODS

Digital postoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs from a sample of 33 randomly-selected patients with extra-articular distal femur fractures treated by surgical fixation at a Level 1 trauma center were included. Using commercially available digital altering software, we devised a technique to blind the radiographs by overlaying black boxes over the implant hardware while preserving an exposed fracture site for assessment of fracture healing. Three fellowship-trained surgeons evaluated a set of blinded radiographs twice and a control set of unblinded radiographs once. Each set of radiographs were reviewed independently and in a randomly-assigned order. The degrees of agreement and disagreement among evaluators in identifying implant type while reviewing both blinded and unblinded radiographs were assessed using the Bang Blinding Index and James Blinding Index. The degree of agreement in fracture union was assessed using kappa statistics.

RESULTS

The assessment of blinded radiographs with both the Bang Blinding Index (BBI) and James Blinding Index (JBI) demonstrated a low degree of evaluator success at identifying implant type (Mean BBI, far cortical locking: -0.03, SD: 0.04; Mean BBI, standard screw: 0, SD: 0; JBI: 0.98, SD: 0), suggesting near perfect blinding. The assessment of unblinded radiographs with both blinding indices demonstrated a high degree of evaluator success at identifying implant type (Mean BBI, far cortical locking: 0.89, SD: 0.19; Mean BBI, standard screw: 0.87, SD: 0.04; JBI: 0.26, SD: 0.12), as expected. There was moderate agreement with regard to assessment of fracture union among the evaluators in both the blinded (Kappa: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.25-0.52) and unblinded (Kappa: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.25-0.45) arms of the study. There was no statistically significant difference in fracture union agreement between the blinded and unblinded groups.

CONCLUSION

The digital blinding technique successfully masked the surgeons to the type of implant used for surgical treatment of distal femur fractures but did not interfere with the surgeons’ ability to reliably evaluate radiographic healing at the fracture site.

Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials

OBJECTIVE

Unblinded outcome assessment can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect in randomised trials. We reviewed published trials to assess how often blinded assessment is used, and whether its use varies according to the type of outcome or assessor.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A review of parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether assessment of the primary outcome was blinded, and whether this differed according to outcome or assessor type.

RESULTS

We identified 258 eligible trials. Of these, 106 (41%) were reported as double-blind, and 152 (59%) as partially or fully open-label (that is, they included some groups who were unblinded, such as patients, those delivering the intervention, or those in charge of medical care). Of the 152 open trials, 125 required outcome assessment. Of these 125 trials, only 26% stated that outcome assessment was blinded; 51% gave no information on whether assessment was blinded or not. Furthermore, 18% of trials did not state who performed the assessment. The choice of outcome type (e.g. instrument measured, rated, or naturally occurring event) did not appear to influence whether blinded assessment was performed (range 24-32% for the most common outcome types). However, the choice of outcome assessor did influence blinding; independent assessors were blinded much more frequently (71%) than participant (5%) or physician (24%) assessors. Despite this, open trials did not use independent assessors any more frequently than double-blind trials (17% vs. 18% respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Blinding of outcome assessors is infrequently used and poorly reported. Increased use of independent assessors could increase the frequency of blinded assessment.

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors

BACKGROUND

We wanted to evaluate the impact of nonblinded outcome assessors on estimated treatment effects in time-to-event trials.

METHODS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors of the same time-to-event outcome. Two authors agreed on inclusion of trials and outcomes. We compared hazard ratios based on nonblinded and blinded assessments. A ratio of hazard ratios (RHR)<1 indicated that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic effect estimates. We pooled RHRs with inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

We included 18 trials. Eleven trials (1969 patients) with subjective outcomes provided hazard ratios, RHR 0.88 (0.69 to 1.12), (I2=44%, P=0.06), but unconditional pooling was problematic because of qualitative heterogeneity. Four atypical cytomegalovirus retinitis trials compared experimental oral administration with control intravenous administration of the same drug, resulting in bias favouring the control intervention, RHR 1.33 (0.98 to 1.82). Seven trials of cytomegalovirus retinitis, tibial fracture and multiple sclerosis compared experimental interventions with standard control interventions, e.g. placebo, no-treatment or active control, resulting in bias favouring the experimental intervention, RHR 0.73 (0.57 to 0.93), indicating an average exaggeration of nonblinded hazard ratios by 27% (7% to 43%).

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of blinded outcome assessors in randomized trials with subjective time-to-event outcomes causes high risk of observer bias. Nonblinded outcome assessors typically favour the experimental intervention, exaggerating the hazard ratio by an average of approximately 27%; but in special situations, nonblinded outcome assessors favour control interventions, inducing a comparable degree of observer bias in the reversed direction.

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: a systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation.

RESULTS

We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size -0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.40 to -0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2) = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression.

INTERPRETATION

We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.

The tactics of large randomized trials

Single-center studies and small randomized controlled trials often provide contradictory or inconclusive results. In contrast, large randomized controlled trials are designed to definitively answer a relevant and practice-changing research question. These studies rely on large sample sizes to gain adequate precision of the results and substantial funding to support the research infrastructure necessary to minimize bias. Tactics for successfully completing a large randomized controlled trial are outlined with examples from recent orthopaedic trials.

Lessons learned from benchmark orthopaedic trials

Benchmark trials in orthopaedics are designed to address a question of substantial interest to clinicians and patients. They are also designed to have prospective data collection, an adequate sample size, an appropriate duration of follow-up based on the injury or treatment under study, blinded adjudication of the outcome variables, appropriate statistical analyses, and widespread and effective dissemination of the information learned in the trial. There are multiple lessons to be gleaned from these trials: (1) Identifying an engaging and relevant clinical question will make it easier to identify centers that are willing to participate. (2) Individual site leadership, both of the overall project and at the individual site, is critical to the success of any trial. (3) Not every trial needs to have a randomized design; observational trials can provide data that will impact clinical care. (4) Patients should understand the long-term goals of the project when they are enrolled so that they have a sense of the importance of their role in the study. (5) Follow-up rates that are &gt;90% are possible for orthopaedic trials, but effort and money are required to achieve this. (6) Patients who do not agree to be randomized should be enrolled as subjects in a parallel observational design if it is available. (7) Blinded adjudication of the outcome variables is recommended whenever feasible. (8) Partnership with the academic community is mandatory for the success of industry-funded, phase-3 United States Food and Drug Administration trials. (9) Intention-to-treat analysis and as-treated analysis should be reported. Benchmark orthopaedic trials can and will change clinical practice, but detailed planning must occur to ensure that the results are believable and relevant to the orthopaedic community. These trials are time-consuming and expensive, but with the use of careful initial planning and continued oversight during the trial, Level-I evidence will be obtained and will be useful in clinical care.

Measurement and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes in surgery: an opportunity for improvement

BACKGROUND

Surgery may have a profound effect on patients' health-related quality of life (QOL). To be optimally useful, trials that seek to guide clinical decision making should measure outcomes that are important to patients and report the results in a clinically meaningful way. We sought to explore how researchers currently measure and interpret QOL in surgical trials, using gastric cancer as a case study.

METHOD

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of gastric cancer surgery published between 1966 and 2009 that included at least one patient-reported outcome (PRO). Investigators assessed trial eligibility and extracted data in duplicate using standardized forms, then resolved disagreements by consensus.

RESULTS

Our search identified 87 RCTs of gastric cancer surgery, of which 11 (13%) included at least one PRO. Ten RCTs measured one or more validated PROs, although six also included ad hoc measures. All manuscripts presented the results as raw scores and nine of the 11 trials identified a statistical difference between groups. All 11 manuscripts prominently reported the PRO results in the abstracts and conclusions, but only one discussed the clinical significance of the differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Most RCTs of gastric cancer surgery do not include measures of QOL and those that do suffer from important limitations. RCTs would be more useful to surgeons and patients if authors measured PROs and utilized existing approaches to present the results of PROs in ways that provide an intuitive sense of the magnitude of effects.