Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review

Status, reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot randomised controlled trials in acupuncture: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

To date, there has been a lack of knowledge about the status, reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot trials in the acupuncture field. Thus, this systematic review protocol aims to: (1) investigate publication trends and aspects of feasibility evaluated in acupuncture pilot trials; (2) identify the proportion of acupuncture pilot trials that lead to definitive trials and (3) assess the reporting completeness and methodological quality of pilot trials in acupuncture.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Studies of acupuncture pilot randomised controlled trials published from 2011 to 2021 will be retrieved in seven databases in January 2022, including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. The methodological quality and reporting completeness of all included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias 2.0 tool (RoB 2) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials, respectively. For the primary analysis, publication trends, aspects of feasibility and the proportion of pilot trials that lead to definitive trials will be analysed. A quantitative analysis of the methodological quality and reporting completeness of the included trials will be implemented by calculating the percentage of items reported in each domain of RoB 2 and CONSORT. The secondary analysis will adopt a regression analysis to identify factors associated with the reporting completeness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for this study. This study is planned to be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Status of adult inpatient burn rehabilitation in Europe: Are we neglecting metabolic outcomes?

BACKGROUND

Hypermetabolism, muscle wasting and insulin resistance are challenging yet important rehabilitation targets in the management of burns. In the absence of concrete practice guidelines, however, it remains unclear how these metabolic targets are currently managed. This study aimed to describe the current practice of inpatient rehabilitation across Europe.

METHODS

An electronic survey was distributed by the European Burn Association to burn centres throughout Europe, comprising generic and profession-specific questions directed at therapists, medical doctors and dieticians. Questions concerned exercise prescription, metabolic management and treatment priorities, motivation and knowledge of burn-induced metabolic sequelae. Odds ratios were computed to analyse associations between data derived from the responses of treatment priorities and knowledge of burn-induced metabolic sequelae.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine clinicians with 12.3 ± 9 years of professional experience in burns, representing 18 out of 91 burn centres (response rate, 19.8%) across eight European countries responded. Resistance and aerobic exercises were only provided by 42% and 38% of therapists to intubated patients, 87% and 65% once out-of-bed mobility was possible and 97% and 83% once patients were able to leave their hospital room, respectively. The assessment of resting energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry, muscle wasting and insulin resistance was carried out by only 40.7%, 15.3% and 7.4% respondents, respectively, with large variability in employed frequency and methods. Not all clinicians changed their care in cases of hypermetabolism (59.3%), muscle wasting (70.4%) or insulin resistance (44.4%), and large variations in management strategies were reported. Significant interdisciplinary variation was present in treatment goal importance ratings, motivation and knowledge of burn-induced metabolic sequelae. The prevention of metabolic sequelae was regarded as the least important treatment goal, while the restoration of functional status was rated as the most important. Knowledge of burn-induced metabolic sequelae was linked to higher importance ratings of metabolic sequelae as a therapy goal (odds ratio, 4.63; 95% CI, 1.50-14.25; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This survey reveals considerable non-uniformity around multiple aspects of inpatient rehabilitation across European burn care, including, most notably, a potential neglect of metabolic outcomes. The results contribute to the necessary groundwork to formulate practice guidelines for inpatient burn rehabilitation.