Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011

[Design of a clinical study to demonstrate the therapeutic benefit of another wound treatment product]

BACKGROUND

Due to new legal requirements, a patient-relevant benefit for other wound treatment products (sPW) must be demonstrated through clinical studies if reimbursement at the expense of the statutory health insurance is sought in the non-inpatient sector.

METHOD

An interdisciplinary group with expertise in clinical wound care has developed general recommendations for the design of suitable studies. In addition to regulatory documents, previous studies that have already been recognized as proof of benefit in other areas served as a basis.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials that cover at least the most common types of chronic wounds (arterial, venous, diabetic or pressure sore) are recommended as the best method for gathering evidence. Despite the heterogeneous etiology of chronic wounds, the results should also be transferable to other wound types. The test intervention does not usually consist of the sPW alone, but of a combined wound treatment that follows a treatment plan that is as clearly defined as possible. In the comparison group, all wound treatment options (besides the sPW) must also be available and used according to a similar predefined treatment plan. Depending on the intended purpose and treatment goal, complete wound closure should, if possible, be recorded as the cardinal - although not always as the primary - endpoint. In justified cases, e.g. in the case of intermediate use as part of phase-appropriate wound therapy for chronic wounds, a significant reduction in the wound area can also be considered for benefit assessment. Quality of life (e.g. pain) can also justify a benefit and can therefore be recorded as a primary outcome parameter in clinical trials. The duration of the clinical trial should be adapted to the central endpoints, the medical or nursing goal of wound care and the intended purpose of the sPW. A benefit does not always arise from microbiological, physiological, laboratory or histological parameters or imaging findings.

Towards User-Oriented Recommendations for Local Therapy of Leg and Foot Ulcers-An Update of a S3-German Guideline

Background: The German S3- guideline on local therapy of leg ulcers and diabetic foot ulcers is in the process of being updated. Major goals are to improve the guidelines’ applicability and to take steps towards a living guideline according to current methodological standards. The aim of this article is to describe the main measures to achieve these goals. Methods: The context of the guideline in the field of local wound care and the stakeholder requirements are briefly described. Based on a derived framework, the project team adjusted the methods for the guideline. Results: Main adjustments are more specific inclusion criteria, online consensus meetings and the use of an authoring and publication platform to provide information in a multi-layered format. A new set of practice-oriented key questions were defined by the guideline panel to foster the formulation of action-oriented recommendations. Conclusions: The set of new key questions addressing practical problems and patients’ preferences as well as the adjustments made to improve not only the guidelines’ applicability, but also the feasibility of the further dynamic updating processes in the sense of a living guideline, should be steps in the right direction.

Assessing the uncertainty of treatment outcomes in a previous systematic review of venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials: Additional secondary analysis

In this secondary analysis of a previous systematic review, we assessed randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments of venous leg ulcers in terms of factors that affect risk of bias at the study level and thus uncertainty of outcomes obtained from the interventions. Articles that assessed the wound bed condition in venous leg ulcers and that were published in English between 1998 and May 22, 2018 were previously searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, Science Direct, and Web of Science. Duplicates and retracted articles were excluded. The following data were extracted to assess the risk of bias: treatment groups; primary and secondary endpoints that were statistically tested between groups, including their results and p values; whether blinding of patients and assessors was done; whether allocation concealment was adequate; whether an intention‐to‐treat analysis was conducted; whether an appropriate power calculation was correctly done; and whether an appropriate multiplicity adjustment was made, as necessary. Pre‐ and post‐study power calculations were made. The step‐up Hochberg procedure adjusted for multiplicity. Results were analysed for all studies, pre‐2013 studies, and 2013/post‐2013 studies. We included 142 randomized controlled trials that evaluated 14,141 patients. Most studies lacked blinding (72.5–77.5%) and allocation concealment (88.7%). Only 49.3% of trials provided a power calculation, with 27.5% having an appropriate calculation correctly done. Adequate statistical power of the primary endpoint was found in 27.2% of trials. The lack of multiplicity adjustment in 98.6% of studies affected the uncertainty of outcomes in 20% of studies, with the majority of the secondary endpoints (67.7%) in those studies becoming non‐significant after multiplicity adjustment. Recent studies tended to weakly demonstrate improved certainty of outcomes. Venous leg ulcer randomized controlled trials have a high degree of uncertainty associated with treatment outcomes. Greater attention to trial design and conduct is needed to improve the evidence base.

Promotion or education: a content analysis of industry-authored oral health educational materials targeted at acute care nurses

OBJECTIVES

To assess the nature, quality and independence of scientific evidence provided in support of claims in industry-authored educational materials in oral health.

DESIGN

A content analysis of educational materials authored by the four major multinational oral health product manufacturers.

SETTING

Acute care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

68 documents focused on oral health or oral care, targeted at acute care clinicians and identified as 'educational' on companies' international websites.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were extracted in duplicate for three areas of focus: (a) products referenced in the documents, (b) product-related claims and (c) citations substantiating claims. We assessed claim-citation pairs to determine if information in the citation supported the claim. We analysed the inter-relationships among cited authors and companies using social network analysis.

RESULTS

Documents ranged from training videos to posters to brochures to continuing education courses. The majority of educational materials explicitly mentioned a product (59/68, 87%), a branded product (35/68, 51%), and made a product-related claim (55/68, 81%). Among claims accompanied by a citation, citations did not support the majority (91/147, 62%) of claims, largely because citations were unrelated. References used to support claims most often represented lower levels of evidence: only 9% were systematic reviews (7/76) and 13% were randomised controlled trials (10/76). We found a network of 20 authors to account for 37% (n=77/206) of all references in claim-citation pairs; 60% (12/20) of the top 20 cited authors received financial support from one of the four sampled manufacturers.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources to support clinicians' ongoing education are scarce. However, caution should be exercised when relying on industry-authored materials to support continuing education for oral health. Evidence of sponsorship bias and reliance on key opinion leaders suggests that industry-authored educational materials have promotional intent and should be regulated as such.

Constructing a problem and marketing solutions: A critical content analysis of the nature and function of industry-authored oral health educational materials

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To document the nature of industry-authored educational materials focused on oral health; and analyse how they construct the relationships between nurses and industry.

BACKGROUND

Nurses frequently rely on pharmaceutical and medical device companies for continuing education. However, industry-sponsored education is a key aspect of multi-faceted promotional campaigns and may introduce bias into clinical decision-making.

DESIGN

Critical qualitative content analysis reported according to the COREQ checklist.

METHODS

We purposively sampled educational documents from the websites of 4 major manufacturers of oral health products for acute care. Two researchers analysed each document using an open-ended coding form. We conducted an interpretive analysis using inductive coding methods.

RESULTS

We included 63 documents that emphasised the importance of education in the form of training, expert guidance, evidence syntheses and protocols to support oral care practices. Industry promoted its relationship with nursing as an oral health authority through three dominant messages: (1) Pneumonia is a source of morbidity, mortality and treatment costs, which informed nurses about a critical problem; (2) Comprehensive oral care reduces pneumonia risk, which instructed nurses about product-oriented solutions; and (3) Frequent oral care is important, which emphasised compliance to standardised protocols. These messages formed an accountability logic that prompted clinicians to address a problem for which the company's products served as a solution. In doing so, industry validated dominant administrative concerns including compliance, while promoting product uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry-authored educational materials may promote industry interests, rather than nursing or patient agendas. Dependence on industry's information and product solutions may have unintended, negative consequences for nursing practice.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Though industry's educational materials present as convenient, helpful and evidence-based, they may serve to redirect care processes in ways that reinforce company goals rather than clinical priorities. Nurses should seek independent sources of continuing education where possible.

The hundred most frequently cited studies on sleeve gastrectomy

INTRODUCTION

Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is one of the most popular bariatric operations and one of the most frequently studied areas in bariatric surgery.

AIM

To summarise the characteristics of the most frequently cited studies focusing on SG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We used the Web of Science database to identify all studies focused on SG published from 2000 to 2018. The term "sleeve gastrectomy" and synonyms were used to reveal the 100 most cited records.

RESULTS

The most frequently cited publication had 493 citations. The highest mean number of citations per year was 73.00. Studies were most frequently published in the years 2010 and 2012. Articles were most commonly published in bariatric surgery-oriented journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates an increase in medical researchers' interest in the subject of SG and underlines the need to perform studies with a higher level of evidence to further analyse the outcomes and basic science behind SG.

The reporting of funding in health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Major research-reporting statements, such as PRISMA and CONSORT, require authors to provide information about funding. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess the reporting of funding in health policy and systems research (HPSR) papers and (2) to assess the funding reporting policies of journals publishing on HPSR.

METHODS

We conducted two cross-sectional surveys for papers published in 2016 addressing HPSR (both primary studies and systematic reviews) and for journals publishing on HPSR (both journals under the 'Health Policy and Services' (HPS) category in the Web of Science, and non-HPS journals that published on HPSR). Teams of two reviewers selected studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to investigate the association between reporting of funding by papers and the journal's characteristics.

RESULTS

We included 400 studies (200 systematic reviews and 200 primary studies) that were published in 198 journals. Approximately one-third (31%) of HPSR papers did not report on funding. Of those that did, only 11% reported on the role of funders (15% of systematic reviews and 7% of primary studies). Of the 198 journals publishing on HPSR, 89% required reporting of the source of funding. Of those that did, about one-third (34%) required reporting of the role of funders. Journals classified under the HPS category (n = 72) were less likely than non-HPS journals that published HPSR studies (n = 142) to require information on the role of funders (15% vs. 32%). We did not find any of the journals' characteristics to be associated with the reporting of funding by papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the majority of journals publishing on HPSR requiring the reporting of funding, approximately one-third of HPSR papers did not report on the funding source. Moreover, few journals publishing on HPSR required the reporting of the role of funders, and few HPSR papers reported on that role.

An aseptically processed, acellular, reticular, allogenic human dermis improves healing in diabetic foot ulcers: A prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre follow-up trial

Aseptically processed human reticular acellular dermal matrix (HR‐ADM) has been previously shown to improve wound closure in 40 diabetic patients with non‐healing foot ulcers. The study was extended to 40 additional patients (80 in total) to validate and extend the original findings. The entire cohort of 80 patients underwent appropriate offloading and standard of care (SOC) during a 2‐week screening period and, after meeting eligibility criteria, were randomised to receive weekly applications of HR‐ADM plus SOC or SOC alone for up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of wounds closed at 6 weeks. Sixty‐eight percent (27/40) in the HR‐ADM group were completely healed at 6 weeks compared with 15% (6/40) in the SOC group. The proportions of wounds healed at 12 weeks were 80% (34/40) and 30% (12/40), respectively. The mean time to heal within 12 weeks was 38 days for the HR‐ADM group and 72 days for the SOC group. There was no incidence of increased adverse or serious adverse events between groups or any graft‐related adverse events. The mean and median HR‐ADM product costs at 12 weeks were $1200 and $680, respectively. HR‐ADM is clinically superior to SOC, is cost effective relative to other comparable treatment modalities, and is an efficacious treatment for chronic non‐healing diabetic foot ulcers.

Opportunities for better value wound care: a multiservice, cross-sectional survey of complex wounds and their care in a UK community population

BACKGROUND

Complex wounds impose a substantial health economic burden worldwide. As wound care is managed across multiple settings by a range of healthcare professionals with varying levels of expertise, the actual care delivered can vary considerably and result in the underuse of evidence-based interventions, the overuse of interventions supported by limited evidence and low value healthcare.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the number, type and management of complex wounds being treated over a two-week period and to explore variations in care by comparing current practices in wound assessment, prevention and treatment.

DESIGN

A multiservice cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

This survey spanned eight community services within five Northern England NHS Trusts.

RESULTS

The point prevalence of complex wounds in this community-based population was 16.4 per 10 000 (95% CI 15.9 to 17.0). Based on data from 3179 patients, antimicrobial dressings were being used as the primary dressing for 36% of patients with complex wounds. Forty per cent of people with leg ulcers either had not received the recommended Doppler-aided Ankle Brachial Pressure Index assessment or it was unclear whether a recording had been taken. Thirty-one per cent of patients whose most severe wound was a venous leg ulcer were not receiving compression therapy, and there was limited use of two-layer compression hosiery. Of patients with a pressure ulcer, 39% were not using a pressure-relieving cushion or mattress.

CONCLUSIONS

Marked variations were found in care, underuse of evidence-based practices and overuse of practices that are not supported by robust research evidence. Significant opportunities for delivering better value wound care therefore exist. Efforts should now focus on developing strategies to identify, assess and disinvest from products and practices supported by little or no evidence and enhance the uptake of those that are.

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care

Background

Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients’ wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by community-based healthcare professionals.

Methods

We asked healthcare professionals to prioritise uncertainties based on complex wound care decisions, and then classified 28 uncertainties according to the type and level of decision. For each uncertainty, we searched for relevant systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts of reviews against the following criteria: meeting an a priori definition of a systematic review, sufficiently addressing the uncertainty, published during or after 2012, and identifying high quality research evidence.

Results

The most common uncertainty type was ‘interventions’ 24/28 (85%); the majority concerned wound level decisions 15/28 (53%) however, service delivery level decisions (10/28) were given highest priority. Overall, we found 162 potentially relevant reviews of which 57 (35%) were not systematic reviews. Of 106 systematic reviews, only 28 were relevant to an uncertainty and 18 of these were published within the preceding five years; none identified high quality research evidence.

Conclusions

Despite the growing volume of published primary research, healthcare professionals delivering wound care have important clinical uncertainties which are not addressed by up-to-date systematic reviews containing high certainty evidence. These are high priority topics requiring new research and systematic reviews which are regularly updated. To reduce clinical and research waste, we recommend systematic reviewers and researchers make greater efforts to ensure that research addresses important clinical uncertainties and is of sufficient rigour to inform practice.

Rapid research and implementation priority setting for wound care uncertainties

INTRODUCTION

People with complex wounds are more likely to be elderly, living with multimorbidity and wound related symptoms. A variety of products are available for managing complex wounds and a range of healthcare professionals are involved in wound care, yet there is a lack of good evidence to guide practice and services. These factors create uncertainty for those who deliver and those who manage wound care. Formal priority setting for research and implementation topics is needed to more accurately target the gaps in treatment and services. We solicited practitioner and manager uncertainties in wound care and held a priority setting workshop to facilitate a collaborative approach to prioritising wound care-related uncertainties.

METHODS

We recruited healthcare professionals who regularly cared for patients with complex wounds, were wound care specialists or managed wound care services. Participants submitted up to five wound care uncertainties in consultation with their colleagues, via an on-line survey and attended a priority setting workshop. Submitted uncertainties were collated, sorted and categorised according professional group. On the day of the workshop, participants were divided into four groups depending on their profession. Uncertainties submitted by their professional group were viewed, discussed and amended, prior to the first of three individual voting rounds. Participants cast up to ten votes for the uncertainties they judged as being high priority. Continuing in the professional groups, the top 10 uncertainties from each group were displayed, and the process was repeated. Groups were then brought together for a plenary session in which the final priorities were individually scored on a scale of 0-10 by participants. Priorities were ranked and results presented. Nominal group technique was used for generating the final uncertainties, voting and discussions.

RESULTS

Thirty-three participants attended the workshop comprising; 10 specialist nurses, 10 district nurses, seven podiatrists and six managers. Participants had been qualified for a mean of 20.7 years with a mean of 16.8 years of wound care experience. One hundred and thirty-nine uncertainties were submitted electronically and a further 20 were identified on the day of the workshop following lively, interactive group discussions. Twenty-five uncertainties from the total of 159 generated made it to the final prioritised list. These included six of the 20 new uncertainties. The uncertainties varied in focus, but could be broadly categorised into three themes: service delivery and organisation, patient centred care and treatment options. Specialist nurses were more likely to vote for service delivery and organisation topics, podiatrists for patient centred topics, district nurses for treatment options and operational leads for a broad range.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative priority setting project is the first to engage front-line clinicians in prioritising research and implementation topics in wound care. We have shown that it is feasible to conduct topic prioritisation in a short time frame. This project has demonstrated that with careful planning and rigor, important questions that are raised in the course of clinicians' daily decision making can be translated into meaningful research and implementation initiatives that could make a difference to service delivery and patient care.

Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance

OBJECTIVES

To provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information.

METHODS

We addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.

RESULTS

Of 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information.

CONCLUSION

Although the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary randomised controlled trials of pharmaceutical interventions funded by different sources, a cross-sectional study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are a key component of the veterinary evidence base. Sample sizes and defined outcome measures are crucial components of RCTs.

To describe the sample size and number of outcome measures of veterinary RCTs either funded by the pharmaceutical industry or not, published in 2011.

Methods

A structured search of PubMed identified RCTs examining the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions. Number of outcome measures, number of animals enrolled per trial, whether a primary outcome was identified, and the presence of a sample size calculation were extracted from the RCTs. The source of funding was identified for each trial and groups compared on the above parameters.

Results

Literature searches returned 972 papers; 86 papers comprising 126 individual trials were analysed. The median number of outcomes per trial was 5.0; there were no significant differences across funding groups (p = 0.133). The median number of animals enrolled per trial was 30.0; this was similar across funding groups (p = 0.302). A primary outcome was identified in 40.5% of trials and was significantly more likely to be stated in trials funded by a pharmaceutical company. A very low percentage of trials reported a sample size calculation (14.3%).

Conclusions

Failure to report primary outcomes, justify sample sizes and the reporting of multiple outcome measures was a common feature in all of the clinical trials examined in this study. It is possible some of these factors may be affected by the source of funding of the studies, but the influence of funding needs to be explored with a larger number of trials. Some veterinary RCTs provide a weak evidence base and targeted strategies are required to improve the quality of veterinary RCTs to ensure there is reliable evidence on which to base clinical decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12917-017-1207-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews related to wound care: An investigation into prespecification

The choice of outcomes in systematic reviews of the effects of interventions is crucial, dictating which data are included and analyzed. Full prespecification of outcomes in systematic reviews can reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias but, this issue has not been widely investigated. This study is the first to analyze the nature and specification of outcomes used in Cochrane Wounds (CW) systematic reviews. Adequacy of outcome specification was assessed using a five-element framework of key outcome components: outcome domain, specific measurement, specific metric, method of aggregation, and time points. We identified all CW review titles associated with a protocol published on or before October 1, 2014. We categorized all reported outcome domains and recorded whether they were primary or secondary outcomes. We explored outcome specification for outcome domains reported in 25% or more of the eligible protocols. We included 106 protocols and 126 outcome domains; 24.6% (31/126) domains were used as primary outcomes at least once. Eight domains were reported in ≥25% of protocols: wound healing, quality of life, costs, adverse events, resource use, pain, wound infection, and mortality. Wound healing was the most completely specified outcome domain (median 3; interquartile range [IQR] =1-5) along with resource use (median 3; IQR 2-4). Quality of life (median 1; IQR 1-3), pain (median 1; IQR 1-3), and costs (median 1; IQR 1-4) were the least completely specified outcome domains. Outcomes are frequently poorly prespecified and the elements of metric, aggregation, and time-point are rarely adequately specified. We strongly recommend that reviewers be more vigilant about prespecifying outcomes, using the five-element framework. Better prespecification is likely to improve review quality by reducing bias in data abstraction and analysis, and by reducing subjectivity in the decision of which outcomes to extract; it may also improve outcome specification in clinical trial design and reporting.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical-industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.50) (13 papers), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.

Wounds research for patient benefit: a 5-year programme of research

Background

Complex wounds are those that heal by secondary intention and include lower-limb ulcers, pressure ulcers and some surgical wounds. The care of people with complex wounds is costly, with care mainly being delivered by community nurses. There is a lack of current, high-quality data regarding the numbers and types of people affected, care received and outcomes achieved.

Objectives

To (1) assess how high-quality data about complex wounds can be captured effectively for use in both service planning and research while ensuring integration with current clinical data collection systems and minimal impact on staff time; (2) investigate whether or not a clinical register of people with complex wounds could give valid estimates of treatment effects, thus reducing dependence on large-scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs); (3) identify the most important research questions and outcomes for people with complex wounds from the perspectives of patients, carers and health-care professionals; (4) evaluate the potential contributions to decision-making of individual patient data meta-analysis and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; and (5) complete and update systematic reviews in topic areas of high priority.

Methods

To meet objectives 1 and 2 we conducted a prevalence survey and developed and piloted a longitudinal disease register. A consultative, deliberative method and in-depth interviews were undertaken to address objective 3. To address objectives 4 and 5 we conducted systematic reviews including mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.

Results

From the prevalence survey we estimated the point prevalence of all complex wounds to be 1.47 per 1000 people (95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.56 per 1000 people). Pressure ulcers and venous leg ulcers were the most common type of complex wound. A total of 195 people with a complex wound were recruited to a complex wounds register pilot. We established the feasibility of correctly identifying, extracting and transferring routine NHS data into the register; however, participant recruitment, data collection and tracking individual wounds in people with multiple wounds were challenging. Most patients and health professionals regarded healing of the wound as the primary treatment goal. Patients were greatly troubled by the social consequences of having a complex wound. Complex wounds are frequently a consequence of, and are themselves, a long-term condition but treatment is usually focused on healing the wound. Consultative, deliberative research agenda setting on pressure ulcer prevention and treatment with patients, carers and clinicians yielded 960 treatment uncertainties and a top 12 list of research priorities. Of 167 RCTs of complex wound treatments in a systematic review of study quality, 41% did not specify a primary outcome and the overall quality of the conduct and reporting of the research was poor. Mixed-treatment comparison meta-analysis in areas of high priority identified that matrix hydrocolloid dressings had the highest probability (70%) of being the most effective dressing for diabetic foot ulcers, whereas a hyaluronan fleece dressing had the highest probability (35%) of being the most effective dressing for venous ulcers; however, the quality of this evidence was low and uncertainty is high.

Conclusions

Complex wounds are common and costly with a poor evidence base for many frequent clinical decisions. There is little routine clinical data collection in community nursing. A prospective complex wounds register has the potential to both assist clinical decision-making and provide important research evidence but would be challenging to implement without investment in information technology in NHS community services. Future work should focus on developing insights into typical wound healing trajectories, identifying factors that are prognostic for healing and assessing the cost-effectiveness of selected wound treatments.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Exploring the challenge of health research priority setting in partnership: reflections on the methodology used by the James Lind Alliance Pressure Ulcer Priority Setting Partnership

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of treatment. The JLA emerged from the evidence-informed healthcare movement to address a concern that the research being carried out on treatment effectiveness is not that of most importance to patients and health professionals. In the JLA PSPs, 'hard' evidence-informed ideals meet 'soft' participatory practices. This article explores the challenges of putting co-production methods into practice by reflecting on the methods used by the JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP). The JLA principles are transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research. This means paying the same close critical attention to how PSPs are designed and run, as is desired in the health research which the JLA seeks to influence. JLAPUP showed that it was possible to work in partnership in a field where patients are often elderly, immobile, unrepresented and particularly unwell, many of whom are living with more than one long term condition. However, for those unfamiliar with it, 'uncertainty' was a difficult term to get to grips with. Also, it was harder for some people than others to take part and to have their voices heard and understood. In keeping with other PSPs, JLAPUP found that the nature and quality of research into pressure ulcer prevention and treatment did not reflect the priorities of those who took part.

BACKGROUND

Studies identifying a mismatch between the priorities of academics and clinicians and those of people with direct experience of a health condition pose a challenge to the assumption that professional researchers can represent the interests of patients and the public in setting priorities for health research. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) brings patients, carers and clinicians together in Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) to identify and prioritise shared uncertainties about the effects of treatment. There is no formal evaluation yet to examine the different approaches used by individual PSPs and the impact these methods have on the quality of the partnership and subsequent outputs. There is no gold standard method for health research topic identification and priority setting and reporting on public involvement in this area is predominantly descriptive rather than evaluative.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The JLA Pressure Ulcer PSP (JLAPUP) was developed and worked between 2009 and 2013 to identify and prioritise the top 10 'uncertainties', or 'unanswered questions', about the effects of pressure ulcer interventions. JLAPUP identified a mismatch between the nature and quality of RCTs in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment and the kind of research evidence desired by patients or service users, carers and health professionals. Results and methods have been reported fully elsewhere. The consultative and deliberative methods used to establish health research priorities in PSPs are fundamentally interpretive. PSPs are therefore an arena in which 'hard' evidence-informed ideals meet 'soft' participatory practices. This article provides an account of the challenges faced in one particular PSP. We explain the rationale for the approaches taken, difficulties faced and the limitations at each stage, because these aspects are particularly under-reported. The JLAPUP case is used to identify possible areas for evaluation and reporting across PSPs.

CONCLUSION

Engaging people with very different health and life experiences in the complexities of health science based discussions of uncertainty is challenging. This is particularly the case when engaging groups routinely excluded from participating in health research, for example, older people with multiple comorbidities. The JLA principles of transparency, inclusivity and avoiding waste in research require paying close critical attention to PSP methodology, including full evaluation and reporting of PSP processes and outcomes. Assessing the impact of PSPs is contingent on the decision making processes of commissioners and funders.