The SPIRIT Checklist-lessons from the experience of SPIRIT protocol editors

General skin and nasal decolonization with octenisan® set before and after elective orthopedic surgery in selected patients at elevated risk for revision surgery and surgical site infections-a single-center, unblinded, superiority, randomized controlled trial (BALGDEC trial)

BACKGROUND

The preoperative body surface and nasal decolonization may reduce the risk of surgical site infections (SSI) but yields conflicting results in the current orthopedic literature.

METHODS

We perform a single-center, randomized-controlled, superiority trial in favor of the preoperative decolonization using a commercial product (octenidine® set). We will randomize a total number of 1000 adult elective orthopedic patients with a high risk for SSI and/or wound complications (age ≥ 80 years, chronic immune-suppression, American Society of Anesthesiologists score 3-4 points) between a decolonization (octenisan® wash lotion 1 × per day and octenisan® md nasal gel 2-3 × per day; during 5 days) and no decolonization. Decolonized patients will additionally fill a questionnaire regarding the practical difficulties, the completeness, and the adverse events of decolonization. The primary outcomes are SSI and revision surgeries for postoperative wound problems until 6 weeks postoperatively (or 1 year for surgeries with implants or bone). Secondary outcomes are unplanned revision surgeries for non-infectious problems and all adverse events. With 95% event-free surgeries in the decolonization arm versus 90% in the control arm, we formally need 2 × 474 elective orthopedic surgeries included during 2 years.

DISCUSSION

In selected adult orthopedic patients with a high risk for SSI, the presurgical decolonization may reduce postoperative wound problems, including SSI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05647252. Registered on 9 December 2022.

PROTOCOL VERSION

2 (5 December 2022).

Enhancing reporting through structure: a before and after study on the effectiveness of SPIRIT-based templates to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized controlled trial protocols

BACKGROUND

Despite the improvements in the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols after the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trial (SPIRIT) guidelines, many items remain poorly reported. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using SPIRIT-tailored templates for trial protocols to improve the completeness of reporting of the protocols that master's students write as part of their master's theses.

METHODS

Before and after experimental study performed at the University Master's Degree in Orthopaedic Manual Physiotherapy of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (Barcelona, Spain). While students in the post-intervention period were instructed to use a trial protocol template that was tailored to SPIRIT, students in the pre-intervention period did not use the template.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Difference between the pre- and post-intervention periods in the mean number of adequately reported items (0-10 scale). The outcomes were evaluated independently and in duplicate by two blinded assessors. Students and their supervisors were not aware that they were part of a research project. For the statistical analysis, we used a generalized linear regression model (dependent variable: number of adequately reported items in the protocol; independent variables: intervention period, call, language).

RESULTS

Thirty-four trial protocols were included (17, pre-intervention; 17, post-intervention). Protocols produced during the post-intervention period (mean: 8.24; SD: 1.52) were more completely reported than those produced during the pre-intervention period (mean: 6.35; SD: 1.80); adjusted difference: 1.79 (95% CI: 0.58 to 3.00).

CONCLUSIONS

SPIRIT-based templates could be used to improve the completeness of reporting of randomized trial protocols.

Broad-spectrum antibiotic prophylaxis in tumor and infected orthopedic surgery-the prospective-randomized, microbiologist-blinded, stratified, superiority trials: BAPTIST Trials

BACKGROUND

The perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis with 1st or 2nd generation cephalosporins is evidence-based in orthopedic surgery. There are, however, situations with a high risk of prophylaxis-resistant surgical site infections (SSI).

METHODS

We perform a superiority randomized controlled trial with a 10% margin and a power of 90% in favor of the broad-spectrum prophylaxis. We will randomize orthopedic interventions with a high risk for SSI due to selection of resistant pathogens (open fractures, surgery under therapeutic antibiotics, orthopedic tumor surgery, spine surgery with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥ 3 points) in a prospective-alternating scheme (1:1, standard prophylaxis with cefuroxime versus a broad-spectrum prophylaxis of a combined single-shot of vancomycin 1 g and gentamicin 5 mg/kg parenterally). The primary outcome is "remission" at 6 weeks for most orthopedic surgeries or at 1 year for surgeries with implant. Secondary outcomes are the risk for prophylaxis-resistant SSI pathogens, revision surgery for any reason, change of antibiotic therapy during the treatment of infection, adverse events, and the postoperative healthcare-associated infections other than SSI within 6 weeks (e.g., urine infections or pneumonia). With event-free surgeries to 95% in the broad-spectrum versus 85% in the standard prophylaxis arm, we need 2 × 207 orthopedic surgeries.

DISCUSSION

In selected patients with a high risk for infections due to selection of prophylaxis-resistant SSI, a broad-spectrum combination with vancomycin and gentamycin might prevent SSIs (and other postoperative infections) better than the prophylaxis with cefuroxime.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05502380. Registered on 12 August 2022. Protocol version: 2 (3 June 2022).

Raising awareness of sex and gender bias in artificial intelligence and health

Historically, biomedical research has been led by and focused on men. The recent introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this area has further proven this practice to be discriminatory for other sexes and genders, more noticeably for women. To move towards a fair AI development, it is essential to include sex and gender diversity both in research practices and in the workplace. In this context, the Bioinfo4women (B4W) program of the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (i) promotes the participation of women scientists by improving their visibility, (ii) fosters international collaborations between institutions and programs and (iii) advances research on sex and gender bias in AI and health. In this article, we discuss methodology and results of a series of conferences, titled “Sex and Gender Bias in Artificial Intelligence and Health, organized by B4W and La Caixa Foundation from March to June 2021 in Barcelona, Spain. The series consisted of nine hybrid events, composed of keynote sessions and seminars open to the general audience, and two working groups with invited experts from different professional backgrounds (academic fields such as biology, engineering, and sociology, as well as NGOs, journalists, lawyers, policymakers, industry). Based on this awareness-raising action, we distilled key recommendations to facilitate the inclusion of sex and gender perspective into public policies, educational programs, industry, and biomedical research, among other sectors, and help overcome sex and gender biases in AI and health.

The effect of perioperative of dexamethasone on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PANDEX): a study protocol for a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) nowadays serves as a standard treatment for patients with disorders of the pancreas, intestine, and bile duct. Although the mortality rate of patients undergoing PD has decreased significantly, postoperative complication rates remain high. Dexamethasone, a synthetic glucocorticoid with potent anti-inflammatory and metabolic effects, has been proven to have a favorable effect on certain complications. However, the role it plays in post-pancreatectomy patients has not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of dexamethasone on postoperative complications after PD.

METHODS

The PANDEX trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentric, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-control, pragmatic study. The trial is designed to enroll 300 patients who are going to receive elective PD. Patients will be randomized to receive 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone or saline placebo, administered as an intravenous bolus within 5 min after induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score within 30 days after the operation. The secondary outcomes include postoperative major complications (Clavien-Dindo≥3), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP), infection, and unexpected relaparotomy, as well as postoperative length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

The PANDEX trial is the first randomized controlled trial concerning the effect of dexamethasone on postoperative complications of patients undergoing PD, with the hypothesis that the intraoperative use of dexamethasone can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and improve short-term outcomes after PD. The results of the present study will guide the perioperative use of dexamethasone and help improve the clinical management of post-pancreatectomy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05567094. Registered on 30 September 30 2022.

Rivaroxaban in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein elevation (BANBOO): study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a fatal disease due to the tendency to rupture. The drug treatment for small AAA without surgical indications has been controversial. Previous studies showed that high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) had become a potential biomarker of the disease, and the anti-inflammatory effect of rivaroxaban for AAA had been well established. Thus, we hypothesized that rivaroxaban could control the progression of AAA in patients with hs-CRP elevation.

METHODS

The study is a prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Sixty subjects are recruited from the General Hospital of Northern Theatre Command of China. Subjects are randomly assigned (1:1) to the intervention arm (rivaroxaban) or control arm (aspirin). The primary efficacy outcome is the level of serum hs-CRP at 6 months. The secondary outcomes include imaging examination (the maximal diameter of AAA, the maximal thickness of mural thrombus, and the length of aneurysm), major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, including AAA transformation, non-fatal myocardial infarction, acute congestive heart failure, stent thrombosis, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, vascular amputation, stroke, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death), and other laboratory tests (troponin T, interleukin 6, D-dimer, and coagulation function).

DISCUSSION

The BANBOO trial tested the effect of rivaroxaban on the progression of AAA in patients with elevated Hs-CRP for the first time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2100051990, ClinicalTrials.gov, registered on 12 October 2021.

Reminding Peer Reviewers of Reporting Guideline Items to Improve Completeness in Published Articles: Primary Results of 2 Randomized Trials

Importance

Numerous studies have shown that adherence to reporting guidelines is suboptimal.

Objective

To evaluate whether asking peer reviewers to check if specific reporting guideline items were adequately reported would improve adherence to reporting guidelines in published articles.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Two parallel-group, superiority randomized trials were performed using manuscripts submitted to 7 biomedical journals (5 from the BMJ Publishing Group and 2 from the Public Library of Science) as the unit of randomization, with peer reviewers allocated to the intervention or control group.

Interventions

The first trial (CONSORT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented randomized clinical trial (RCT) results and reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline, and the second trial (SPIRIT-PR) focused on manuscripts that presented RCT protocols and reported following the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. The CONSORT-PR trial included manuscripts that described RCT primary results (submitted July 2019 to July 2021). The SPIRIT-PR trial included manuscripts that contained RCT protocols (submitted June 2020 to May 2021). Manuscripts in both trials were randomized (1:1) to the intervention or control group; the control group received usual journal practice. In the intervention group of both trials, peer reviewers received an email from the journal that asked them to check whether the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT (for CONSORT-PR) or SPIRIT (for SPIRIT-PR) items were adequately reported in the manuscript. Peer reviewers and authors were not informed of the purpose of the study, and outcome assessors were blinded.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The difference in the mean proportion of adequately reported 10 CONSORT or SPIRIT items between the intervention and control groups in published articles.

Results

In the CONSORT-PR trial, 510 manuscripts were randomized. Of those, 243 were published (122 in the intervention group and 121 in the control group). A mean proportion of 69.3% (95% CI, 66.0%-72.7%) of the 10 CONSORT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 66.6% (95% CI, 62.5%-70.7%) in the control group (mean difference, 2.7%; 95% CI, -2.6% to 8.0%). In the SPIRIT-PR trial, of the 244 randomized manuscripts, 178 were published (90 in the intervention group and 88 in the control group). A mean proportion of 46.1% (95% CI, 41.8%-50.4%) of the 10 SPIRIT items were adequately reported in the intervention group and 45.6% (95% CI, 41.7% to 49.4%) in the control group (mean difference, 0.5%; 95% CI, -5.2% to 6.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

These 2 randomized trials found that it was not useful to implement the tested intervention to increase reporting completeness in published articles. Other interventions should be assessed and considered in the future.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT05820971 (CONSORT-PR) and NCT05820984 (SPIRIT-PR).

Study protocol: short against long antibiotic therapy for infected orthopedic sites - the randomized-controlled SALATIO trials

BACKGROUND

Few studies address the appropriate duration of post-surgical antibiotic therapy for orthopedic infections; with or without infected residual implants. We perform two similar randomized-clinical trials (RCT) to reduce the antibiotic use and associated adverse events.

METHODS

Two unblinded RCTs in adult patients (non-inferiority with a margin of 10%, a power of 80%) with the primary outcomes "remission" and "microbiologically-identical recurrences" after a combined surgical and antibiotic therapy. The main secondary outcome is antibiotic-related adverse events. The RCTs allocate the participants between 3 vs. 6 weeks of post-surgical systemic antibiotic therapy for implant-free infections and between 6 vs. 12 weeks for residual implant-related infections. We need a total of 280 episodes (randomization schemes 1:1) with a minimal follow-up of 12 months. We perform two interim analyses starting approximately after 1 and 2 years. The study approximatively lasts 3 years.

DISCUSSION

Both parallel RCTs will enable to prescribe less antibiotics for future orthopedic infections in adult patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov NCT05499481. Registered on 12 August 2022.

PROTOCOL VERSION

2 (19 May 2022).