Reflections on the recommendations of the EWMA Patient Outcome Group document

Deficiencies in reporting inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients in randomized controlled trials of therapeutic interventions in pressure injuries: a systematic methodological review

Wound care is a complex procedure and the related research may include many variables. Deficiencies in the sample inclusion and exclusion criteria may limit the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for wound patients in the real world. This study aimed to evaluate deficiencies in reporting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the characteristics of patients in RCTs of pressure injuries (PI) therapeutic interventions. We conducted a systematic methodological review in which 40 full text RCTs of PI treatment interventions published in English, from 2008 to 2020, were identified. Data on the general characteristics of the included RCTs and data about inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients were collected. The inclusion/exclusion criteria were categorized into five domains (definition of disease, precision, safety, ethical/legal and administrative). Study duration (in weeks) was 8.0 (quartile 1: 2.0; quartile 3: 48.0); only 5.0% of the trials mentioned race, skin colour or ethnicity, and 37.5% reported the duration of the wound. Only 9 (22.5%) studies reported the drugs that the included patients were using and 10 (25.0%) RCTs reported adverse events. The presence of the five domains was observed only in 12.5% of RCTs and only 12 (30.0%) had the precision domain. Much more research is required in systematic assessments of the external validity of trials because there is substantial disparity between the information that is provided by RCTs and the information that is required by clinicians. We concluded that there are deficiencies in reporting of data related to inclusion/exclusion criteria and characteristics of patients of RCTs assessing PI therapeutic interventions.

Quality of reporting of outcomes in trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries in adults: a systematic methodological survey

Randomised controlled trials of therapeutic interventions for pressure injuries should include a clear description of outcomes to increase transparency and replicability and improve the construction of scientific evidence. The objective of this study was to assess the completeness of the descriptions of the outcomes of therapeutic interventions in adults with pressure injury (PI) and factors associated with completeness. This was a systematic methodological survey. The completeness of the outcome was assessed according to five criteria: domain (title), specific measure (technique/instrument used), specific metric, or format of the outcome data of each participant that was used for analysis, aggregation (method data from each group were summarised), and time that was used for analysis. Sixty-eight studies were included for analysis. A total of 265 outcomes were reported, and 46 trials (67.6%) had 73 primary outcomes, which were mainly intermediates/substitutes (78.8%). The main outcome evaluated was the ulcer area reduction (36.6%). Approximately 37.2% of the outcomes were incompletely reported, and the least described element was the data aggregation method (72.8%). Only 48.4% of the outcomes with the specified technique had the same reference or validation. Poor quality of reporting outcomes was associated with studies with an older year of publication and a small sample size, single-center studies, and those sponsored by industry. PI studies use many outcomes, mostly surrogates or intermediates, and some of them are incompletely described.

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.

Fundamentals of randomized clinical trials in wound care: reporting standards

In wound care research, available high-level evidence according to the evidence pyramid is rare, and is threatened by a poor study design and reporting. Without comprehensive and transparent reporting, readers will not be able to assess the strengths and limitations of the research performed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are universally acknowledged as the study design of choice for comparing treatment effects. To give high-level evidence the appreciation it deserves in wound care, we propose a step-by-step reporting standard for comprehensive and transparent reporting of RCTs in wound care. Critical reporting issues (e.g., wound care terminology, blinding, predefined outcome measures, and a priori sample size calculation) and wound-specific barriers (e.g., large diversity of etiologies and comorbidities of patients with wounds) that may prevent uniform implementation of reporting standards in wound care research are addressed in this article. The proposed reporting standards can be used as guidance for authors who write their RCT, as well as for peer reviewers of journals. Endorsement and application of these reporting standards may help achieve a higher standard of evidence and allow meta-analysis of reported wound care data. The ultimate goal is to help wound care professionals make better decisions for their patients in clinical practice.

Evidence, research, and clinical practice: a patient-centered framework for progress in wound care

Traditional criteria used in selecting wound care interventions are being slowly replaced with an evidence-based practice approach. The value of such an approach for providing optimal care has been established, but the definition of evidence-based care and the process used to generate evidence continue to evolve. For example, the role of studies developed to demonstrate efficacy, randomized controlled trials, the value of effectiveness studies designed to evaluate outcomes in real world practice, and the use of disease-oriented (interim) study outcomes for wound care research, such as reduces wound fluid or improves granulation tissue formation, have been topics of international conversations and consensus documents. In addition, the use in some clinical studies and most systematic study reviews of ingredient or characteristic-based categories to group products that may not share a common operational definition of how they function has led to a high variability in outcomes, resulting in inconclusive or low-level evidence. These concerns and debates, along with their influence on practice, may cast doubt on the value of evidence-based practice guidelines for some clinicians, slowing their rate of implementation, and extending the discussion about definitions of evidence-based care and the relative merits of various research designs. At the same time, amid growing concerns about medical device safety, clinicians must answer 3 questions about an intervention and its related products or devices in order to provide safe and effective care: (1) Can it work? (2) Does it work? (3) Is it worth it? Reviewing current knowledge about wound care, wound treatment modalities, and the basic principles of research within the existing framework of questions to be answered suggests a clear path toward obtaining much-needed evidence. In wound care, using clearly defined processes to study patient-centered outcomes (eg, quality of life, complete healing) and only product groupings that meet an operational definition of functioning (eg, moisture-retentive) will help clinicians decide whether an intervention can work and does work and whether the value of the clinical and economic benefits is greater than the potential harm and cost.

An overview of the evidence on the efficacy of silver dressings

While there is a plethora of clinical and anecdotal evidence on the efficacy of silver dressings, there is no rigorous RCT data to support this. This has led procurement managers to defer the inclusion of silver dressings on wound formularies, despite its clinical popularity. This article gives an overview of the evidence on topical antimicrobials, in order to determine whether there is a case for such a stance.