Overcoming the funding challenge: the cost of randomized controlled trials in the next decade

Design and rationale for an empirical investigation of the resource use and costs of investigator-initiated randomized trials in Switzerland, the UK, and Germany

BACKGROUND

Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging, time consuming, and resource intense. Academic investigators usually depend on scarce financial resources; however, current literature lacks systematically collected empirical data on the detailed resource use and costs of investigator-initiated RCTs.

METHODS

The aim of this study is to generate a database of detailed empirical resource use and cost data from 100 investigator-initiated RCTs in Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. Investigators enter their empirical costs data into an online data collection form, which is followed by a short interview and a detailed cost report. We plan to investigate cost patterns and cost drivers and examine planned versus actual RCT costs as well as explore different strata of costs across the planning, conduct, and finalization phases, in drug and non-drug trials, and across medical fields and countries.

DISCUSSION

This study will add detailed empirical data to the limited research on investigator-initiated RCT costs currently available. A study limitation will be that cost data will be retrospective and self-reported, which might be inaccurate depending on how costs were recorded.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (OSF) https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY2GU . Registered on June 4, 2021.

The use of routinely collected healthcare records for outcome assessment in clinical trials: a UK perspective

The use of routinely collected electronic healthcare records (EHR) for outcome assessment in clinical trials has been described as a 'disruptive' new technique more than a decade ago. Despite this potential, significant methodological issues and regulatory barriers have hampered the progress in this area. This article discusses the key considerations that trialists should take into account when incorporating EHR into their trials. These include considerations of the clinical relevance of the outcome, data timeliness and quality, ethical and regulatory issues, and some practical considerations for clinical trials units. In addition, this article describes the benefits of using EHR which include cost, reduced trial burden for participants and staff, follow up efficiencies, and improved health economic evaluation procedures. We also describe the major regulatory and start up costs of using EHR in clinical trials. This article focuses on the UK specific EHR landscape in clinical trials and would help researchers and trials units considering the use of this method of outcome data collection in their next trial. If the issues described are mitigated, this method will be a formidable tool for conducting pragmatic clinical trials.

How Has Statistical Testing in Orthopedics Changed Over Time? An Assessment of High Impact Journals Over 25 Years

BACKGROUND

It is important for physicians to be familiar with statistical techniques commonly used in published medical research. Statistical errors in medical literature are common, and there is a reported lack of understanding regarding statistical knowledge necessary for data interpretation and journal reading. As study design has become increasingly complex, peer-reviewed literature poorly addresses and explains the most common statistical methods utilized across leading orthopedic journals.

METHODS

Articles from 5 leading general and subspecialty orthopedic journals were compiled from 3 distinct time periods. After exclusions were applied, 9521 remained, and a random 5% sampling of these articles, balanced across journals and years, was conducted yielding 437 articles after additional exclusions. Information regarding the number of statistical tests used, power/sample size calculation, type of statistical tests used, level of evidence (LOE), study type, and study design was collected.

RESULTS

The mean number of statistical tests across all 5 orthopedic journals increased from 1.39 to 2.29 by 2018 (p = 0.007). The percentage of articles that reported power/sample size analyses was not found to differ by year, but the value has increased from 2.6% in 1994 to 21.6% in 2018 (p = 0.081). The most commonly used statistical test was the t-test which was present in 20.5% of articles, followed by chi-square test (13%), Mann-Whitney analysis (12.6%) and analysis of variance (ANOVA, 9.6%). The mean number of tests was generally greater in articles from higher impact factor journals (p = 0.013). Studies with a LOE of I used the highest mean number of statistical tests (3.23) compared to studies with lower LOE ratings (range 1.66-2.69, p < 0.001). Randomized control trials used the highest mean number of statistical test (3.31), while case series used the lowest mean number of tests (1.57, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean number of statistical tests used per article has increased over the past 25 years with the t-test, chi-square test, Mann-Whitney analysis, and ANOVA being the most used statistical tests in leading orthopedic journals. Despite an increase in statistical tests it should be noted that there was a paucity in advance statistical testing within the orthopedic literature. This study displays important trends in data analysis and can serve as a guide to help clinicians and trainees better understand the statistics used in literature as well as identifying deficits within the literature that should be addressed to help progress the field of orthopedics.

Impact of Large Database Studies on Orthopedic Surgery Literature: Are We Advancing the Field?

Background: While database studies have become more prevalent in the literature, there is concern over their value. In addition, the questions they are suitable to answer are limited. Questions/Purposes: We sought to determine the incidence of database studies in the orthopedic literature and in each subspecialty. In addition, we wanted to assess the impact of database studies on the literature by determining whether citations and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) varied by study type (studies using internal or external databases and those not using databases). Methods: We searched PubMed for articles published in impactful orthopedic surgery journals in the year 2018. All articles were discoverable on the Altmetric explorer portal database. Impact was determined by journal impact factor. Study design, subspecialty, number of citations, and AAS were obtained. Univariable analyses were conducted between study type, demographic variables, and the outcome of either citation count or AAS. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of the primary outcomes. Subgroup analyses were performed to differentiate the impact of external and internal database studies compared with non-database studies. Results: A total of 2684 total articles were eligible for inclusion. Of these, 366 studies (13.6%) were database studies. Hip and knee articles had the greatest incidence of database studies. Database studies had significantly more citations (5.9 vs 4.0) and significantly higher AAS (12.8 vs 11.3) compared with non-database studies. External database studies had significantly more citations (6.7 vs 4.8) and significantly higher AAS (14.0 vs 10.7) than internal database studies. Internal database studies had higher traditional citation counts but similar AAS to non-database studies. Conclusions: In 2018, database studies in well-reputed orthopedic journals had a greater number of citations but similar AAS compared with non-database studies. Further studies are warranted.

The Impact of Senior Author Profile on Publication Level of Evidence in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) incorporated the level of evidence (LOE) pyramid in 2011 to highlight evidence-based medicine in plastic surgery. This study aimed to assess the relationship between the profile of senior authors publishing in PRS and the LOE of publications.

Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.

METHODS

This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).

RESULTS

The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.

Challenges of conducting research in long-term care facilities: a systematic review

Background

The aim of this review is to describe the challenges and barriers to conducting research in long-term care facilities.

Methods

A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Keywords used included “long term care”, “nursing home”, “research”, “trial”, “challenge” and “barrier”, etc. Resulting references were screened in order to identify relevant studies that reported on challenges derived from first-hand experience of empirical research studies. Challenges were summarized and synthesized.

Results

Of 1723 references, 39 articles were selected for inclusion. To facilitate understanding we proposed a classification framework of 8 main themes to categorize the research challenges presented in the 39 studies, relating to the characteristics of facility/owner/administrator, resident, staff caregiver, family caregiver, investigator, ethical or legal concerns, methodology, and budgetary considerations.

Conclusions

Conducting research in long-term care facilities is full of challenges which can be categorized into 8 main themes. Investigators should be aware of all these challenges and specifically address them when planning their studies. Stakeholders should be involved from an early stage and flexibility should be built into both the methodology and research budget.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0934-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparison of hernia registries: the CORE project

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the international CORE project was to explore the databases of the existing hernia registries and compare them in content and outcome variables.

METHODS

The CORE project was initiated with representatives from all established hernia registries (Danish Hernia Database, Swedish Hernia Registry, Herniamed, EuraHS, Club Hernie, EVEREG, AHSQC) in March 2015 in Berlin. The following categories were used to compare the registries: initiation and funding, data collection and use for certification of hernia centers, patient data and data protection, operative data, registration of complications and follow-up data.

RESULTS

The Danish Hernia Database is the only one to qualify as a genuine national registry where participation is compulsory for entry of all procedures by all surgeons performing a hernia operation. All other registries have to be considered as voluntary and completeness of data depends upon the participating hospitals and surgeons. Only the Danish Hernia Database and the Swedish Hernia Registry are publicly funded. All other registries are reliant on financial support from the medical technology industry. As an incentive for voluntary participation in a hernia registry, hospitals or surgeons are issued a certificate confirming that they are taking part in a quality assurance study for hernia surgery. Due to data protection and privacy regulations, most registries are obliged or have chosen to enter their patient data anonymously or coded. The Danish Hernia Database and Swedish Hernia Registry utilize a national personal patient code. In the Herniamed Registry, patient data are saved in a coded and anonymous format after obtaining the patient's informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Despite the differences in the way data are collected for each of the listed hernia registries, the data are indispensable in clinical research.

Opportunities and barriers for pragmatic embedded trials: Triumphs and tribulations

RESULTS

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are set in routine health care, have broad eligibility criteria, and use routinely collected electronic data. Many consider them a breakthrough innovation in clinical research and a necessary step in clinical trial development. To identify barriers and success factors, we reviewed published embedded PCTs and interviewed 30 researchers and clinical leaders in 7 US delivery systems.

LITERATURE

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane library, and clinicaltrials.gov for studies reporting embedded PCTs. We identified 108 embedded PCTs published in the last 10 years. The included studies had a median of 5540 randomized patients, addressed a variety of diseases, and practice settings covering a broad range of interventions. Eighty-one used cluster randomization. The median cost per patient was $97 in the 64 trials for which it was possible to obtain cost data.

INTERVIEWS

Delivery systems required research studies to align with operational priorities, existing information technology capabilities, and standard quality improvement procedures. Barriers that were identified included research governance, requirements for processes that were incompatible with clinical operations, and unrecoverable costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding PCTs in delivery systems can provide generalizable knowledge that is directly applicable to practice settings at much lower cost than conventional trials. Successful embedding trials require accommodating delivery systems' needs and priorities.

Practice patterns in the care of acute Achilles tendon ruptures : is there an association with level I evidence?

AIMS

To determine whether the findings from a landmark Canadian trial assessing the optimal management of acute rupture of the Achilles tendon influenced the practice patterns of orthopaedic surgeons in Ontario, Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Health administrative databases were used to identify Ontario residents ≥ 18 years of age with an Achilles tendon rupture from April 2002 to March 2014. The rate of surgical repair (per 100 cases) was calculated for each calendar quarter. A time-series analysis was used to determine whether changes in the rate were chronologically related to the dissemination of results from a landmark trial published in February 2009. Non-linear spline regression was then used independently to identify critical time-points of change in the surgical repair rate to confirm the findings.

RESULTS

A total of 29 531 patients sustained an Achilles tendon rupture during the study period. Consistently, around 21 out of every 100 cases underwent surgical repair up to the first quarter of 2010. However, by the first quarter of 2014, only 6.5 cases per 100 had surgery. A statistically significant decrease in the rate of surgical repair was observed within one year of the presentation of landmark trial results in 2009 (p < 0.001). July 2009 was independently identified as a critical time at which the surgical repair rate began to significantly decline (p < 0.001). The dissemination of trial results was associated with a significant drop in the rate of surgical repair at non-teaching hospitals (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates that large, well-designed randomised trials, have the potential to encourage significant changes in the practice patterns of orthopaedic surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1629-36.

Ability to return to work without restrictions in workers compensation patients undergoing hip arthroscopy

The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of worker’s compensation (WC) patients to return to work without restrictions after hip arthroscopy. Twenty-nine WC patients along with age and gender matched controls who underwent hip arthroscopy were retrospectively reviewed after achieving maximum medical improvement (MMI) status at minimum 1 year postoperatively. Patient demographic factors were evaluated, along with the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sports-Specific subscales, and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). The majority of WC patients were able to return to work without restrictions after reaching MMI (20/29, 69.0%). WC patients who failed to return to work without restrictions had a prolonged time from injury to surgery (3.01 ± 2.16 months versus 6.36 ± 4.16 months; P = 0.0079), more concomitant orthopedic injuries (4/20, 20.0% versus 9/9, 100%; P = 0.0001), and higher body mass index (BMI) (26.61 ± 3.52 versus 29.54 ± 3.43; P = 0.047) than those who returned to work without restrictions. WC patients had significant improvement of patient-reported outcome scores following hip arthroscopy (P < 0.0001), but WC patients who returned to work without restrictions had higher scores than those who failed to do so (HOD-ADL: P < 0.0001; HOS-SS: P = 0.004; mHHS: P = 0.009). The majority of WC patients are able to return to work without restrictions when they reach MMI status following hip arthroscopy. Factors associated with failure to return to work without restrictions include prolonged time course between injury and surgical treatment, concomitant orthopaedic injuries, and a higher BMI. Level III, retrospective case-control study

Recurrence-free survival as a putative surrogate for overall survival in phase III trials of curative-intent treatment of colorectal liver metastases: Systematic review

AIM

To verify whether recurrence-free survival (RFS) surrogates overall survival (OS) in phase III trials for resectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases were consulted. Eligible studies were phase III trials testing any type of systemic therapy (neoadjuvant, adjuvant or perioperative) added to surgery in patients with resectable CRLM. A linear regression model based on hazard ratios (HR) of OS and RFS was performed.

RESULTS

Of 3059 studies, 5 phase III trials (1162 patients) were included for analyses. A linear regression weighted by each trial was used to estimate the association between each HR and RFS. The originated formula was: OS HR = (0.93 × RFS HR) + 0.14; with RFS 95%CI (0.48-1.38), with P = 0.007.

CONCLUSION

This association suggests that RFS could work as a putative surrogate endpoint of OS in this population, avoiding bigger, longer and more resource-consuming trials. The OS could be assumed based on RFS and our model could be useful to better estimate sample size calculations of phase III trials of CRLM aiming for OS.

Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units

BACKGROUND

The costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities.

METHODS

Representatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ.

RESULTS

Median full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

Some variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies.

The pathway to RCTs: how many roads are there? Examining the homogeneity of RCT justification

Background

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the foundational background of modern medical practice. They are considered the highest quality of evidence, and their results help inform decisions concerning drug development and use, preventive therapies, and screening programs. However, the inputs that justify an RCT to be conducted have not been studied.

Methods

We reviewed the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases across six specialties (Ophthalmology, Otorhinolaryngology (ENT), General Surgery, Psychiatry, Obstetrics-Gynecology (OB-GYN), and Internal Medicine) and randomly chose 25 RCTs from each specialty except for Otorhinolaryngology (20 studies) and Internal Medicine (28 studies). For each RCT, we recorded information relating to the justification for conducting RCTs such as average study size cited, number of studies cited, and types of studies cited. The justification varied widely both within and between specialties.

Results

For Ophthalmology and OB-GYN, the average study sizes cited were around 1100 patients, whereas they were around 500 patients for Psychiatry and General Surgery. Between specialties, the average number of studies cited ranged from around 4.5 for ENT to around 10 for Ophthalmology, but the standard deviations were large, indicating that there was even more discrepancy within each specialty. When standardizing by the sample size of the RCT, some of the discrepancies between and within specialties can be explained, but not all. On average, Ophthalmology papers cited review articles the most (2.96 studies per RCT) compared to less than 1.5 studies per RCT for all other specialties.

Conclusions

The justifications for RCTs vary widely both within and between specialties, and the justification for conducting RCTs is not standardized.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1804-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Moving forward through consensus: protocol for a modified Delphi approach to determine the top research priorities in the field of orthopaedic oncology

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic oncology researchers face several obstacles in the design and execution of randomised controlled trials, including finite fiscal resources to support the rising costs of clinical research and insufficient patient volume at individual sites. As a result, high-quality research to guide clinical practice has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. A focused approach is imperative to design a research programme that is economical, streamlined and addresses clinically relevant endpoints. The primary objective of this study will be to use a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for international clinical trials in orthopaedic oncology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a 3-phase modified Delphi method consisting of 2 sequential rounds of anonymous web-based questionnaires (phases I and II), and an in-person consensus meeting (phase III). Participants will suggest research questions that they believe are of particular importance to the field (phase I), and individually rate each proposed question on 5 criteria (phase II). Research questions that meet predetermined consensus thresholds will be brought forward to the consensus meeting (phase III) for discussion by an expert panel. Following these discussions, the expert panel will be asked to assign scores for each research question, and research questions meeting predetermined criteria will be brought forward for final ranking. The expert panel will then be asked to rank the top 3 research questions, and these 3 research questions will be distributed to the initial group of participants for validation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

An ethics application is currently under review with the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The results of this initiative will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Considerations in the efficacy and effectiveness of virtual reality interventions for stroke rehabilitation: moving the field forward

In the past 2 decades, researchers have demonstrated the potential for virtual reality (VR) technologies to provide engaging and motivating environments for stroke rehabilitation interventions. Much of the research has been focused on the exploratory phase, and jumps to intervention efficacy trials and scale-up evaluation have been made with limited understanding of the active ingredients in a VR intervention for stroke. The rapid pace of technology development is an additional challenge for this emerging field, providing a moving target for researchers developing and evaluating potential VR technologies. Recent advances in customized games and cutting-edge technology used for VR are beginning to allow for researchers to understand and control aspects of the intervention related to motivation, engagement, and motor control and learning. This article argues for researchers to take a progressive, step-wise approach through the stages of intervention development using evidence-based principles, take advantage of the data that can be obtained, and utilize measurement tools to design effective VR interventions for stroke rehabilitation that can be assessed through carefully designed efficacy and effectiveness trials. This article is motivated by the recent calls in the field of rehabilitation clinical trials research for carefully structured clinical trials that have progressed through the phases of research.

Antibacterial surface treatment for orthopaedic implants

It is expected that the projected increased usage of implantable devices in medicine will result in a natural rise in the number of infections related to these cases. Some patients are unable to autonomously prevent formation of biofilm on implant surfaces. Suppression of the local peri-implant immune response is an important contributory factor. Substantial avascular scar tissue encountered during revision joint replacement surgery places these cases at an especially high risk of periprosthetic joint infection. A critical pathogenic event in the process of biofilm formation is bacterial adhesion. Prevention of biomaterial-associated infections should be concurrently focused on at least two targets: inhibition of biofilm formation and minimizing local immune response suppression. Current knowledge of antimicrobial surface treatments suitable for prevention of prosthetic joint infection is reviewed. Several surface treatment modalities have been proposed. Minimizing bacterial adhesion, biofilm formation inhibition, and bactericidal approaches are discussed. The ultimate anti-infective surface should be “smart” and responsive to even the lowest bacterial load. While research in this field is promising, there appears to be a great discrepancy between proposed and clinically implemented strategies, and there is urgent need for translational science focusing on this topic.

The evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In the interest of prioritizing resources and providing future direction for researchers, a complete overview of the landscape of stroke rehabilitation literature was conducted.

AIM

We aimed to examine the evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials, with respect to number, sample size, and methodological quality between 1970 and September 2012.

METHODS

Using the Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation (http://www.ebrsr.com), all randomized controlled trials related to stroke rehabilitation interventions were eligible for inclusion and were divided into five groups based on the primary outcome (i.e., motor, cognitive, medical complications, psychosocial, and 'other').

RESULTS

One thousand sixty-three randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria, with motor studies accounting for 58·8% of the total. The total number of randomized controlled trials grew between 1970 and 2012, with 35·2% of all the studies published in the last five-years. Motor randomized controlled trials had the smallest median sample size compared with cognitive (P < 0·018), medical complications (P < 0·001), psychosocial (P < 0·001), and 'other' (P < 0·001) randomized controlled trials. Between 1973 and 1977 and 2008 and 2012, there was no statistically significant increase in median sample sizes (P = 0·845). Psychosocial randomized controlled trials had higher median Physiotherapy Evidence Database scores when compared with motor (P = 0·002), cognitive (P = 0·035), and 'other' randomized controlled trials (P = 0·036), but not medical complication randomized controlled trials (P = 0·591). Over time, median Physiotherapy Evidence Database scores for all randomized controlled trials significantly increased from 5 (interquartile range 0·5) in 1973-1977 to 7 (interquartile range 3) in 2008-2012 (P = 0·008).

CONCLUSIONS

Randomized controlled trials in stroke rehabilitation have increased over the past four decades, with an associated increase in methodological quality, but not sample size.

What are the levels of evidence on which we base decisions for surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors?

BACKGROUND

Benign and malignant lower extremity primary bone tumors are among the least common conditions treated by orthopaedic surgeons. The literature supporting their surgical management has historically been in the form of observational studies rather than prospective controlled studies. Observational studies are prone to confounding bias, sampling bias, and recall bias.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the overall levels of evidence of articles published on the surgical management of lower extremity bone tumors? (2) What is the overall quality of reporting of studies in this field based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist? (3) What are the most common pitfalls in reporting that authors might improve on?

METHODS

All studies describing the surgical management of lower extremity primary bone tumors from 2002 to 2012 were systematically reviewed. Two authors independently appraised levels of evidence. Quality of reporting was assessed with the STROBE checklist. Pitfalls in reporting were quantified by determining the 10 most underreported elements of research study design in the group of studies analyzed, again using the STROBE checklist as the reference standard. Of 1387 studies identified, 607 met eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

There were no Level I studies, two Level II studies, 47 Level III studies, 308 Level IV studies, and 250 Level V studies. The mean percentage of STROBE points reported satisfactorily in each article as graded by the two reviewers was 53% (95% confidence interval, 42%-63%). The most common pitfalls in reporting were failures to justify sample size (2.2% reported), examine sensitivity (2.2%), account for missing data (9.8%), and discuss sources of bias (14%). Followup (66%), precision of outcomes (64%), eligibility criteria (55%), and methodological limitations (53%) were variably reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Observational studies are the dominant evidence for the surgical management of primary lower extremity bone tumors. Numerous deficiencies in reporting limit their clinical use. Authors may use these results to inform future work and improve reporting in observational studies, and treating surgeons should be aware of these limitations when choosing among the various options with their patients.

Periprosthetic knee infection: ten strategies that work

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most serious complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The demand for TKA is rapidly increasing, resulting in a subsequent increase in infections involving knee prosthesis. Despite the existence of common management practices, the best approach for several aspects in the management of periprosthetic knee infection remains controversial. This review examines the current understanding in the management of the following aspects of PJI: preoperative risk stratification, preoperative antibiotics, preoperative skin preparation, outpatient diagnosis, assessing for infection in revision cases, improving culture utility, irrigation and debridement, one and two-stage revision, and patient prognostic information. Moreover, ten strategies for the management of periprosthetic knee infection based on available literature, and experience of the authors were reviewed.

Trends in worldwide volume and methodological quality of surgical randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality of published surgical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over the past decade.

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials are essential for clinical decision making. It has repeatedly been suggested that surgical RCTs are scarce and of mediocre quality.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed for surgical RCTs published in 1999 and 2009. Characteristics and risks of bias were extracted. Trials where compared between study years and geographical regions. Primary outcome was "low risk of bias," defined by all of the following: adequate allocation generation and concealment, intention-to-treat analysis, and adequate dropout handling.

RESULTS

The volume of published surgical RCTs increased by 50%, from 300 in 1999 to 450 in 2009. Volume increased in Europe (27% increase), Asia/Oceania (160% increase), and Africa/South America (416% increase) but decreased in North America (23% decrease), although the United States remained the country with the highest number of published RCTs. In 2009, methodological quality of surgical trials improved in terms of sample size calculation, adequate generation of randomization sequence, concealment of randomization sequence, and use of intention-to-treat analysis as compared with 1999 (P < 0.001 for all). The proportion of low risk of bias trials increased from 6% to 14% (prevalence ratio 2.59; 95% confidence interval 1.55-4.32). In 2009, the highest proportion of low risk of bias trials was from Europe (23%), whereas the lowest was from Asia/Oceania (5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Volume and quality of surgical RCTs improved although striking differences exist between continents and countries. Structured education in trial methodology, enforced adherence to existing guidelines, and improved research infrastructure may guide further improvements.

Sources of information influencing decision-making in orthopaedic surgery - an international online survey of 1147 orthopaedic surgeons

Background

Manufacturers of implants and materials in the field of orthopaedics use significant amounts of funding to produce informational material to influence the decision-making process of orthopaedic surgeons with regards to choice between novel implants and techniques. It remains unclear how far orthopaedic surgeons are really influenced by the materials supplied by companies or whether other, evidence-based publications have a higher impact on their decision-making. The objective was to evaluate the subjective usefulness and usage of different sources of information upon which orthopaedic surgeons base their decisions when acquiring new implants or techniques.

Methods

We undertook an online survey of 1174 orthopaedic surgeons worldwide (of whom n = 305 were head of their department). The questionnaire included 34 items. Sequences were randomized to reduce possible bias. Questions were closed or semi-open with single or multiple answers. The usage and relevance of different sources of information when learning about and selecting orthopaedic treatments were evaluated. Orthopaedic surgeons and trainees were targeted, and were only allowed to respond once over a period of two weeks. Baseline information included country of workplace, level of experience and orthopaedic subspecialisation. The results were statistically evaluated.

Results

Independent scientific proof had the highest influence on decisions for treatment while OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) driven activities like newsletters, white papers or workshops had the least impact. Comparison of answers from the three best-represented countries in this study (Germany, UK and USA) showed some significant differences: Scientific literature and congresses are significantly more important in the US than in the UK or Germany, although they are very important in all countries.

Conclusions

Independent and peer-reviewed sources of information are preferred by surgeons when choosing between methods and implants. Manufacturers of medical devices in orthopaedics employ a considerable workforce to inform or influence hospital managers and leading doctors with marketing activities. Our results indicate that it might be far more effective to channel at least some of these funds into peer-reviewed research projects, thereby assuring significantly higher acceptance of the related products.