The terminology conflict on efficacy and effectiveness in healthcare

Complexities and challenges of translating intervention success to real world gait in people with Parkinson's disease

Background

Unstable gait leading to falls negatively impacts the quality of life in many people with Parkinson's disease (PD). Systematic review evidence provides moderate to strong evidence of efficacy for a wide range of physiotherapy-based interventions to reduce gait impairment. However, outcomes have often focused on gait assessments conducted in controlled laboratory or clinical environments.

Objective

This perspective investigates the complexities and challenges of conducting real-world gait assessments in people with PD and the factors that may influence the translation from improved lab-assessed gait to improved real-world gait.

Methods

Through a thorough review of current literature, we present an in-depth analysis of current methodological approaches to real-world gait assessments and the challenges that may influence the translation of an intervention's success from lab-based outcomes to improved walking during daily life.

Results

We identified six key factors that may influence the translation of intervention success into real-world environments at different stages of the process. These factors comprise the gait intervention, parameters analyzed, sensor setup, assessment protocols, characteristics of walking bouts, and medication status. We provide recommendations for each factor based on our synthesis of current literature.

Conclusion

This perspective emphasizes the importance of measuring intervention success outside of the laboratory environment using real-world gait assessments. Our findings support the need for future studies to bridge the gap between proven efficacy for gait as assessed in controlled laboratory environments and real-world impact for people with PD.

Comparative effectiveness is the common denominator in health services research: experimental effects are promising, real-world effects are compelling

BACKGROUND

Sir Archibald Cochrane and Sir Austin Bradford Hill requested 80 years ago answers to three questions (Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it?) before a new intervention is implemented in day-to-day healthcare. A critical analysis of currently accepted answers identified a terminology conflict that inherits the risk of misleading interpretations and inappropriate decisions.

CONTENT

For detection of the terminology problem and the development of the solutions was possible through three recommendations (the "Ulm heritage"): (1) Albert Einstein (*1879 in Ulm/Germany) predicted, "A problem cannot be solved with the way of thinking that caused it"; (2) The "hochschule für gestaltung ulm (Academy of Design, 1953-1968)" disseminated the rules of American designers and architects e.g., "Form Follows Function"; and (3) requested to "design not only individual but universally valid solutions with socio-political relevance".

SUMMARY

Our data confirms the power of the FFF rule, the pros and cons of value judgments, the complexity of healthcare decisions, the difference between scientific statements and political decisions, and the effects of interprofessional collaboration.

OUTLOOK

"Efficacy" offers promising "Proofs of Principle (PoP)" while "effectiveness" describes "Real-World Effectiveness (RWE)". That is why the results obtained are always more important than hypotheses.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks-Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation

Background

As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation.

Methods

A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes.

Results

We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = -0.72, 95% CI = -0.99 to -0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31-0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03-0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03-0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23-1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32-3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health.

Conclusion

Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

[Covid-19: Twin Method for Verifying Real-World Effectiveness Under Everyday Conditions]

The positive side of the Covid-19 pandemic is that it has provided a stimulation for innovations. As an example, we discuss the Pragmatic Controlled Trial (PCT), a twin study that can be used to confirm the real-world effectiveness (RWE) of health services under the non-standardized conditions of everyday care. Proof of the RWE could generally be important for health services with conditional approval. The PCT uses the Bayesian principle instead of randomization. It enables care under non-standardized everyday conditions and, by describing the endpoint-specific risks of each individual patient and by classifying the interventions, creates an unbiased evaluation in a non-experimental, but risk-stratified and controlled study. Patients expect a timely solution to their health problems. Until now, science has required sufficiently well-founded results before approving an innovation. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown that the demand for immediate and best possible care can be met through the conditional approval of a new care principle. With the PCT, we describe a procedure with which, after conditional approval, the missing data can be collected in order to successfully complete the approval process.

Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Randomised Controlled Trials: Expected and Reported Results Do Not Match

Purpose

The assessment of health-related quality of life (hrQoL) may need to be reconsidered due to important differences between efficacy (the effect of a treatment under experimental study conditions) and effectiveness (the effect of a treatment under real-world conditions). We presume that most researchers intend to describe effects under real-world conditions when investigating hrQoL as an endpoint. Unfortunately, most studies are designed to confirm two theories: the efficacy of a new intervention under experimental study conditions and the real-world effectiveness of this intervention on hrQoL under non-experimental study conditions. Conflicting information emerges when the outcomes are supposed to describe effects under real-world conditions, but the assessment generates results obtained under experimental conditions. This paper examines the existing conflict between efficacy and effectiveness in a sample of 100 studies investigating hrQoL.

Methods

We analysed a sample of freely available publications of clinical studies listed in PubMed between April 2015 and August 2016 which assessed quality of life as an outcome. We assessed the following four characteristics that should differ in studies measuring either efficacy or effectiveness: 1) specification of the study as a randomised controlled trial or not, 2) description of the study design as pragmatic or not, 3) classification of the study as an efficacy or an effectiveness study and 4) number of selected inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results

91% of the studies assessed hrQoL under experimental conditions (in a randomised controlled trial), but not under real-world conditions. The important difference between efficacy and effectiveness was not described in 60% of the studies. Only 6% of studies classified the study as a pragmatic trial. The difference between inclusion and exclusion criteria was not addressed in any of the investigated studies.

Conclusion

The results of the four criteria confirmed our hypothesis that hrQoL studies are conducted mainly as experimental, but not pragmatic, trials indicating that the meaningfulness of the important difference between efficacy and effectiveness requires further discussion.

Keywords

pragmatic trial, experimental study conditions, real-world conditions, efficacy, effectiveness, pragmatic.