A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into ‘major’ (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and ‘minor’ (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper’s strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role

Parents' beliefs and knowledge about the management of acute otitis media: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media is a common reason for antibiotic prescribing, despite strong evidence that antibiotics provide minimal benefit. Studies have demonstrated that patients’ (or parents’) expectations of antibiotics often influence general practitioners’ (GPs) decision to prescribe antibiotics, but few have explored parents’ expectations of the management of infections in children, or which factors influence the development of these expectations. This study aimed to explore parents’ knowledge and beliefs about the management of acute otitis media in children. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 parents of children who had recently presented to their GP with acute otitis media. Parents were recruited at childcare centres or playgroups in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: Many parents did not have an accurate understanding of what causes acute otitis media. GPs were primarily consulted for the management of symptoms such as pain and fever. Others specifically wanted reassurance or were concerned about hearing loss. Most parents assumed that antibiotics were the best treatment option. Parents’ perceptions about the best treatment were mainly based on their previous experience and the advice of the GP. Pain relief medications, such as paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were not considered by parents to be sufficient treatment on their own. CONCLUSION: There is discrepancy between parents’ beliefs and expectations of management of acute otitis media and the evidence-based recommendations. This study provides insights into parents’ expectations of management of acute otitis media, which may help inform clinicians about perceptions and misperceptions that may be valuable to elicit and discuss

Topical analgesia for acute otitis media

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM) is a spontaneously remitting disease of which pain is the most distressing symptom. Antibiotics are now known to have less benefit than previously assumed. Topical pain relief may be a satisfactory intervention for AOM sufferers and encourage clinicians to prescribe fewer antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of topical analgesia for AOM in adults and children. SEARCH METHODS: For this second update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (2008 to February Week 1 2011), Ovid MEDLINE (In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations 10 February 2011), Ovid EMBASE (2008 to 2011 Week 05), EBSCO CINAHL (2008 to 4 February 2011) and Ovid AMED (2008 to April 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Double‐blind randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs comparing an otic preparation with an analgesic effect (excluding antibiotics) versus placebo or an otic preparation with an analgesic effect (excluding antibiotics) versus any other otic preparation with an analgesic effect, in adults or children presenting at primary care settings with AOM without perforation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently screened studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Attempts to obtain additional information from the trial authors of the included trials were unsuccessful. MAIN RESULTS: Five trials including 391 children aged three to 18 years met our criteria. Two studies (117 children) compared anaesthetic ear drops versus placebo immediately at diagnosis. All children received some form of oral pain relief. In all five studies it was clear that ear pain diminishes rapidly for most sufferers. Nevertheless there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of children achieving a 50% reduction in pain in favour of anaesthetic drops 10 minutes after instillation (risk ratio (RR) 2.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 3.80) and 30 minutes after instillation (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.81) on the day AOM was diagnosed but not at 20 minutes (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.74). Three trials (274 children) compared anaesthetic ear drops with naturopathic herbal ear drops. Naturopathic drops were favoured 15 and 30 minutes after instillation, one to three days after diagnosis, but the differences were not statistically significant. Only one trial looked at adverse reactions and found none. Overall the findings of this review are based on trial evidence that is at low or unclear risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from five RCTs, only two of which addressed the most relevant question of primary effectiveness, provides limited evidence that ear drops are effective 30 minutes after administration in older children with AOM. Uncertainty exists as to the magnitude of this effect and more high‐quality studies are needed

Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review

Abstract Background Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people’s health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people’s understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions. Methods/Design We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people’s understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis. Results Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent. Conclusions Educational interventions to improve people’s understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people’s knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people’s understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201603310

Interventions to facilitate shared decision making to address antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in primary care

Background: Shared decision making is an important component of patient-centred care. It is a set of communication and evidence-based practice skills that elicits patients' expectations, clarifies any misperceptions and discusses the best available evidence for benefits and harms of treatment. Acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are one of the most common reasons for consulting in primary care and obtaining prescriptions for antibiotics. However, antibiotics offer few benefits for ARIs, and their excessive use contributes to antibiotic resistance - an evolving public health crisis. Greater explicit consideration of the benefit-harm trade-off within shared decision making may reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Objectives: To assess whether interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making increase or reduce antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November week 3, 2014), EMBASE (2010 to December 2014) and Web of Science (1985 to December 2014). We searched for other published, unpublished or ongoing trials by searching bibliographies of published articles, personal communication with key trial authors and content experts, and by searching trial registries at the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (individual level or cluster-randomised), which evaluated the effectiveness of interventions that promote shared decision making (as the focus or a component of the intervention) about antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. Antibiotic prescribing was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included clinically important adverse endpoints (e.g. re-consultations, hospital admissions, mortality) and process measures (e.g. patient satisfaction). We assessed the risk of bias of all included trials and the quality of evidence. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information where available. Main results: We identified 10 published reports of nine original RCTs (one report was a long-term follow-up of the original trial) in over 1100 primary care doctors and around 492,000 patients. The main risk of bias came from participants in most studies knowing whether they had received the intervention or not, and we downgraded the rating of the quality of evidence because of this. We meta-analysed data using a random-effects model on the primary and key secondary outcomes and formally assessed heterogeneity. Remaining outcomes are presented narratively. There is moderate quality evidence that interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic use for ARIs in primary care (immediately after or within six weeks of the consultation), compared with usual care, from 47% to 29%: risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 0.68. Reduction in antibiotic prescribing occurred without an increase in patient-initiated re-consultations (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03, moderate quality evidence) or a decrease in patient satisfaction with the consultation (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.30, low quality evidence). There were insufficient data to assess the effects of the intervention on sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing, adverse clinical outcomes (such as hospital admission, incidence of pneumonia and mortality), or measures of patient and caregiver involvement in shared decision making (such as satisfaction with the consultation; regret or conflict with the decision made; or treatment compliance following the decision). No studies assessed antibiotic resistance in colonising or infective organisms. Authors' conclusions: Interventions that aim to facilitate shared decision making reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care in the short term. Effects on longer-term rates of prescribing are uncertain and more evidence is needed to determine how any sustained reduction in antibiotic prescribing affects hospital admission, pneumonia and death

Exercise for acute respiratory infections

No abstract available