The effect of high dose antibiotic impregnated cement on rate of surgical site infection after hip hemiarthroplasty for fractured neck of femur : a protocol for a double-blind quasi randomised controlled trial

Background: Mortality following hip hemiarthroplasty is in the range of 10-40% in the first year, with much attributed to post-operative complications. One such complication is surgical site infection (SSI), which at the start of this trial affected 4.68% of patients in the UK having this operation. Compared to SSI rates of elective hip surgery, at less than 1%, this figure is elevated. The aim of this quasi randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if high dose antibiotic impregnated cement can reduce the SSI in patients at 12-months after hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular fractured neck of femur. Methods: 848 patients with an intracapsular fractured neck of femur requiring a hip hemiarthroplasty are been recruited into this two-centre double-blind quasi RCT. Participants were recruited before surgery and quasi randomised to standard care or intervention group. Participants, statistician and outcome assessors were blind to treatment allocation throughout the study. The intervention consisted of high dose antibiotic impregnated cement consisting of 1 gram Clindamycin and 1 gram of Gentamicin. The primary outcome is Health Protection Agency (HPA) defined deep surgical site infection at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include HPA defined superficial surgical site infection at 30 days, 30 and 90-day mortality, length of hospital stay, critical care stay, and complications. Discussion: Large randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of a surgical intervention are uncommon, particularly in the speciality of orthopaedics. The results from this trial will inform evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic impregnated cement in the management of patients with a fractured neck of femur undergoing a hip hemiarthroplasty. If high dose antibiotic impregnated cement is found to be an effective intervention, implementation into clinical practice could improve long-term outcomes for patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty

Mindfulness-based stress reduction in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review

Background: Mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR) is increasingly being used to improve outcomes such as stress and depression in a range of long-term conditions (LTCs). While systematic reviews on MBSR have taken place for a number of conditions there remains limited information on its impact on individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: Medline, Central, Embase, Amed, CINAHAL were searched in March 2016. These databases were searched using a combination of MeSH subject headings where available and keywords in the title and abstracts. We also searched the reference lists of related reviews. Study quality was assessed based on questions from the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Results: Two interventions and three papers with a total of 66 participants were included. The interventions were undertaken in Belgium (n = 27) and the USA (n = 39). One study reported significantly increased grey matter density (GMD) in the brains of the MBSR group compared to the usual care group. Significant improvements were reported in one study for a number of outcomes including PD outcomes, depression, mindfulness, and quality of life indicators. Only one intervention was of reasonable quality and both interventions failed to control for potential confounders in the analysis. Adverse events and reasons for drop-outs were not reported. There was also no reporting on the costs/benefits of the intervention or how they affected health service utilisation. Conclusion: This systematic review found limited and inconclusive evidence of the effectiveness of MBSR for PD patients. Both of the included interventions claimed positive effects for PD patients but significant outcomes were often contradicted by other results. Further trials with larger sample sizes, control groups and longer follow-ups are needed before the evidence for MBSR in PD can be conclusively judged

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyse

Herding QATs: Quality Assessment Tools for Evidence in Medicine

Medical scientists employ ‘quality assessment tools’ (QATs) to measure the quality of evidence from clinical studies, especially randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These tools are designed to take into account various methodological details of clinical studies, including randomization, blinding, and other features of studies deemed relevant to minimizing bias and error. There are now dozens available. The various QATs on offer differ widely from each other, and second-order empirical studies show that QATs have low inter-rater reliability and low inter-tool reliability. This is an instance of a more general problem I call the underdetermination of evidential significance. Disagreements about the strength of a particular piece of evidence can be due to different—but in principle equally good—weightings of the fine-grained methodological features which constitute QATs

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot study

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing concern regarding the potential effects of the commercialization of research. METHODS: In order to examine the relationships between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality, recent issues of five peer-reviewed, high impact factor, general medical journals were hand-searched to identify a sample of 100 randomized controlled trials (20 trials/journal). Relevant data, including funding source (industry/not-for-profit/mixed/not reported) and statistical significance of primary outcome (favouring new treatment/favouring conventional treatment/neutral/unclear), were abstracted. Quality scores were assigned using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment. RESULTS: Sixty-six percent of trials received some industry funding. Trial outcome was not associated with funding source (p= .461). There was a preponderance of favourable statistical conclusions among published trials with 67% reporting results that favored a new treatment whereas 6% favoured the conventional treatment. Quality scores were not associated with funding source or trial outcome. CONCLUSIONS: It is not known whether the absence of significant associations between funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality reflects a true absence of an association or is an artefact of inadequate statistical power, reliance on voluntary disclosure of funding information, a focus on trials recently published in the top medical journals, or some combination thereof. Continued and expanded monitoring of potential conflicts is recommended, particularly in light of new guidelines for disclosure that have been endorsed by the ICMJE

Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Copyright: © 2014 Durand et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background: Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities. Objective: To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Peer reviewe

Comparison of two independent systematic reviews of trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) : The Yale Open Data Access Medtronic Project

Background: It is uncertain whether the replication of systematic reviews, particularly those with the same objectives and resources, would employ similar methods and/or arrive at identical findings. We compared the results and conclusions of two concurrent systematic reviews undertaken by two independent research teams provided with the same objectives, resources, and individual participant-level data. Methods: Two centers in the USA and UK were each provided with participant-level data on 17 multi-site clinical trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). The teams were blinded to each other's methods and findings until after publication. We conducted a retrospective structured comparison of the results of the two systematic reviews. The main outcome measures included (1) trial inclusion criteria; (2) statistical methods; (3) summary efficacy and risk estimates; and (4) conclusions. Results: The two research teams' meta-analyses inclusion criteria were broadly similar but differed slightly in trial inclusion and research methodology. They obtained similar results in summary estimates of most clinical outcomes and adverse events. Center A incorporated all trials into summary estimates of efficacy and harms, while Center B concentrated on analyses stratified by surgical approach. Center A found a statistically significant, but small, benefit whereas Center B reported no advantage. In the analysis of harms, neither showed an increased cancer risk at 48 months, although Center B reported a significant increase at 24 months. Conclusions reflected these differences in summary estimates of benefit balanced with small but potentially important risk of harm. Conclusions: Two independent groups given the same research objectives, data, resources, funding, and time produced broad general agreement but differed in several areas. These differences, the importance of which is debatable, indicate the value of the availability of data to allow for more than a single approach and a single interpretation of the data. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42012002040and CRD42012001907