A Bayesian decision support sequential model for severity of illness predictors and intensive care admissions in pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the USA. Our objective was to assess the predictive value on critical illness and disposition of a sequential Bayesian Model that integrates Lactate and procalcitonin (PCT) for pneumonia. METHODS: Sensitivity and specificity of lactate and PCT attained from pooled meta-analysis data. Likelihood ratios calculated and inserted in Bayesian/ Fagan nomogram to calculate posttest probabilities. Bayesian Diagnostic Gains (BDG) were analyzed comparing pre and post-test probability. To assess the value of integrating both PCT and Lactate in Severity of Illness Prediction we built a model that combined CURB65 with PCT as the Pre-Test markers and later integrated the Lactate Likelihood Ratio Values to generate a combined CURB 65 + Procalcitonin + Lactate Sequential value. RESULTS: The BDG model integrated a CUBR65 Scores combined with Procalcitonin (LR+ and LR-) for Pre-Test Probability Intermediate and High with Lactate Positive Likelihood Ratios. This generated for the PCT LR+ Post-test Probability (POSITIVE TEST) Posterior probability: 93% (95% CI [91,96%]) and Post Test Probability (NEGATIVE TEST) of: 17% (95% CI [15-20%]) for the Intermediate subgroup and 97% for the high risk sub-group POSITIVE TEST: Post-Test probability:97% (95% CI [95,98%]) NEGATIVE TEST: Post-test probability: 33% (95% CI [31,36%]) . ANOVA analysis for CURB 65 (alone) vs CURB 65 and PCT (LR+) vs CURB 65 and PCT (LR+) and Lactate showed a statistically significant difference (P value = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The sequential combination of CURB 65 plus PCT with Lactate yielded statistically significant results, demonstrating a greater predictive value for severity of illness thus ICU level care

Selection and Presentation of Imaging Figures in the Medical Literature

Background: Images are important for conveying information, but there is no empirical evidence on whether imaging figures are properly selected and presented in the published medical literature. We therefore evaluated the selection and presentation of radiological imaging figures in major medical journals. Methodology/Principal Findings: We analyzed articles published in 2005 in 12 major general and specialty medical journals that had radiological imaging figures. For each figure, we recorded information on selection, study population, provision of quantitative measurements, color scales and contrast use. Overall, 417 images from 212 articles were analyzed. Any comment/hint on image selection was made in 44 (11%) images (range 0–50% across the 12 journals) and another 37 (9%) (range 0–60%) showed both a normal and abnormal appearance. In 108 images (26%) (range 0–43%) it was unclear whether the image came from the presented study population. Eighty-three images (20%) (range 0–60%) had any quantitative or ordered categorical value on a measure of interest. Information on the distribution of the measure of interest in the study population was given in 59 cases. For 43 images (range 0–40%), a quantitative measurement was provided for the depicted case and the distribution of values in the study population was also available; in those 43 cases there was no over-representation of extreme than average cases (p = 0.37). Significance: The selection and presentation of images in the medical literature is often insufficiently documented; quantitative data are sparse and difficult to place in context

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND: Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with “no statistical expert” and “no checklist” as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2×2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6–24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: −0.3–+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3–6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: This prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision. RESULTS: A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n = 94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n = 10; n = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013]

The effectiveness of computerized clinical guidelines in the process of care: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical practice guidelines have been developed aiming to improve the quality of care. The implementation of the computerized clinical guidelines (CCG) has been supported by the development of computerized clinical decision support systems.</p> <p>This systematic review assesses the impact of CCG on the process of care compared with non-computerized clinical guidelines.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Specific features of CCG were studied through an extensive search of scientific literature, querying electronic databases: Pubmed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A multivariable logistic regression was carried out to evaluate the association of CCG's features with positive effect on the process of care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-five articles were selected. The logistic model showed that Automatic provision of recommendation in electronic version as part of clinician workflow (Odds Ratio [OR]= 17.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-193.7) and Publication Year (OR = 6.7; 95%CI: 1.3-34.3) were statistically significant predictors.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>From the research that has been carried out, we can conclude that after implementation of CCG significant improvements in process of care are shown. Our findings also suggest clinicians, managers and other health care decision makers which features of CCG might improve the structure of computerized system.</p

Promoting Patient Safety and Preventing Medical Error in Emergency Departments

An estimated 108,000 people die each year from potentially preventable iatrogenic injury. One in 50 hospitalized patients experiences a preventable adverse event. Up to 3% of these injuries and events take place in emergency departments. With long and detailed training, morbidity and mortality conferences, and an emphasis on practitioner responsibility, medicine has traditionally faced the challenges of medical error and patient safety through an approach focused almost exclusively on individual practitioners. Yet no matter how well trained and how careful health care providers are, individuals will make mistakes because they are human. In general medicine, the study of adverse drug events has led the way to new methods of error detection and error prevention. A combination of chart reviews, incident logs, observation, and peer solicitation has provided a quantitative tool to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions such as computer order entry and pharmacist order review. In emergency medicine (EM), error detection has focused on subjects of high liability: missed myocardial infarctions, missed appendicitis, and misreading of radiographs. Some system-level efforts in error prevention have focused on teamwork, on strengthening communication between pharmacists and emergency physicians, on automating drug dosing and distribution, and on rationalizing shifts. This article reviews the definitions, detection, and presentation of error in medicine and EM. Based on review of the current literature, recommendations are offered to enhance the likelihood of reduction of error in EM practice.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74930/1/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00466.x.pd

Promotoras as Mental Health Practitioners in Primary Care: A Multi-Method Study of an Intervention to Address Contextual Sources of Depression

We assessed the role of promotoras—briefly trained community health workers—in depression care at community health centers. The intervention focused on four contextual sources of depression in underserved, low-income communities: underemployment, inadequate housing, food insecurity, and violence. A multi-method design included quantitative and ethnographic techniques to study predictors of depression and the intervention’s impact. After a structured training program, primary care practitioners (PCPs) and promotoras collaboratively followed a clinical algorithm in which PCPs prescribed medications and/or arranged consultations by mental health professionals and promotoras addressed the contextual sources of depression. Based on an intake interview with 464 randomly recruited patients, 120 patients with depression were randomized to enhanced care plus the promotora contextual intervention, or to enhanced care alone. All four contextual problems emerged as strong predictors of depression (chi square, p < .05); logistic regression revealed housing and food insecurity as the most important predictors (odds ratios both 2.40, p < .05). Unexpected challenges arose in the intervention’s implementation, involving infrastructure at the health centers, boundaries of the promotoras’ roles, and “turf” issues with medical assistants. In the quantitative assessment, the intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvements in depression (odds ratio 4.33, confidence interval overlapping 1). Ethnographic research demonstrated a predominantly positive response to the intervention among stakeholders, including patients, promotoras, PCPs, non-professional staff workers, administrators, and community advisory board members. Due to continuing unmet mental health needs, we favor further assessment of innovative roles for community health workers