Effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression in patients with diabetes:an analysis from the Collaborative Atorvastatin in Diabetes Trial (CARDS)

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In an individual-level analysis we examined the effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression in type 2 diabetes and whether glycaemia effects reduce the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) with atorvastatin. METHODS: The study population comprised 2,739 people taking part in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS) who were randomised to receive atorvastatin 10 mg or placebo and who had post-randomisation HbA(1c) data. This secondary analysis used Cox regression to estimate the effect of atorvastatin on glycaemia progression, defined as an increase in HbA(1c) of ≥0.5% (5.5 mmol/mol) or intensification of diabetes therapy. Mixed models were used to estimate the effect of atorvastatin on HbA(1c) as a continuous endpoint. RESULTS: Glycaemia progression occurred in 73.6% of participants allocated placebo and 78.1% of those allocated atorvastatin (HR 1.18 [95% CI 1.08, 1.29], p < 0.001) by the end of follow-up. The HR was 1.22 (95% CI 1.19, 1.35) in men and 1.11 (95% CI 0.95, 1.29) in women (p = 0.098 for the sex interaction). A similar effect was seen in on-treatment analyses: HR 1.20 (95% CI 1.07, 1.35), p = 0.001. The net mean treatment effect on HbA(1c) was 0.14% (95% CI 0.08, 0.21) (1.5 mmol/mol). The effect did not increase through time. Diabetes treatment intensification alone did not differ with statin allocation. Neither baseline nor 1-year-attained HbA(1c) predicted subsequent CVD, and the atorvastatin effect on CVD did not vary by HbA(1c) change (interaction p value 0.229). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The effect of atorvastatin 10 mg on glycaemia progression among those with diabetes is statistically significant but very small, is not significantly different between sexes, does not increase with duration of statin and does not have an impact on the magnitude of CVD risk reduction with atorvastatin. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00125-015-3802-6) contains peer-reviewed but unedited supplementary material, which is available to authorised users

Barriers and opportunities for evidence-based health service planning: the example of developing a Decision Analytic Model to plan services for sexually transmitted infections in the UK

Decision Analytic Models (DAMs) are established means of evidence-synthesis to differentiate between health interventions. They have mainly been used to inform clinical decisions and health technology assessment at the national level, yet could also inform local health service planning. For this, a DAM must take into account the needs of the local population, but also the needs of those planning its services. Drawing on our experiences from stakeholder consultations, where we presented the potential utility of a DAM for planning local health services for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the UK, and the evidence it could use to inform decisions regarding different combinations of service provision, in terms of their costs, cost-effectiveness, and public health outcomes, we discuss the barriers perceived by stakeholders to the use of DAMs to inform service planning for local populations, including (1) a tension between individual and population perspectives; (2) reductionism; and (3) a lack of transparency regarding models, their assumptions, and the motivations of those generating models

Developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand: values, requirements and barriers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines support clinical decision-making by making recommendations to guide clinical practice. These recommendations are developed by integrating the expertise of a multidisciplinary group of clinicians with the perspectives of consumers and the best available research evidence. However studies have raised concerns about the quality of guideline development, and particularly the link between research and recommendations. The reasons why guideline developers are not following the established development methods are not clear.</p> <p>We aimed to explore the barriers to developing evidence-based guidelines in eleven hospitals in Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand, so as to better understand how evidence-based guideline development could be facilitated in these settings. The research aimed to identify the value clinicians place on guidelines, what clinicians want in guidelines developed in hospital settings and what factors limit rigorous evidence-based guideline development in these settings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were undertaken with senior and junior healthcare providers (nurses, midwives, doctors, allied health) from the maternal and neonatal services of the eleven participating hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis undertaken.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Ninety-three individual, 25 pair and eleven group interviews were conducted. Participants were clear that they want guidelines that are based on evidence and updated regularly. They were also clear that there are major barriers to this. Most of the barriers were shared across countries, and included lack of time, lack of skills in finding, appraising and interpreting evidence, lack of access to relevant evidence and difficulty arranging meetings and achieving consensus.</p> <p>Barriers that were primarily identified in Australian hospitals include cumbersome organisational processes and a feeling that guidelines are being developed for bureaucratic ends. Barriers that were primarily identified in South East Asian hospitals include difficulty accessing evidence due to limited resources available for computers, internet and journal subscriptions and limited skills in computing and English.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The clinicians in these eleven very different hospitals want evidence-based guidelines. However they are frustrated by guideline development processes that are enormously time, skill and resource intensive. They feel strongly that "there's got to be a better way".</p> <p>The fact that the great majority of the identified barriers were shared across settings may provide an opportunity to develop a more pragmatic way of developing guidelines that can be applied in many contexts.</p

Optimising reproductive and child health outcomes by building evidence-based research and practice in South East Asia (SEA-ORCHID): study protocol

Background Disorders related to pregnancy and childbirth are a major health issue in South East Asia. They represent one of the biggest health risk differentials between the developed and developing world. Our broad research question is: Can the health of mothers and babies in Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia be improved by increasing the local capacity for the synthesis of research, implementation of effective interventions, and identification of gaps in knowledge needing further research? Methods/Design The project is a before-after study which planned to benefit from and extend existing regional and international networks. Over five years the project was designed to comprise five phases; pre-study, pre-intervention, intervention, outcome assessment and reporting/dissemination. The study was proposed to be conducted across seven project nodes: four in South East Asia and three in Australia. Each South East Asian study node was planned to be established within an existing department of obstetrics and gynaecology or neonatology and was intended to form the project coordinating centre and focus for evidence-based practice activities within that region. Nine hospitals in South East Asia planned to participate, representing a range of clinical settings. The three project nodes in Australia were intended to provide project support. The intervention was planned to consist of capacity-strengthening activities targeted at three groups: generators of evidence, users of evidence and teachers of evidence. The primary outcome was established as changes in adherence to recommended clinical practices from baseline to completion of the project and impact on health outcomes. Discussion The SEA-ORCHID project was intended to improve care during pregnancy and the perinatal period of mothers and their babies in South East Asia. The possible benefits extend beyond this however, as at the end of this project there is hoped to be an existing network of South East Asian researchers and health care providers with the capacity to generalise this model to other health priority areas. It is anticipated that this project facilitate ongoing development of evidence-based practice and policy in South East Asia through attracting long-term funding, expansion into other hospitals and community-based care and the establishment of nodes in other countries.David J Henderson-Smart, Pisake Lumbiganon, Mario R Festin, Jacqueline J Ho, Hakimi Mohammad, Steve J McDonald, Sally Green and Caroline A Crowther for the SEA-ORCHID Study Grou

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

Choosing a control intervention for a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled clinical trials are performed to resolve uncertainty concerning comparator interventions. Appropriate acknowledgment of uncertainty enables the concurrent achievement of two goals : the acquisition of valuable scientific knowledge and an optimum treatment choice for the patient-participant. The ethical recruitment of patients requires the presence of clinical equipoise. This involves the appropriate choice of a control intervention, particularly when unapproved drugs or innovative interventions are being evaluated. DISCUSSION: We argue that the choice of a control intervention should be supported by a systematic review of the relevant literature and, where necessary, solicitation of the informed beliefs of clinical experts through formal surveys and publication of the proposed trial's protocol. SUMMARY: When clinical equipoise is present, physicians may confidently propose trial enrollment to their eligible patients as an act of therapeutic beneficence

Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access and subscription journals

BACKGROUND:Recent controversies highlighting substandard peer review in Open Access (OA) and traditional (subscription) journals have increased the need for authors, funders, publishers, and institutions to assure quality of peer-review in academic journals. I propose that transparency of the peer-review process may be seen as an indicator of the quality of peer-review, and develop and validate a tool enabling different stakeholders to assess transparency of the peer-review process. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Based on editorial guidelines and best practices, I developed a 14-item tool to rate transparency of the peer-review process on the basis of journals' websites. In Study 1, a random sample of 231 authors of papers in 92 subscription journals in different fields rated transparency of the journals that published their work. Authors' ratings of the transparency were positively associated with quality of the peer-review process but unrelated to journal's impact factors. In Study 2, 20 experts on OA publishing assessed the transparency of established (non-OA) journals, OA journals categorized as being published by potential predatory publishers, and journals from the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Results show high reliability across items (α = .91) and sufficient reliability across raters. Ratings differentiated the three types of journals well. In Study 3, academic librarians rated a random sample of 140 DOAJ journals and another 54 journals that had received a hoax paper written by Bohannon to test peer-review quality. Journals with higher transparency ratings were less likely to accept the flawed paper and showed higher impact as measured by the h5 index from Google Scholar. CONCLUSIONS:The tool to assess transparency of the peer-review process at academic journals shows promising reliability and validity. The transparency of the peer-review process can be seen as an indicator of peer-review quality allowing the tool to be used to predict academic quality in new journals

Representation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence in contemporary tobacco regulation:a review of tobacco industry submissions to the UK Government consultation on standardised packaging

BACKGROUND: Standardised packaging (SP) of tobacco products is an innovative tobacco control measure opposed by transnational tobacco companies (TTCs) whose responses to the UK government's public consultation on SP argued that evidence was inadequate to support implementing the measure. The government's initial decision, announced 11 months after the consultation closed, was to wait for 'more evidence', but four months later a second 'independent review' was launched. In view of the centrality of evidence to debates over SP and TTCs' history of denying harms and manufacturing uncertainty about scientific evidence, we analysed their submissions to examine how they used evidence to oppose SP. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We purposively selected and analysed two TTC submissions using a verification-oriented cross-documentary method to ascertain how published studies were used and interpretive analysis with a constructivist grounded theory approach to examine the conceptual significance of TTC critiques. The companies' overall argument was that the SP evidence base was seriously flawed and did not warrant the introduction of SP. However, this argument was underpinned by three complementary techniques that misrepresented the evidence base. First, published studies were repeatedly misquoted, distorting the main messages. Second, 'mimicked scientific critique' was used to undermine evidence; this form of critique insisted on methodological perfection, rejected methodological pluralism, adopted a litigation (not scientific) model, and was not rigorous. Third, TTCs engaged in 'evidential landscaping', promoting a parallel evidence base to deflect attention from SP and excluding company-held evidence relevant to SP. The study's sample was limited to sub-sections of two out of four submissions, but leaked industry documents suggest at least one other company used a similar approach. CONCLUSIONS: The TTCs' claim that SP will not lead to public health benefits is largely without foundation. The tools of Better Regulation, particularly stakeholder consultation, provide an opportunity for highly resourced corporations to slow, weaken, or prevent public health policies