Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by eight health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time. This statement was published jointly in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Medical Decision Making, PharmacoEconomics, and Quality of Life Research

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

Shareholder protection, income inequality and social health:a proposed research agenda

This paper develops a proposed research agenda in order to highlight how corporate governance, accounting and company law are relevant to the consideration of income inequality and wider social health. To illustrate this proposed research agenda, this paper draws on corporate governance research in the law and finance tradition, as well as macro-level studies in accounting concerned with the wider corporate governance context, in order to consider the association between shareholder protection, income inequality and child mortality. Under 5 child mortality is an objective indication of a country’s ability to nurture its children. In an influential body of work, La Porta et al. (1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2008) concluded that a common law legal system which protected the interests of shareholders gave rise to better economic and social outcomes. However, drawing on corporate governance and accounting literature we contend that such a conclusion is flawed. The findings of this paper suggest that common law countries (i.e. those with the greater legal protection for investors) have worse social outcomes in terms of under-5 child mortality.PostprintPeer reviewe

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of the impact of low back pain on people's lives

Copyright @ 2014 Froud et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.Background - Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem that many interpret within a biopsychosocial model. There is renewed concern that core-sets of outcome measures do not capture what is important. To inform debate about the coverage of back pain outcome measure core-sets, and to suggest areas worthy of exploration within healthcare consultations, we have synthesised the qualitative literature on the impact of low back pain on people’s lives. Methods - Two reviewers searched CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PEDro, and Medline, identifying qualitative studies of people’s experiences of non-specific LBP. Abstracted data were thematic coded and synthesised using a meta-ethnographic, and a meta-narrative approach. Results - We included 49 papers describing 42 studies. Patients are concerned with engagement in meaningful activities; but they also want to be believed and have their experiences and identity, as someone ‘doing battle’ with pain, validated. Patients seek diagnosis, treatment, and cure, but also reassurance of the absence of pathology. Some struggle to meet social expectations and obligations. When these are achieved, the credibility of their pain/disability claims can be jeopardised. Others withdraw, fearful of disapproval, or unable or unwilling to accommodate social demands. Patients generally seek to regain their pre-pain levels of health, and physical and emotional stability. After time, this can be perceived to become unrealistic and some adjust their expectations accordingly. Conclusions - The social component of the biopsychosocial model is not well represented in current core-sets of outcome measures. Clinicians should appreciate that the broader impact of low back pain includes social factors; this may be crucial to improving patients’ experiences of health care. Researchers should consider social factors to help develop a portfolio of more relevant outcome measures.Arthritis Research U

Estimating the number needed to treat from continuous outcomes in randomised controlled trials: methodological challenges and worked example using data from the UK Back Pain Exercise and Manipulation (BEAM) trial

Background Reporting numbers needed to treat (NNT) improves interpretability of trial results. It is unusual that continuous outcomes are converted to numbers of individual responders to treatment (i.e., those who reach a particular threshold of change); and deteriorations prevented are only rarely considered. We consider how numbers needed to treat can be derived from continuous outcomes; illustrated with a worked example showing the methods and challenges. Methods We used data from the UK BEAM trial (n = 1, 334) of physical treatments for back pain; originally reported as showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. Participants were randomised to receive 'best care' in general practice, the comparator treatment, or one of three manual and/or exercise treatments: 'best care' plus manipulation, exercise, or manipulation followed by exercise. We used established consensus thresholds for improvement in Roland-Morris disability questionnaire scores at three and twelve months to derive NNTs for improvements and for benefits (improvements gained+deteriorations prevented). Results At three months, NNT estimates ranged from 5.1 (95% CI 3.4 to 10.7) to 9.0 (5.0 to 45.5) for exercise, 5.0 (3.4 to 9.8) to 5.4 (3.8 to 9.9) for manipulation, and 3.3 (2.5 to 4.9) to 4.8 (3.5 to 7.8) for manipulation followed by exercise. Corresponding between-group mean differences in the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire were 1.6 (0.8 to 2.3), 1.4 (0.6 to 2.1), and 1.9 (1.2 to 2.6) points. Conclusion In contrast to small mean differences originally reported, NNTs were small and could be attractive to clinicians, patients, and purchasers. NNTs can aid the interpretation of results of trials using continuous outcomes. Where possible, these should be reported alongside mean differences. Challenges remain in calculating NNTs for some continuous outcomes

Symptomatic Social Science: Reflexivity, Recognition and Redistribution in the GBCS

The article examines methodological and theoretical issues related to the GBCS. It acknowledges its importance for the public profile of sociology, whilst arguing that it needs to develop a better sense of what it stands for not only in terms of understanding societal changes, but contributing to human betterment. To achieve this it discusses the role of reflexivity in the GBCS with reference to position and disposition and accounts of its process. It then moves on to examine its normative basis in terms of an ‘existential analytics’ and suggests a series of ways in which it might advance its insights as the work develops

Multiple Binding Sites for Fatty Acids on the Potassium Channel KcsA

Interactions of fatty acids with the potassium channel KcsA were studied using Trp fluorescence quenching and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) techniques. The brominated analogue of oleic acid was shown to bind to annular sites on KcsA and to the nonannular sites at each protein-protein interface in the homotetrameric structure with binding constants relative to dioleoylphosphatidylcholine of 0.67 ± 0.04 and 0.87 ± 0.08, respectively. Mutation of the two Arg residues close to the nonannular binding sites had no effect on fatty acid binding. EPR studies with a spin-labeled analogue of stearic acid detected a high-affinity binding site for the fatty acid with strong immobilization. Fluorescence quenching studies with the spin-labeled analogue showed that the binding site detected in the EPR experiments could not be one of the annular or nonannular binding sites. Instead, it is proposed that the EPR studies detect binding to the central hydrophobic cavity of the channel, with a binding constant in the range of ~0.1-1 ?M

Illustrating risk difference and number needed to treat from a randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation for cervicogenic headache

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number needed to treat (NNT) for one participant to benefit is considered a useful, clinically meaningful way of reporting binary outcomes from randomized trials. Analysis of continuous data from our randomized controlled trial has previously demonstrated a significant and clinically important difference favoring spinal manipulation over a light massage control.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eighty participants were randomized to receive spinal manipulation or a light massage control (n = 40/group). Improvements in cervicogenic headache pain (primary outcome), disability, and number in prior four weeks were dichotomized into binary outcomes at two thresholds: 30% representing minimal clinically important change and 50% representing clinical success. Groups were compared at 12 and 24-week follow-up using binomial regression (generalized linear models) to compute the adjusted risk difference (RD) between groups and number needed to treat (NNT) after adjusting for baseline differences between groups. Results were compared to logistic regression results.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For headache pain, clinically important improvement (30% or 50%) was more likely for spinal manipulation: adjusted RD = 17% to 27% and NNT = 3.8 to 5.8 (p = .005 to .028). Some statistically significant results favoring manipulation were found for headache disability and number.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Spinal manipulation demonstrated a benefit in terms of a clinically important improvement of cervicogenic headache pain. The use of adjusted NNT is recommended; however, adjusted RD may be easier to interpret than NNT. The study demonstrated how results may depend on the threshold for dichotomizing variables into binary outcomes.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov NLM identifier NCT00246350.</p