Quality of Reporting and Study Design of CKD Cohort Studies Assessing Mortality in the Elderly Before and After STROBE:A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND:The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement was published in October 2007 to improve quality of reporting of observational studies. The aim of this review was to assess the impact of the STROBE statement on observational study reporting and study design quality in the nephrology literature. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic literature review. SETTING & POPULATION:European and North American, Pre-dialysis Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) cohort studies. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES:Studies assessing the association between CKD and mortality in the elderly (>65 years) published from 1st January 2002 to 31st December 2013 were included, following systematic searching of MEDLINE & EMBASE. PREDICTOR:Time period before and after the publication of the STROBE statement. OUTCOME:Quality of study reporting using the STROBE statement and quality of study design using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools. RESULTS:37 papers (11 Pre & 26 Post STROBE) were identified from 3621 potential articles. Only four of the 22 STROBE items and their sub-criteria (objectives reporting, choice of quantitative groups and description of and carrying out sensitivity analysis) showed improvements, with the majority of items showing little change between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement. Pre- and post-period analysis revealed a Manuscript STROBE score increase (median score 77.8% (Inter-quartile range [IQR], 64.7-82.0) vs 83% (IQR, 78.4-84.9, p = 0.05). There was no change in quality of study design with identical median scores in the two periods for NOS (Manuscript NOS score 88.9), SIGN (Manuscript SIGN score 83.3) and CASP (Manuscript CASP score 91.7) tools. LIMITATIONS:Only 37 Studies from Europe and North America were included from one medical specialty. Assessment of study design largely reliant on good reporting. CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights continuing deficiencies in the reporting of STROBE items and their sub-criteria in cohort studies in nephrology. There was weak evidence of improvement in the overall reporting quality, with no improvement in methodological quality of CKD cohort studies between the period before and after publication of the STROBE statement

Patients’ Use of a Standardized Medication List - A Mixed Methods Study

Christiane Eickhoff,1 Uta Müller,1 Sophie Thomas,2 Christian Schmidt,2 Lisa Sophie Hartling,3 Sebastian Michael,3,4 Martin Schulz,1,5 Thilo Bertsche2,6 1Department of Medicine, ABDA – Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Berlin, Germany; 2Clinical Pharmacy Department, Institute of Pharmacy, Medical Faculty, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany; 3Löwen-Apotheke Waldheim e.K, Waldheim, Germany; 4Saxon Pharmacists Association, Leipzig, Germany; 5Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany; 6Drug Safety Center, Medical Faculty, Leipzig University and Leipzig University Hospital, Leipzig, GermanyCorrespondence: Christiane Eickhoff, Department of Medicine, ABDA – Federal Union of German Associations of Pharmacists, Heidestrasse 7, Berlin, 10557, Germany, Tel +49 30 40004-529, Fax +49 30 40004-513, Email [email protected]: A medication list (ML) is a document listing the patient’s entire medication, instructions for use, and indications. In Germany, a national standard was established in 2016 by law. However, data on patients’ use of this standardized ML are scarce. We investigated (i) patients’ practical use of the ML, (ii) patients’ understanding of the ML, (iii) completeness and correctness of the current ML version, and (iv) reasons why patients did not adhere to their ML.Patients and Methods: Community pharmacists recruited patients possessing a standardized ML with ≥ 5 medications. Information sources to evaluate the ML were: (a) brown bag analysis, (b) practical demonstration, (c) patient interview, and (d) patient file. Data were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods.Results: Two hundred and eighty-eight patients (median age: 76 years, range: 27– 95) were enrolled. (i) 38.5% of the patients used their ML regularly to prepare their medication and 73.3% to inform their physician. (ii) Overall, patients’ understanding of the ML was good, with > 80% of the patients being able to identify all relevant information. (iii) While n = 2779 medications were actually taken, n = 2539 were documented on the ML. No ML was fully correct and complete. Regarding particularly relevant items, ie, active ingredient, strength, dosage, medication missing or listed but not taken, 79.2% of ML were incorrect or incomplete. Handwritten modifications on the ML were frequent. (iv) Almost 60% of all patients did not follow their ML with “fear of adverse drug reactions” being the most frequently (n = 50) mentioned reason.Conclusion: Completeness and correctness of the current ML version was poor with handwritten modifications being frequent. Additionally, most of the patients did not adhere to their ML. This indicates that measures that lead to correct and up-to-date ML and improvements in patient counseling about their medication should be developed and implemented into routine practice.Keywords: medication list, medication schedule, medication plan, community pharmacy, medication safety, polypharmac

Pregnancy disorders leading to very preterm birth influence neonatal outcomes: results of the population-based ACTION cohort study

n/