Battered women presenting in general practice

The problems of battered women have recently been highlighted. They consult doctors, who can be an important source of help. We examined their initial presenting complaint to general practitioners. Questionnaires were sent to 27 London refuges for battered women and to 100 randomly selected general practitioners. Seventy-two women and 49 doctors replied. The results indicated that these women are more likely to present with psychological symptoms. Many cases are not detected because the battering is concealed. The attitude of doctors may prevent these patients discussing their real problems. Further studies are needed

Exposing the evidence gap for complementary and alternative medicine to be integrated into science-based medicine.

When people who advocate integrating conventional science-based medicine with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are confronted with the lack of evidence to support CAM they counter by calling for more research, diverting attention to the 'package of care' and its non-specific effects, and recommending unblinded 'pragmatic trials'. We explain why these responses cannot close the evidence gap, and focus on the risk of biased results from open (unblinded) pragmatic trials. These are clinical trials which compare a treatment with 'usual care' or no additional care. Their risk of bias has been overlooked because the components of outcome measurements have not been taken into account. The components of an outcome measure are the specific effect of the intervention and non-specific effects such as true placebo effects, cognitive measurement biases, and other effects (which tend to cancel out when similar groups are compared). Negative true placebo effects ('frustrebo effects') in the comparison group, and cognitive measurement biases in the comparison group and the experimental group make the non-specific effect look like a benefit for the intervention group. However, the clinical importance of these effects is often dismissed or ignored without justification. The bottom line is that, for results from open pragmatic trials to be trusted, research is required to measure the clinical importance of true placebo effects, cognitive bias effects, and specific effects of treatments

The experience of Armenian family medicine residents with participatory learning methods in rural health centres

Introduction: The Family Medicine residency program in Armenia relies on traditional teacher- centred and didactic learning methods. The program is largely classroom based. Learning through contact with patients is limited. The Children of Armenia Fund has been active in medical education since 2010. It has provided educational support for family doctors and nurses in medical centres and hosted family medicine residents. In July 2016, family physician partners of COAF worked alongside the COAF educational supervisor to provide residents more active methods of learning combined with practical teaching in clinics, a combination which was called participatory learning. Method: A two-day seminar for the family medicine residents was designed to include structured patient contact and active classroom learning methods. The program had three components: structured clinical teaching in family medicine clinics, group case presentations, and problem based learning. Participants’ experience was evaluated through a focus group discussion led by an independent researcher. Results: Five main themes emerged from the focus group: a feeling of responsibility; the opportunity to practice and receive feedback; the merger of theory and practice; the benefits of small group and problem-based learning; and evidence-based medicine. The findings concord with existing research on the benefits of active learning and resident-patient contact: increase in motivation and engagement of residents during their training. The unexpected finding was the ease and enthusiasm with which residents adapted and valued the novel approach. Discussion: Active learning methods have been shown to improve performance in assessments. Although unaccustomed to participatory learning methods, this group of family medicine residents in Armenia were immediately appreciative of the approach. This has implications for family medicine training in Armenia. More student-centred, active learning methods and practical teaching with patients is likely to be acceptable to residents

A survey of UK medical schools' arrangements for early patient contact

Background: Many U.K. medical schools have patient contact in the first two years of the undergraduate course. Aim: To compare the purposes and organization of early patient contact in UK medical schools and to relate these arrangements to the schools' curricular objectives. Methods: A telephone survey of lead educators in UK medicals schools. Categories of contact were plotted against phases of the course to discern patterns of organisation. Results: The quantity of contact varies considerably (four to 65 days). There is a pattern, with learning objectives around the social context of health and illness preceding skills based work and integrated clinical knowledge for practice coming later. Schools fall into three categories: close adherence to the preclinical/clinical split, with limited early contact acting as an introduction to social aspects of health; provision of substantial patient contact to maximize the integration of knowledge and skills; and transitional, with limited clinical goals. General practice provides between one third and one half of early patient contact. Conclusions: Arrangements meet the objectives set by each school and reflect differing educational philosophies. Change is toward more early contact. There appears to be no national guidance which supports a minimum quantity of patient contact or specific educational purpose in the early years of U.K. basic medical training

The clinical features of the piriformis syndrome: a systematic review

Piriformis syndrome, sciatica caused by compression of the sciatic nerve by the piriformis muscle, has been described for over 70 years; yet, it remains controversial. The literature consists mainly of case series and narrative reviews. The objectives of the study were: first, to make the best use of existing evidence to estimate the frequencies of clinical features in patients reported to have PS; second, to identify future research questions. A systematic review was conducted of any study type that reported extractable data relevant to diagnosis. The search included all studies up to 1 March 2008 in four databases: AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Medline. Screening, data extraction and analysis were all performed independently by two reviewers. A total of 55 studies were included: 51 individual and 3 aggregated data studies, and 1 combined study. The most common features found were: buttock pain, external tenderness over the greater sciatic notch, aggravation of the pain through sitting and augmentation of the pain with manoeuvres that increase piriformis muscle tension. Future research could start with comparing the frequencies of these features in sciatica patients with and without disc herniation or spinal stenosis

Associations between exemption and survival outcomes in the UK's primary care pay-for-performance programme:a retrospective cohort study

PublishedJournal ArticleThis is the final version of the article. Available from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this record.OBJECTIVES: The UK's Quality and Outcomes Framework permits practices to exempt patients from financially-incentivised performance targets. To better understand the determinants and consequences of being exempted from the framework, we investigated the associations between exception reporting, patient characteristics and mortality. We also quantified the proportion of exempted patients that met quality targets for a tracer condition (diabetes). DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal study, using individual patient data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. SETTING: 644 general practices, 2006/7 to 2011/12. PARTICIPANTS: Patients registered with study practices for at least one year over the study period, with at least one condition of interest (2 460 341 in total). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exception reporting rates by reason (clinical contraindication, patient dissent); all-cause mortality in year following exemption. Analyses with logistic and Cox proportional-hazards regressions, respectively. RESULTS: The odds of being exempted increased with age, deprivation and multimorbidity. Men were more likely to be exempted but this was largely attributable to higher prevalence of conditions with high exemption rates. Modest associations remained, with women more likely to be exempted due to clinical contraindication (OR 0.90, 99% CI 0.88 to 0.92) and men more likely to be exempted due to informed dissent (OR 1.08, 99% CI 1.06 to 1.10). More deprived areas (both for practice location and patient residence) were non-linearly associated with higher exception rates, after controlling for comorbidities and other covariates, with stronger associations for clinical contraindication. Compared with patients with a single condition, odds ratios for patients with two, three, or four or more conditions were respectively 4.28 (99% CI 4.18 to 4.38), 16.32 (99% CI 15.82 to 16.83) and 68.69 (99% CI 66.12 to 71.37) for contraindication, and 2.68 (99% CI 2.63 to 2.74), 4.02 (99% CI 3.91 to 4.13) and 5.17 (99% CI 5.00 to 5.35) for informed dissent. Exempted patients had a higher adjusted risk of death in the following year than non-exempted patients, regardless of whether this exemption was for contraindication (hazard ratio 1.37, 99% CI 1.33 to 1.40) or for informed dissent (1.20, 99% CI 1.17 to 1.24). On average, quality standards were met for 48% of exempted patients in the diabetes domain, but there was wide variation across indicators (ranging from 8 to 80%). CONCLUSIONS: Older, multimorbid and more deprived patients are more likely to be exempted from the scheme. Exception reported patients are more likely to die in the following year, whether they are exempted by the practice for a contraindication or by themselves through informed dissent. Further research is needed to understand the relationship between exception reporting and patient outcomes.NIHR School for Primary Care Research (Project #141); Medical Research Council; Health eResearch Centre grant MR/K006665/1

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

Cost effectiveness of epidural steroid injections to manage chronic lower back pain

Background The efficacy of epidural steroid injections in the management of chronic low back pain is disputed, yet the technique remains popular amongst physicians and patients alike. This study assesses the cost effectiveness of injections administered in a routine outpatient setting in England. Methods Patients attending the Nottingham University Hospitals’ Pain Clinic received two injections of methylprednisolone plus levobupivacaine at different dosages, separated by at least 12 weeks. Prior to each injection, and every week thereafter for 12 weeks, participants completed the EQ-5D health-related quality of life instrument. For each patient for each injection, total health state utility gain relative to baseline was calculated. The cost of the procedure was modelled from observed clinical practice. Cost effectiveness was calculated as procedure cost relative to utility gain. Results 39 patients provided records. Over a 13-week period commencing with injection, mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) gains per patient for the two dosages were 0.028 (SD 0.063) and 0.021 (SD 0.057). The difference in QALYs gained by dosage was insignificant (paired t-test, CIs -0.019 – 0.033). Based on modelled resource use and data from other studies, the mean cost of an injection was estimated at £219 (SD 83). The cost utility ratio of the two injections amounted to £8,975 per QALY gained (CIs 5,480 – 22,915). However, at costs equivalent to the tariff price typically paid to providers by health care purchasers, the ratio increased to £27,459 (CIs 16,779 – 70,091). Conclusions When provided in an outpatient setting, epidural steroid injections are a short term, but nevertheless cost effective, means of managing chronic low back pain. However, designation of the procedure as a day case requires the National Health Service to reimburse providers at a price which pushes the procedure to the margin of cost effectiveness

Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary study selection between systematic reviews is inconsistent, and reviews on the same topic may reach different conclusions. Our main objective was to compare systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) regarding their agreement in primary study selection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis was conducted within the framework of a systematic review (a full review and a subsequent rapid report) on NPWT prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).</p> <p>For the IQWiG review and rapid report, 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched to identify systematic reviews and primary studies on NPWT versus conventional wound therapy in patients with acute or chronic wounds. All databases were searched from inception to December 2006.</p> <p>For the present analysis, reviews on NPWT were classified as eligible systematic reviews if multiple sources were systematically searched and the search strategy was documented. To ensure comparability between reviews, only reviews published in or after December 2004 and only studies published before June 2004 were considered.</p> <p>Eligible reviews were compared in respect of the methodology applied and the selection of primary studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 5 systematic reviews (including the IQWiG review) and 16 primary studies were analysed. The reviews included between 4 and 13 primary studies published before June 2004. Two reviews considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Three reviews considered both RCTs and non-RCTs. The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs (24 of 25 options) and 57% for non-RCTs (12 of 21 options). Due to considerable disagreement in the citation and selection of non-RCTs, we contacted the review authors for clarification (this was not initially planned); all authors or institutions responded. According to published information and the additional information provided, most differences between reviews arose from variations in inclusion criteria or inter-author study classification, as well as from different reporting styles (citation or non-citation) for excluded studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The citation and selection of primary studies differ between systematic reviews on NPWT, particularly with regard to non-RCTs. Uniform methodological and reporting standards need to be applied to ensure comparability between reviews as well as the validity of their conclusions.</p