A pragmatic, adaptive clinical trial design for a rare disease: The FOcal Cerebral Arteriopathy Steroid (FOCAS) trial.

BACKGROUND:Pediatric stroke investigators identified as their top research priority a clinical trial of corticosteroids for focal cerebral arteriopathy (FCA). However, FCA is both rare and an acute condition making it infeasible to enroll the large sample sizes needed for standard, confirmatory clinical trials. We present a pragmatic approach to clinical trial design that may inform the approach to other rare disorders. METHODS:We surveyed pediatric stroke experts to determine the level of evidence that would impact their clinical management of FCA. Incorporating survey results, a randomized, group sequential Bayesian adaptive design was proposed based on a quantitative radiologic outcome measure (change from baseline in change in the FCA Severity Score). Using accumulating information, the design determines whether intervention is better than control with high probability. RESULTS:Among 21 (100%) respondents, the probability of corticosteroid efficacy that would lead the experts to treat was 30% (median). The probability of efficacy that would make them unwilling to randomize (because they would feel all children should receive corticosteroids) was 70%. Simulation studies with the proposed design showed that a total of 42 subjects controls the type I error rate at the desired level 0.20 and yields a smaller average sample size and trial duration compared to a conventional design. CONCLUSIONS:Designs in rare diseases require special considerations; this is especially true for this childhood disease, which is both uncommon and acute. This design has incorporated expert consensus to establish the criteria for success, formal monitoring rules for safety, and early stopping rules

Ethical Decision-making: Special or No Different?

Theories of ethical decision-making assume it is a process that is special, or different in some regard from typical individual decision-making. Empirical results of the most widely known theories in the field of business ethics contain numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. In an attempt to assess why we continue to lack understanding of how individuals make ethical decisions at work, an inductive study of ethical decision-making was conducted. The results of this preliminary study suggest that ethical decision-making might not be meaningfully “special” or different from other decision-making processes. The implications of this research are potentially significant in that they challenge the fundamental assumption of existing ethical decision-making research. This research could serve as an impetus for further examination of whether ethical decision-making is meaningfully different from other decision-making processes. Such studies could create new directions for the field of business ethics

Technology for large-scale translation of clinical practice guidelines : a pilot study of the performance of a hybrid human and computer-assisted approach

Background: The construction of EBMPracticeNet, a national electronic point-of-care information platform in Belgium, was initiated in 2011 to optimize quality of care by promoting evidence-based decision-making. The project involved, among other tasks, the translation of 940 EBM Guidelines of Duodecim Medical Publications from English into Dutch and French. Considering the scale of the translation process, it was decided to make use of computer-aided translation performed by certificated translators with limited expertise in medical translation. Our consortium used a hybrid approach, involving a human translator supported by a translation memory (using SDL Trados Studio), terminology recognition (using SDL Multiterm termbases) from medical termbases and support from online machine translation. This has resulted in a validated translation memory which is now in use for the translation of new and updated guidelines. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of the hybrid human and computer-assisted approach in comparison with translation unsupported by translation memory and terminology recognition. A comparison was also made with the translation efficiency of an expert medical translator. Methods: We conducted a pilot trial in which two sets of 30 new and 30 updated guidelines were randomized to one of three groups. Comparable guidelines were translated (a) by certificated junior translators without medical specialization using the hybrid method (b) by an experienced medical translator without this support and (c) by the same junior translators without the support of the validated translation memory. A medical proofreader who was blinded for the translation procedure, evaluated the translated guidelines for acceptability and adequacy. Translation speed was measured by recording translation and post-editing time. The Human Translation Edit Rate was calculated as a metric to evaluate the quality of the translation. A further evaluation was made of translation acceptability and adequacy. Results: The average number of words per guideline was 1,195 and the mean total translation time was 100.2 min/1,000 words. No meaningful differences were found in the translation speed for new guidelines. The translation of updated guidelines was 59 min/1,000 words faster (95% CI 2-115; P=.044) in the computer-aided group. Revisions due to terminology accounted for one third of the overall revisions by the medical proofreader. Conclusions: Use of the hybrid human and computer-aided translation by a non-expert translator makes the translation of updates of clinical practice guidelines faster and cheaper because of the benefits of translation memory. For the translation of new guidelines there was no apparent benefit in comparison with the efficiency of translation unsupported by translation memory (whether by an expert or non-expert translator

Should Sputum Smear Examination Be Carried Out at the End of the Intensive Phase and End of Treatment in Sputum Smear Negative Pulmonary TB Patients?

The Indian guidelines on following up sputum smear-negative Pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) patients differ from the current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines in that the former recommends two follow up sputum examinations (once at the end of intensive phase and the other at the end of treatment) while the latter recommends only one follow up sputum smear microscopy examination, which is done at the end of the intensive phase. This study was conducted to examine if there was any added value in performing an additional sputum smear examination at the end of treatment within the context of a national TB program

Graphic Classes in the Worldwide Classroom: A Comparison of Two MOOC Experiences

Graphics are present in the day-to-day professional practice of architects and engineers, not only to receive and transmit information, but also to design and create. Students who are accepted on university courses have varied curriculum vitae, and some may initially lack skills. Consequently, engineering schools have developed a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) entitled “The Language of Engineering” (ELI), which reviews basic geometry concepts and develops spatial intelligence, among others. The Barcelona School of Architecture has produced “From reality to design. From design to augmented reality” (RA), which covers topics including traditional architectural representation and the latest techniques. The goal of this study was to explain and analyse the main characteristics and learning strategies of these two MOOC (strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement). The results show that although strategies vary depending on the subjects, the contents and exercises should be practical and adapted to students (interests, level, time availability and aesthetics), always considering motivation as a key point (gamification). These topics have been found to have a considerable influence on the success of a MOOC. Therefore, the conclusions should be considered in subsequent versions of these courses and other MOOCs.Postprint (author's final draft

Pre-hospital tracheal intubation in patients with traumatic brain injury: systematic review of current evidence

Background We reviewed the current evidence on the benefit and harm of pre-hospital tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2007 without language restriction to identify interventional and observational studies comparing pre-hospital intubation with other airway management (e.g. bag-valve-mask or oxygen administration) in patients with TBI. Information on study design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by two investigators and cross-checked by two others. Seventeen studies were included with data for 15 335 patients collected from 1985 to 2004. There were 12 retrospective analyses of trauma registries or hospital databases, three cohort studies, one case-control study, and one controlled trial. Using Brain Trauma Foundation classification of evidence, there were 14 class 3 studies, three class 2 studies, and no class 1 study. Six studies were of adults, five of children, and three of both; age groups were unclear in three studies. Maximum follow-up was up to 6 months or hospital discharge. Results In 13 studies, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for an effect of pre-hospital intubation on in-hospital mortality ranged from 0.17 (favouring control interventions) to 2.43 (favouring pre-hospital intubation); adjusted ORs ranged from 0.24 to 1.42. Estimates for functional outcomes after TBI were equivocal. Three studies indicated higher risk of pneumonia associated with pre-hospital (when compared with in-hospital) intubation. Conclusions Overall, the available evidence did not support any benefit from pre-hospital intubation and mechanical ventilation after TBI. Additional arguments need to be taken into account, including medical and procedural aspect

Impact of STROBE Statement Publication on Quality of Observational Study Reporting: Interrupted Time Series versus Before-After Analysis

Background:In uncontrolled before-after studies, CONSORT was shown to improve the reporting of randomised trials. Before-after studies ignore underlying secular trends and may overestimate the impact of interventions. Our aim was to assess the impact of the 2007 STROBE statement publication on the quality of observational study reporting, using both uncontrolled before-after analyses and interrupted time series.Methods:For this quasi-experimental study, original articles reporting cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published between 2004 and 2010 in the four dermatological journals having the highest 5-year impact factors (≥4) were selected. We compared the proportions of STROBE items (STROBE score) adequately reported in each article during three periods, two pre STROBE period (2004-2005 and 2006-2007) and one post STROBE period (2008-2010). Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series was also performed.Results:Of the 456 included articles, 187 (41%) reported cohort studies, 166 (36.4%) cross-sectional studies, and 103 (22.6%) case-control studies. The median STROBE score was 57% (range, 18%-98%). Before-after analysis evidenced significant STROBE score increases between the two pre-STROBE periods and between the earliest pre-STROBE period and the post-STROBE period (median score2004-0548% versus median score2008-1058%, p<0.001) but not between the immediate pre-STROBE period and the post-STROBE period (median score2006-0758% versus median score2008-1058%, p = 0.42). In the pre STROBE period, the six-monthly mean STROBE score increased significantly, by 1.19% per six-month period (absolute increase 95%CI, 0.26% to 2.11%, p = 0.016). By segmented analysis, no significant changes in STROBE score trends occurred (-0.40%; 95%CI, -2.20 to 1.41; p = 0.64) in the post STROBE statement publication.Interpretation:The quality of reports increased over time but was not affected by STROBE. Our findings raise concerns about the relevance of uncontrolled before-after analysis for estimating the impact of guidelines

How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach

Background External validity of study results is an important issue from a clinical point of view. From a methodological point of view, however, the concept of external validity is more complex than it seems to be at first glance. Methods Methodological review to address the concept of external validity. Results External validity refers to the question whether results are generalizable to persons other than the population in the original study. The only formal way to establish the external validity would be to repeat the study for that specific target population. We propose a three-way approach for assessing the external validity for specified target populations. (i) The study population might not be representative for the eligibility criteria that were intended. It should be addressed whether the study population differs from the intended source population with respect to characteristics that influence outcome. (ii) The target population will, by definition, differ from the study population with respect to geographical, temporal and ethnical conditions. Pondering external validity means asking the question whether these differences may influence study results. (iii) It should be assessed whether the study's conclusions can be generalized to target populations that do not meet all the eligibility criteria. Conclusion Judging the external validity of study results cannot be done by applying given eligibility criteria to a single target population. Rather, it is a complex reflection in which prior knowledge, statistical considerations, biological plausibility and eligibility criteria all have plac

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted