Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries : a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study

Background Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world. Methods This international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231. Findings Between Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p<0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05–2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p<0·001). Interpretation Countries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication

Essay 1 : integrating multiple sources of evidence : a Bayesian perspective

Policies and interventions in the health-care system may have a wide range of effects on multiple patient outcomes and operate through many clinical processes. This presents a challenge for their evaluation, especially when the effect on any one patient is small. In this essay, we explore the nature of the health-care system and discuss how the empirical evidence produced within it relates to the underlying processes governing patient outcomes. We argue for an evidence synthesis framework that first models the underlying phenomena common across different health-care settings and then makes inferences regarding these phenomena from data. Bayesian methods are recommended. We provide the examples of electronic prescribing and increased consultant provision at the weekend

Qualitative methods: An alternative view

Are qualitative and quantitative research really based on different philosophies? John Paley and Richard Lilford argue that the idea that qualitative research is constructivist should not be allowed to diffuse into medical literature unopposed

Effect of cancer waiting time standards in the English National Health Service:a threshold analysis

Background: The English National Health Service has multiple waiting time standards relating to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Targets can have unintended effects, such as prioritisation based on targets instead of clinical need. In this case, a `threshold effect’ will appear as a spike in hospitals just meeting the target.Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of publicly available cancer waiting time data, including a 2-week wait for a specialist appointment, a 31-day decision to first treatment and a 62-day referral to treatment standard that attracted a financial penalty. We examined the performance of hospital trusts against these targets by financial year to look for threshold effects, using Cattaneo et al. manipulation density test.Results: Trust performance against cancer waiting targets declined over time, and this trend accelerated since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Statistical evidence of a threshold effect for the 2-week and 31-day standard was only present in a few years. However, there was strong statistical evidence of a threshold effect for the 62-day standard across all financial years (p &lt; 0.01).Conclusion: The data suggests that the effect of threshold targets alters hospital behaviour at target levels but does not do so equally for all standards. Evidence of threshold effects for the 62-day standard was particularly strong, possibly due to some combination of a smaller volume of eligible patients, a larger penalty, multiple waypoints where hospitals can intervene, baseline performance against the target and where the target is set (i.e. how much headroom is available). RCTs of the use of threshold targets and of different designs for such targets in the future would be extremely informative.<br/

Headroom approach to device development: Current and future directions

OBJECTIVES: The headroom approach to medical device development relies on the estimation of a value-based price ceiling at different stages of the development cycle. Such price-ceilings delineate the commercial opportunities for new products in many healthcare systems. We apply a simple model to obtain critical business information as the product proceeds along a development pathway, and indicate some future directions for the development of the approach. METHODS: Health economic modelling in the supply-side development cycle for new products. RESULTS: The headroom can be used: initially as a 'reality check' on the viability of the device in the healthcare market; to support product development decisions using a real options approach; and to contribute to a pricing policy which respects uncertainties in the reimbursement outlook. CONCLUSIONS: The headroom provides a unifying thread for business decisions along the development cycle for a new product. Over the course of the cycle attitudes to uncertainty will evolve, based on the timing and manner in which new information accrues. Within this framework the developmental value of new information can justify the costs of clinical trials and other evidence-gathering activities. Headroom can function as a simple shared tool to parties in commercial negotiations around individual products or groups of products. The development of similar approaches in other contexts holds promise for more rational planning of service provision

Bad research is not all bad

In this commentary, we discuss a recent article in Trials that raised concerns about the number of poorly performed randomised trials in the medical literature and discuss the trials literature more widely. Although we all aim for higher methodological standards in trials, we argue that (i) the idea that ‘most randomised trials are bad’, which the recent article concludes is an overly simplistic representation of the situation, and (ii) the suggestion that an increased focus on methodological review during trial development (e.g. ethical boards performing some assessment of the methodologists on a trial), while well meaning, may have negative unintended consequences. We therefore propose that (a) trials should be assessed on their merits and weaknesses, including an assessment of risk of bias but placing that in a wider context; (b) we should recognise that although the methodological conduct of trials is of utmost importance, interventions that aim to improve this could have unintended consequences—such as bureaucracy—that have an overall negative effect; and (c) we should therefore generate an evidence base for policy interventions to improve conduct of trials rather than applying arbitrary rules.</p

Estimating changes in overall survival using progression-free survival in metastatic breast and colorectal cancer

Objectives: In clinical trials of new cancer drugs, reliable data for progression-free survival will often become available far sooner than reliable data for overall survival. The aim of this study was to determine how many months it would be expected that any given new drug for metastatic breast or colorectal cancer will add to overall survival times given that the number of months the drug adds to progression-free survival times relative to a standard drug is roughly already known.Methods: A literature search was conducted over Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1980 and August 2008 that assessed the effect of a drug treatment in comparison to an alternative drug treatment on patients with either metastatic breast or metastatic colorectal cancer.Results: The literature search found 95 and 74 RCTs for metastatic breast and colorectal cancer, respectively, that satisfied the study's inclusion criteria. The results from these trials are consistent, in the case of each of these two metastatic cancers, with gains in time to disease progression being generally associated with no gains or with very slight gains or losses in post-progression survival (i.e., the time between disease progression and death).Conclusions: It would appear that drugs for metastatic breast or colorectal cancer that extend, by a given amount, the time period between the start of treatment and disease progression (i.e., time to progression) have a strong tendency to extend, by roughly the same amount, the period between the start of treatment and death (i.e., overall survival).</jats:p

Stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trials : a generic framework including parallel and multiple-level designs

Stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials (SW-CRTs) are being used with increasing frequency in health service evaluation. Conventionally, these studies are cross-sectional in design with equally spaced steps, with an equal number of clusters randomised at each step and data collected at each and every step. Here we introduce several variations on this design and consider implications for power. One modification we consider is the incomplete cross-sectional SW-CRT, where the number of clusters varies at each step or where at some steps, for example, implementation or transition periods, data are not collected. We show that the parallel CRT with staggered but balanced randomisation can be considered a special case of the incomplete SW-CRT. As too can the parallel CRT with baseline measures. And we extend these designs to allow for multiple layers of clustering, for example, wards within a hospital. Building on results for complete designs, power and detectable difference are derived using a Wald test and obtaining the variance–covariance matrix of the treatment effect assuming a generalised linear mixed model. These variations are illustrated by several real examples. We recommend that whilst the impact of transition periods on power is likely to be small, where they are a feature of the design they should be incorporated. We also show examples in which the power of a SW-CRT increases as the intra-cluster correlation (ICC) increases and demonstrate that the impact of the ICC is likely to be smaller in a SW-CRT compared with a parallel CRT, especially where there are multiple levels of clustering. Finally, through this unified framework, the efficiency of the SW-CRT and the parallel CRT can be compared

Comparison of direct and indirect methods of estimating health state utilities for resource allocation: review and empirical analysis

Background and objective Utilities (values representing preferences) for healthcare priority setting are typically obtained indirectly by asking patients to fill in a quality of life questionnaire and then converting the results to a utility using population values. We compared such utilities with those obtained directly from patients or the public

Assessment of publication bias and outcome reporting bias in systematic reviews of health services and delivery research:A meta-epidemiological study

Strategies to identify and mitigate publication bias and outcome reporting bias are frequently adopted in systematic reviews of clinical interventions but it is not clear how often these are applied in systematic reviews relating to quantitative health services and delivery research (HSDR). We examined whether these biases are mentioned and/or otherwise assessed in HSDR systematic reviews, and evaluated associating factors to inform future practice. We randomly selected 200 quantitative HSDR systematic reviews published in the English language from 2007-2017 from the Health Systems Evidence database (www.healthsystemsevidence.org). We extracted data on factors that may influence whether or not authors mention and/or assess publication bias or outcome reporting bias. We found that 43% (n = 85) of the reviews mentioned publication bias and 10% (n = 19) formally assessed it. Outcome reporting bias was mentioned and assessed in 17% (n = 34) of all the systematic reviews. Insufficient number of studies, heterogeneity and lack of pre-registered protocols were the most commonly reported impediments to assessing the biases. In multivariable logistic regression models, both mentioning and formal assessment of publication bias were associated with: inclusion of a meta-analysis; being a review of intervention rather than association studies; higher journal impact factor, and; reporting the use of systematic review guidelines. Assessment of outcome reporting bias was associated with: being an intervention review; authors reporting the use of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE), and; inclusion of only controlled trials. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias are infrequently assessed in HSDR systematic reviews. This may reflect the inherent heterogeneity of HSDR evidence and different methodological approaches to synthesising the evidence, lack of awareness of such biases, limits of current tools and lack of pre-registered study protocols for assessing such biases. Strategies to help raise awareness of the biases, and methods to minimise their occurrence and mitigate their impacts on HSDR systematic reviews, are needed