A systematic review of clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for acute ischaemic stroke (1955-2008) that were completed, but not published in full

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We assessed the prevalence, and potential impact of, trials of pharmacological agents for acute stroke that were completed but not published in full. Failure to publish trial data is to be deprecated as it sets aside the altruism of participants' consent to be exposed to the risks of experimental interventions, potentially biases the assessment of the effects of therapies, and may lead to premature discontinuation of research into promising treatments.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group's Specialised Register of Trials in June 2008 for completed trials of pharmacological interventions for acute ischaemic stroke, and searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (January 2007 - March 2009) for references to recent full publications. We assessed trial completion status from trial reports, online trials registers and correspondence with experts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 940 trials. Of these, 125 (19.6%, 95% confidence interval 16.5-22.6) were completed but not published in full by the point prevalence date. They included 16,058 participants (16 trials had over 300 participants each) and tested 89 different interventions. Twenty-two trials with a total of 4,251 participants reported the number of deaths. In these trials, 636/4251 (15.0%) died.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our data suggest that, at the point prevalence date, a substantial body of evidence that was of relevance both to clinical practice in acute stroke and future research in the field was not published in full. Over 16,000 patients had given informed consent and were exposed to the risks of therapy. Responsibility for non-publication lies with investigators, but pharmaceutical companies, research ethics committees, journals and governments can all encourage the timely publication of trial data.</p

Gangrenous appendicitis presenting as acute abdominal pain in a patient on automated peritoneal dialysis: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Presentations of abdominal pain in patients on peritoneal dialysis deserve maximal attention and careful differential diagnosis on admittance to medical care. In this case report a gangrenous appendicitis in a patient on automated peritoneal dialysis is presented.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report the case of a 38-year-old Caucasian man with end-stage renal disease who was on automated peritoneal dialysis and developed acute abdominal pain and cloudy peritoneal dialysate. Negative microbiological cultures of the peritoneal dialysis fluid and an abdominal ultrasonography misleadingly led to a diagnosis of culture negative peritonitis. It was decided to remove the peritoneal catheter but the clinical situation of the patient did not improve. An explorative laparotomy was then carried out; diffuse peritonitis and gangrenous appendicitis were found. An appendectomy was performed. Myocardial infarction and sepsis developed, and the outcome was fatal.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A peritoneal dialysis patient with abdominal pain that persists for more than 48 hours after the usual antibiotic protocol for peritoneal dialysis-related peritonitis should immediately alert the physician to the possibility of peritonitis caused by intra-abdominal pathology. Not only peritoneal catheter removal is indicated in patients whose clinical features worsen or fail to resolve with the established intra-peritoneal antibiotic therapy but, after 72 hours, an early laparoscopy should be done and in a case of correct indication (intra-abdominal pathology) an early explorative laparotomy.</p