Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Empirical Study of Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Background The $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program. Methods We conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted in the US between 2007 and 2010. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of comparative effectiveness research, nature of comparators selected, funding sources, and impact of these factors on results. Results 231 (22.3%; 95% CI 19.8%–24.9%) studies were CE studies and 804 (77.7%; 95% CI, 75.1%–80.2%) were non-CE studies, with 379 (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%–39.6%) employing a placebo control and 425 (41.1%; 95% CI, 38.1%–44.1%) no control. The most common treatments examined in CE studies were drug interventions (37.2%), behavioral interventions (28.6%), and procedures (15.6%). Study findings were favorable for the experimental treatment in 34.8% of CE studies and greater than twice as many (78.6%) non-CE studies (P<0.001). CE studies were more likely to receive government funding (P = 0.003) and less likely to receive industry funding (P = 0.01), with 71.8% of CE studies primarily funded by a noncommercial source. The types of interventions studied differed based on funding source, with 95.4% of industry trials studying a drug or device. In addition, industry-funded CE studies were associated with the fewest pediatric subjects (P<0.001), the largest anticipated sample size (P<0.001), and the shortest study duration (P<0.001). Conclusions In this sample of studies examining high priority areas for CE research, less than a quarter are CE studies and the majority is supported by government and nonprofits. The low prevalence of CE research exists across CE studies with a broad array of interventions and characteristics.National Library of Medicine (U.S.) (5G08LM009778)National Institutes of Health (U.S.

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

A predictive model to estimate the risk of serious bacterial infections in febrile infants

textabstractLow risk criteria have been defined to identify febrile infants unlikely to have serious bacterial infection (SBI). Using these criteria approximately 40% of all febrile infants can be defined as being at low risk. Of the remaining infants (60%) only 10%-20% have an SBI. No adequate criteria exist to identify these infants. All infants aged 2 weeks-1 year, presenting during a 1-year-period with rectal temperature ≥38.0°C to the Sophia Children's Hospital were included in a prospective study. Infants with a history of prematurity, perinatal complications, known underlying disease, antibiotic treatment or vaccination during the preceding 48 h were excluded. Clinical and laboratory variables at presentation were evaluated by a multivariate logistic regression model using SBI as the dependent variable. By using likelihood ratios a predictive model was derived, providing a post test probability of SBI for every individual patient. Of the 138 infants included in the study, 33 (24%) had SBI. Logistic regression analysis defined C-reactive protein (CRP), duration of fever, a standardized clinical impression score, a history of diarrhoea and focal signs of infection as independent predictors of SBI. Conclusion. CRP, duration of fever, the 'standardized clinical impression score', a history of diarrhoea and focal signs of infection were the independent, most powerful predictors of SBI in febrile infants, identified by logistic regression analysis. Although the predictive model is not validated for direct clinical use, it illustrates the clinical potential of the used technique. This technique offers the advantage to assess the probability of SBI in every individual infant. This probability will form the best basis for well-founded decisions in the management of the individual febrile infant