Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening?

The biomedical research complex has been estimated to consume almost a quarter of a trillion US dollars every year. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that a high proportion of this sum is avoidably wasted. In 2014, The Lancet published a series of five reviews showing how dividends from the investment in research might be increased from the relevance and priorities of the questions being asked, to how the research is designed, conducted, and reported. 17 recommendations were addressed to five main stakeholders-funders, regulators, journals, academic institutions, and researchers. This Review provides some initial observations on the possible effects of the Series, which seems to have provoked several important discussions and is on the agendas of several key players. Some examples of individual initiatives show ways to reduce waste and increase value in biomedical research. This momentum will probably move strongly across stakeholder groups, if collaborative relationships evolve between key players; further important work is needed to increase research value. A forthcoming meeting in Edinburgh, UK, will provide an initial forum within which to foster the collaboration neede

Mechanical ventilation and clinical practice heterogeneity in intensive care units: a multicenter case-vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies on mechanical ventilation (MV) show practice variations across ICUs. We sought to determine, with a case-vignette study, the heterogeneity of processes of care in ICUs focusing on mechanical ventilation procedures, and whether organizational patterns or physician characteristics influence practice variations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional multicenter study using the case-vignette methodology. Descriptive analyses were calculated for each organizational pattern and respondent characteristics. An Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV, from 0, no heterogeneity, to a maximum of 1) was calculated. RESULTS: Forty ICUs from France (N = 33) and Switzerland (N = 7) participated; 396 physicians answered our case-vignettes. There was major heterogeneity of management processes related to MV within and across centers (mean IQV per center 0.51, SD 0.09). We observed the lowest variability (mean IQV per question < 0.4) for questions related to intubation procedure, ventilation of acute respiratory distress syndrome and the use of the semirecumbent position. We observed a high variability (mean IQV per question > 0.6) for questions related to management of endotracheal tube or suctioning, management of sedation and analgesia, and respect of autonomy. Heterogeneity was independent of respondent characteristics and of the presence of written procedures. There was a correlation between the processes associated with the highest variability (mean IQV per question > 0.6) and the annual volume of ICU admission (r = 0.32 (0.01 to 0.58)) and MV (r = 0.38 (0.07 to 0.63)). Within ICUs there was a large heterogeneity regarding knowledge of a local written procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Large clinical practice variations were found among ICUs. High volume centers were more likely to have heterogeneous practices. The presence of a local written procedure or respondent characteristics did not influence practice variation

Low agreement for assessing the risk of postoperative deep venous thrombosis when deciding prophylaxis strategies: a study using clinical vignettes

BACKGROUND: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPG) on antithrombotic prophylaxis in surgical patients help to decide about the prophylaxis strategy based on the patient risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT). However, the physician risk estimates of DVT could have little inter-observer reproducibility, which could lead to different individual prophylaxis practices. METHODS: Physicians were asked to evaluate DVT risk in eight clinical vignettes, describing actual patients cared for in our hospital. The vignettes included all possible levels of DVT risk. RESULTS: The degree of prophylaxis strategies accuracy was 63% (95% CI 523–75%). Overall agreement was 0.32 (z = 7.61, p < 0.001) and for each level of risk kappa was 0.38 (z = 6.50, p < 0.001); 0.1 (z = 1.65, p < 0.049) and 0.5 (z = 8.45, p < 0.001) for small, moderate and high risk group respectively CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that there is poor agreement when physicians have to evaluate the risk for postoperative DVT, and in the cases of low and moderate risks of DVT there is the smallest agreement. In addition, the data also showed that the overall accuracy of DVT prophylaxis strategy was only moderate and the risk evaluation did not correlate to the selection of the strategy. The issue of inter-observers variability should be taken into account when CPG performance are analysed, especially when considering the risk-evaluation to choose the appropriate actions

Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials:meta-epidemiological study

International audienceAbstract Objectives To study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study). Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data source Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Meta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic. Review methods Blinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding. Results The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses. Conclusion No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials

EULAR Sjogren's syndrome disease activity index (ESSDAI):a user guide

The EULAR Sj\uf6gren's syndrome (SS) disease activity index (ESSDAI) is a systemic disease activity index that was designed to measure disease activity in patients with primary SS. With the growing use of the ESSDAI, some domains appear to be more challenging to rate than others. The ESSDAI is now in use as a gold standard to measure disease activity in clinical studies, and as an outcome measure, even a primary outcome measure, in current randomised clinical trials. Therefore, ensuring an accurate and reproducible rating of each domain, by providing a more detailed definition of each domain, has emerged as an urgent need. The purpose of the present article is to provide a user guide for the ESSDAI. This guide provides definitions and precisions on the rating of each domain. It also includes some minor improvement of the score to integrate advance in knowledge of disease manifestations. This user guide may help clinicians to use the ESSDAI, and increase the reliability of rating and consequently of the ability to detect true changes over time. This better appraisal of ESSDAI items, along with the recent definition of disease activity levels and minimal clinically important change, will improve the assessment of patients with primary SS and facilitate the demonstration of effectiveness of treatment for patients with primary SS

Disability Policies in France: Changes and Tensions between the Category-based, Universalist and Personalized Approaches

In this article, the authors show that the current French disability policy is traversed by conflicts between three different approaches to disability which came about at different periods in history. They begin by looking at the origins of disability policy in France. This policy was developed during the 20th century, from notions of repair, indemnification and compensation through rehabilitation. It became institutionalized in 1975, when two laws were passed, giving it the form of a category-based policy. Between 1970 and 2000, affected by the international situation, this policy came into conflict with a universalist policy. More recently there has been a desire to develop a personalized approach. Finally, the authors use two examples (taken from recent debates on the implementation in France of the new law of 11 February 2005) to show the tensions that have led to the coexistence of these three approaches within current disability policy