Modified versus standard intention-to-treat reporting: Are there differences in methodological quality, sponsorship, and findings in randomized trials? A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that use the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) approach are increasingly being published. Such trials have a preponderance of post-randomization exclusions, industry sponsorship, and favourable findings, and little is known whether in terms of these items mITT trials are different with respect to trials that report a standard intention-to-treat.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To determine differences in the methodological quality, sponsorship, authors' conflicts of interest, and findings among trials with different "types" of intention-to-treat, we undertook a cross-sectional study of RCTs published in 2006 in three general medical journals (the Journal of the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet) and three specialty journals (Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, the American Heart Journal and the Journal of Clinical Oncology). Trials were categorized based on the "type" of intention-to-treat reporting as follows: ITT, trials reporting the use of standard ITT approach; mITT, trials reporting the use of a "modified intention-to-treat" approach; and "no ITT", trials not reporting the use of any intention-to-treat approach. Two pairs of reviewers independently extracted the data in duplicate. The strength of the associations between the "type" of intention-to-treat reporting and the quality of reporting (sample size calculation, flow-chart, lost to follow-up), the methodological quality of the trials (sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding), the funding source, and the findings was determined. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 367 RCTs included, 197 were classified as ITT, 56 as mITT, and 114 as "no ITT" trials. The quality of reporting and the methodological quality of the mITT trials were similar to those of the ITT trials; however, the mITT trials were more likely to report post-randomization exclusions (adjusted OR 3.43 [95%CI, 1.70 to 6.95]; <it>P </it>< 0.001). We found a strong association between trials classified as mITT and for-profit agency sponsorship (adjusted OR 7.41 [95%CI, 3.14 to 17.48]; <it>P </it>< .001) as well as the presence of authors' conflicts of interest (adjusted OR 5.14 [95%CI, 2.12 to 12.48]; <it>P </it>< .001). There was no association between mITT reporting and favourable results; in general, however, trials with for-profit agency sponsorship were significantly associated with favourable results (adjusted OR 2.30; [95%CI, 1.28 to 4.16]; <it>P </it>= 0.006).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We found that the mITT trials were significantly more likely to perform post-randomization exclusions and were strongly associated with industry funding and authors' conflicts of interest.</p

Clinical evidence continuous medical education: a randomised educational trial of an open access e-learning program for transferring evidence-based information – ICEKUBE (Italian Clinical Evidence Knowledge Utilization Behaviour Evaluation) – study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In an effort to ensure that all physicians have access to valid and reliable evidence on drug effectiveness, the Italian Drug Agency sponsored a free-access e-learning system, based on <it>Clinical Evidence</it>, called ECCE. Doctors have access to an electronic version and related clinical vignettes. Correct answers to the interactive vignettes provide Continuing Medical Education credits. The aims of this trial are to establish whether the e-learning program (ECCE) increases physicians' basic knowledge about common clinical scenarios, and whether ECCE is superior to the passive diffusion of information through the printed version of <it>Clinical Evidence</it>.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>All Italian doctors naïve to ECCE will be randomised to three groups. Group one will have access to ECCE for <it>Clinical Evidence </it>chapters and vignettes lot A and will provide control data for <it>Clinical Evidence </it>chapters and vignettes lot B; group two vice versa; group three will receive the concise printed version of <it>Clinical Evidence</it>. There are in fact two designs: a before and after pragmatic trial utilising a two by two incomplete block design (group one versus group two) and a classical design (group one and two versus group three). The primary outcome will be the retention of <it>Clinical Evidence </it>contents assessed from the scores for clinical vignettes selected from ECCE at least six months after the intervention. To avoid test-retest effects, we will randomly select vignettes out of lot A and lot B, avoiding repetitions. In order to preserve the comparability of lots, we will select vignettes with similar, optimal psychometric characteristics.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN27453314</p

Personalized risk stratification through attribute matching for clinical decision making in clinical conditions with aspecific symptoms: the example of syncope

Background Risk stratification is challenging in conditions, such as chest pain, shortness of breath and syncope, which can be the manifestation of many possible underlying diseases. In these cases, decision tools are unlikely to accurately identify all the different adverse events related to the possible etiologies. Attribute matching is a prediction method that matches an individual patient to a group of previously observed patients with identical characteristics and known outcome. We used syncope as a paradigm of clinical conditions presenting with aspecific symptoms to test the attribute matching method for the prediction of the personalized risk of adverse events. Methods We selected the 8 predictor variables common to the individual-patient dataset of 5 prospective emergency department studies enrolling 3388 syncope patients. We calculated all possible combinations and the number of patients in each combination. We compared the predictive accuracy of attribute matching and logistic regression. We then classified ten random patients according to clinical judgment and attribute matching. Results Attribute matching provided 253 of the 384 possible combinations in the dataset. Twelve (4.7%), 35 (13.8%), 50 (19.8%) and 160 (63.2%) combinations had a match size 6550, 6530, 6520 and &lt;10 patients, respectively. The AUC for the attribute matching and the multivariate model were 0.59 and 0.74, respectively. Conclusions Attribute matching is a promising tool for personalized and flexible risk prediction. Large databases will need to be used in future studies to test and apply the method in different conditions

Priorities for Emergency Department Syncope Research

Study objectives There is limited evidence to guide the emergency department (ED) evaluation and management of syncope. The First International Workshop on Syncope Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department identified key research questions and methodological standards essential to advancing the science of ED-based syncope research. Methods We recruited a multinational panel of syncope experts. A preconference survey identified research priorities, which were refined during and after the conference through an iterative review process. Results There were 31 participants from 7 countries who represented 10 clinical and methodological specialties. High-priority research recommendations were organized around a conceptual model of ED decisionmaking for syncope, and they address definition, cohort selection, risk stratification, and management. Conclusion We convened a multispecialty group of syncope experts to identify the most pressing knowledge gaps and defined a high-priority research agenda to improve the care of patients with syncope in the ED

Rt or RDt, that is the question!

The article compares two of the most followed indices in the monitoring of COVID-19 epidemic cases: the Rt and the RDt indices. The first was disseminated by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and the second, which is more usable due to the lower difficulty of calculation and the availability of data, was adopted by various regional and local institutions. The rationale for the Rt index refers to that for the R0 index, the basic reproduction number, which is used by infectivologists as a measure of contagiousness of a given infectious agent in a completely susceptible population. The RDt index, on the other hand, is borrowed from the techniques of time series analysis for the trend of an event measurement that develops as a function of time. The RDt index does not take into account the time of infection, but the date of the diagnosis of positivity and for this reason it is defined as diagnostic replication index, as it aims to describe the intensity of the development of frequency for cases recognized as positive in the population. The comparison between different possible applications of the methods and the use of different types of monitoring data was limited to four areas for which complete individual data were available in March and April 2020. The main problems in the use of Rt, which is based on the date of symptoms onset, arise from the lack of completeness of this information due both to the difficulty in the recording and to the absence in asymptomatic subjects. The general trend of RDt, at least at an intermediate lag of 6 or 7 days, is very similar to that of Rt, as confirmed by the very high value of the correlation index between the two indices. The maximum correlation between Rt and RDt is reached at lag 7 with a value of R exceeding 0.97 (R2=0.944). The two indices, albeit formally distinct, are both valid; they show specific aspects of the phenomenon, but provide basically similar information to the public health decision-maker. Their distinction lies not so much in the method of calculation, rather in the use of different information, i.e., the beginning of symptoms and the swabs outcome. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make a judgment of preference for one of the two indices, but only to invite people to understand their different potentials so that they can choose the one they consider the most appropriate for the purpose they want to use it for

The role of MRI in the early diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease or other dementias in persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To determine the accuracy of structural MRI in identifying people with MCI due to AD versus people with MCI due to other dementias or with no dementia. To evaluate how the performance of MRI may vary according to the spectrum of tested patients, the setting, the brain region of interest and the technical characteristics of the imaging test