Quest for certainty regarding early discharge in paediatric low-risk febrile neutropenia : a multicentre qualitative focus group discussion study involving patients, parents and healthcare professionals in the UK

OBJECTIVES: A systematic review of paediatric low-risk febrile neutropenia found that outpatient care is safe, with low rates of treatment failure. However, this review, and a subsequent meta-ethnography, suggested that early discharge of these patients may not be acceptable to key stakeholders. This study aimed to explore experiences and perceptions of patients, parents and healthcare professionals involved in paediatric febrile neutropenia care in the UK. SETTING: Three different centres within the UK, purposively selected from a national survey on the basis of differences in their service structure and febrile neutropenia management. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two participants were included in eight focus group discussions. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Experiences and perceptions of paediatric febrile neutropenia care, including possible future reductions in therapy. RESULTS: Participants described a quest for certainty, in which they attempted to balance the uncertainty involved in understanding, expressing and negotiating risk with the illusion of certainty provided by strict protocols. Participants assessed risk using both formal and informal stratification tools, overlaid with emotional reactions to risk and experiences of risk within other situations. The benefits of certainty provided by protocols were counterbalanced by frustration at their strict constraints. The perceived benefits and harms of previous inpatient care informed participants' appraisals of future treatment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the previously underestimated harms of admission for febrile neutropenia and the paternalistic nature of decision making, along with the frustrations and challenges for all parties involved in febrile neutropenia care. It demonstrates how the same statistics, generated by systematic reviews, can be used by key stakeholders to interpret risk differently, and how families in particular can view the harms of therapeutic options as different from the outcomes used within the literature. It justifies a reassessment of current treatment strategies for these children and further exploration of the potential to introduce shared decision making

Reflections and aspirations : the journal after 5 years

The journal recently celebrated its fifth anniversary. Like systematic reviews themselves, the journal is thriving and publishing a variety of protocols, reviews, and methods papers. We have also had success in publishing-themed series

Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials : An observational study

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear when standard systematic reviews and meta-analyses that rely on published aggregate data (AD) can provide robust clinical conclusions. We aimed to compare the results from a large cohort of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on individual participant data (IPD) with meta-analyses of published AD, to establish when the latter are most likely to be reliable and when the IPD approach might be required. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used 18 cancer systematic reviews that included IPD meta-analyses: all of those completed and published by the Meta-analysis Group of the MRC Clinical Trials Unit from 1991 to 2010. We extracted or estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and standard errors (SEs) for survival from trial reports and compared these with IPD equivalents at both the trial and meta-analysis level. We also extracted or estimated the number of events. We used paired t tests to assess whether HRs and SEs from published AD differed on average from those from IPD. We assessed agreement, and whether this was associated with trial or meta-analysis characteristics, using the approach of Bland and Altman. The 18 systematic reviews comprised 238 unique trials or trial comparisons, including 37,082 participants. A HR and SE could be generated for 127 trials, representing 53% of the trials and approximately 79% of eligible participants. On average, trial HRs derived from published AD were slightly more in favour of the research interventions than those from IPD (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.95, p = 0.007), but the limits of agreement show that for individual trials, the HRs could deviate substantially. These limits narrowed with an increasing number of participants (p < 0.001) or a greater number (p < 0.001) or proportion (p < 0.001) of events in the AD. On average, meta-analysis HRs from published AD slightly tended to favour the research interventions whether based on fixed-effect (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.97, p = 0.088) or random-effects (HRAD to HRIPD ratio = 0.96, p = 0.044) models, but the limits of agreement show that for individual meta-analyses, agreement was much more variable. These limits tended to narrow with an increasing number (p = 0.077) or proportion of events (p = 0.11) in the AD. However, even when the information size of the AD was large, individual meta-analysis HRs could still differ from their IPD equivalents by a relative 10% in favour of the research intervention to 5% in favour of control. We utilised the results to construct a decision tree for assessing whether an AD meta-analysis includes sufficient information, and when estimates of effects are most likely to be reliable. A lack of power at the meta-analysis level may have prevented us identifying additional factors associated with the reliability of AD meta-analyses, and we cannot be sure that our results are generalisable to all outcomes and effect measures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study we found that HRs from published AD were most likely to agree with those from IPD when the information size was large. Based on these findings, we provide guidance for determining systematically when standard AD meta-analysis will likely generate robust clinical conclusions, and when the IPD approach will add considerable value

Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials : qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE: To characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Trial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expertise. Researchers differed by geographical location, educational background, and experience with different types of funders. Interviewees were identified by searches on Web of Science and snowball sampling. 52 trial researchers were approached by email; 20 agreed to be interviewed. SETTING: Interviews conducted by telephone, recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported to NVivo 12, and analysed by systematic text condensation. Semistructured interviews focused on financial and non-financial conflicts of interest. RESULTS: The interviewees had participated in a median of 37.5 trials and were mainly male physicians who had experience with commercial and non-commercial trial funders. Two predefined themes (influence of conflicts of interest and management strategies) and two additional themes (definition and reporting of conflicts of interest) emerged. Examples of perceived influence of conflicts of interest were: choice of inferior comparator, manipulation of the randomisation process, prematurely stopping the trials, fabrication of data, blocking access to data, and spin (eg, overly favourable interpretation of the results). Examples of strategies to manage conflicts of interest were: disclosure procedures, exclusion of the funder from design and analysis, independent committees, contracts ensuring complete access to the data, and no restriction by the funder on analysis and reporting. Interviewees used different definitions or thresholds for what they considered to be conflicts of interest, and they described different criteria for when to report them. Some interviewees considered non-commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding of trials by governmental health agencies with a political agenda) to be equally or more important than commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding by drug and device companies), but more challenging to report and manage. CONCLUSION: This study described how trial researchers perceive conflicts of interest unduly influencing clinical trials they had worked on, and the management strategies they used to prevent these influences. The results indicated considerable variability in researchers' understanding of what conflicts of interest are and when they should be reported

Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects.

A network meta-analysis combines the evidence from existing randomised trials about the comparative efficacy of multiple treatments. It allows direct and indirect evidence about each comparison to be included in the same analysis, and provides a coherent framework to compare and rank treatments. A traditional network meta-analysis uses aggregate data (eg, treatment effect estimates and standard errors) obtained from publications or trial investigators. An alternative approach is to obtain, check, harmonise and meta-analyse the individual participant data (IPD) from each trial. In this article, we describe potential advantages of IPD for network meta-analysis projects, emphasising five key benefits: (1) improving the quality and scope of information available for inclusion in the meta-analysis, (2) examining and plotting distributions of covariates across trials (eg, for potential effect modifiers), (3) standardising and improving the analysis of each trial, (4) adjusting for prognostic factors to allow a network meta-analysis of conditional treatment effects and (5) including treatment-covariate interactions (effect modifiers) to allow relative treatment effects to vary by participant-level covariate values (eg, age, baseline depression score). A running theme of all these benefits is that they help examine and reduce heterogeneity (differences in the true treatment effect between trials) and inconsistency (differences in the true treatment effect between direct and indirect evidence) in the network. As a consequence, an IPD network meta-analysis has the potential for more precise, reliable and informative results for clinical practice and even allows treatment comparisons to be made for individual patients and targeted populations conditional on their particular characteristics

Effectiveness of community-links practitioners in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of a primary care–based community-links practitioner (CLP) intervention on patients’ quality of life and well-being. METHODS: Quasi-experimental cluster-randomized controlled trial in socioeconomically deprived areas of Glasgow, Scotland. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) referred to CLPs in 7 intervention practices were compared with a random sample of adult patients from 8 comparison practices at baseline and 9 months. Primary outcome: health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L, a standardized measure of self-reported health-related quality of life that assesses 5 dimensions at 5 levels of severity). Secondary outcomes: well-being (Investigating Choice Experiments for the Preferences of Older People Capability Measure for Adults [ICECAP-A]), depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Depression [HADS-D]), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Anxiety [HADS-A]), and self-reported exercise. Multilevel, multiregression analyses adjusted for baseline differences. Patients were not blinded to the intervention, but outcome analysis was masked. RESULTS: Data were collected on 288 and 214 (74.3%) patients in the intervention practices at baseline and follow-up, respectively, and on 612 and 561 (92%) patients in the comparison practices. Intention-to-treat analysis found no differences between the 2 groups for any outcome. In subgroup analyses, patients who saw the CLP on 3 or more occasions (45% of those referred) had significant improvements in EQ-5D-5L, HADS-D, HADS-A, and exercise levels. There was a high positive correlation between CLP consultation rates and patient uptake of suggested community resources. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to prove the effectiveness of referral to CLPs based in primary care in deprived areas for improving patient outcomes. Future efforts to boost uptake and engagement could improve overall outcomes, although the apparent improvements in those who regularly saw the CLPs may be due to reverse causality. Further research is needed before wide-scale deployment of this approach

A structured approach to information retrieval improved identification of funding and researchers’ conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews

Objectives: To compare the contemporary Cochrane review approach for retrieving information on trial funding and researchers’ conflicts of interest with a structured approach for information retrieval. Study Design and Setting: Methodological study of 100 Cochrane reviews from August to December 2020 and one randomly selected trial from each review. Reporting of trial funding and researchers’ conflicts of interest in reviews was compared with information identified using a structured retrieval process, and time to retrieve information was noted. We also formulated a guide to systematic reviewers for efficient information retrieval. Results: Sixty-eight of 100 Cochrane reviews reported trial funding and 24 reported trial researchers’ conflicts of interest. A simple structured approach, searching only trial publications (including conflicts of interest disclosure forms), identified funding for 16 additional trials and conflicts of interest information for 39 additional trials. A comprehensive structured approach, searching multiple information sources, identified funding for two additional trials and conflicts of interest for 14 additional trials. The median time to retrieve information was 10 minutes per trial (interquartile range: 7–15) for the simple approach and 20 minutes (11–43) for the comprehensive approach. Conclusion: A structured information retrieval approach improves identification of funding and researchers’ conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews

Systematic review finds that appraisal tools for medical research studies address conflicts of interest superficially

OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarise 1) appraisal tools and other guides which address conflicts of interest in medical research studies; and 2) top journals with policies on managing conflicts of interest in journal papers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. We searched bibliographic databases, other sources and websites of 30 top medical journals. Two authors selected documents and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 27 appraisal tools. None were designed specifically for addressing conflicts of interest and they included only 1-2 short items on conflicts of interest. We also included eight other types of guides. Of 27 appraisal tools, 23 addressed study funding and 19 authors' conflicts of interest. Nine tools addressed availability of conflicts of interest information, 13 reported conflicts of interest, and five influence from conflicts of interest. Twelve of 30 top journals had conflicts of interest managing policies (beyond disclosure). One journal restricted non-research papers (e.g. editorials) to authors without financial conflicts of interest and ten only restricted under certain circumstances. CONCLUSION: Appraisal tools that address conflicts of interest typically do so superficially and rarely address how conflicts of interest may influence studies. Less than half of top medical journals have explicit policies on managing conflicts of interest

Evaluating progestogens for prevention of preterm birth international collaborative (EPPPIC) individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis : protocol

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most common cause of death and harm to newborn babies. Babies that are born early may have difficulties at birth and experience health problems during early childhood. Despite extensive study, there is still uncertainty about the effectiveness of progestogen (medications that are similar to the natural hormone progesterone) in preventing or delaying preterm birth, and in improving birth outcomes. The Evaluating Progestogen for Prevention of Preterm birth International Collaborative (EPPPIC) project aims to reduce uncertainty about the specific conditions in which progestogen may (or may not) be effective in preventing or delaying preterm birth and improving birth outcomes. METHODS: The design of the study involves international collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis comprising systematic review, re-analysis, and synthesis of trial datasets. Inclusion criteria are as follows: randomized controlled trials comparing progestogen versus placebo or non-intervention, or comparing different types of progestogen, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. Main outcomes are as follows; fetal/infant death, preterm birth or fetal death (<=37 weeks, <=34 weeks, <= 28 weeks), serious neonatal complications or fetal/infant death, neurosensory disability (measured at 18 months or later) or infant/child death, important maternal morbidity, or maternal death. In statistical methods, IPD will be synthesized across trials using meta-analysis. Both 'two-stage' models (where effect estimates are calculated for each trial and subsequently pooled in a meta-analysis) and 'one-stage' models (where all IPD from all trials are analyzed in one step, while accounting for the clustering of participants within trials) will be used. If sufficient suitable data are available, a network meta-analysis will compare all types of progesterone and routes of administration extending the one-stage models to include multiple treatment arms. DISCUSSION: EPPPIC is an international collaborative project being conducted by the forming EPPPIC group, which includes trial investigators, an international secretariat, and the research project team. Results, which are intended to contribute to improvements in maternal and child health, are expected to be publicly available in mid 2018. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017068299