Measurement Properties of Visual Analogue Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Pain Severity Subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory in Patients With Low Back Pain:A Systematic Review

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS)] are the most frequently used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain (LBP). However, their measurement properties in this population have not been systematically reviewed. The goal of this study was to provide such systematic evidence synthesis. Six electronic sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, Google Scholar) were searched (July 2017). Studies assessing any measurement property in patients with non-specific LBP were included. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COSMIN checklist. For each measurement property: evidence quality was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low (GRADE approach); results were classified as sufficient, insufficient or inconsistent. Ten studies assessed the VAS, 13 the NRS, four the BPI-PS. The three instruments displayed low or very low quality evidence for content validity. High quality evidence was only available for NRS insufficient measurement error. Moderate evidence was available for: NRS inconsistent responsiveness, BPI-PS sufficient structural validity and internal consistency, and BPI-PS inconsistent construct validity. All VAS measurement properties were underpinned by no, low or very low quality evidence, likewise the other measurement properties of NRS and BPI-PS

Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews

Fifteen years ago, what was to become OMERACT met for the first time in The Netherlands to discuss ways in which the multitude of outcomes in assessments of the effects of treatments for rheumatoid arthritis might be standardised. In Trials, Tugwell et al have described the need for, and success of, this initiative [1] and Cooney and colleagues have set out their plans for a corresponding initiative for ulcerative colitis [2]. Why do we need such initiatives? What\u27s the problem? And are these and other initiatives the solution

Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation: A Global Initiative to Develop a Core Outcome Set for Trials in Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Although advances in treatment have dramatically improved short-term graft survival and acute rejection in kidney transplant recipients, long-term graft outcomes have not substantially improved. Transplant recipients also have a considerably increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and infection, which all contribute to appreciable morbidity and premature mortality. Many trials in kidney transplantation are short-term, frequently use unvalidated surrogate endpoints, outcomes of uncertain relevance to patients and clinicians, and do not consistently measure and report key outcomes like death, graft loss, graft function, and adverse effects of therapy. This diminishes the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions that require individual-level multiple tradeoffs between graft survival and the risk of side effects, adverse events, and mortality. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Transplantation initiative aims to develop a core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation that is based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. METHODS: This will include a systematic review to identify outcomes reported in randomized trials, a Delphi survey with an international multistakeholder panel (patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers, members from industry) to develop a consensus-based prioritized list of outcome domains and a consensus workshop to review and finalize the core outcome set for trials in kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: Developing and implementing a core outcome set to be reported, at a minimum, in all kidney transplantation trials will improve the transparency, quality, and relevance of research; to enable kidney transplant recipients and their clinicians to make better-informed treatment decisions for improved patient outcomes

Establishing Core Outcome Domains in Hemodialysis: Report of the Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Consensus Workshop

Evidence-informed decision making in clinical care and policy in nephrology is undermined by trials that selectively report a large number of heterogeneous outcomes, many of which are not patient centered. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis (SONG-HD) Initiative convened an international consensus workshop on November 7, 2015, to discuss the identification and implementation of a potential core outcome set for all trials in hemodialysis. The purpose of this article is to report qualitative analyses of the workshop discussions, describing the key aspects to consider when establishing core outcomes in trials involving patients on hemodialysis therapy. Key stakeholders including 8 patients/caregivers and 47 health professionals (nephrologists, policymakers, industry, and researchers) attended the workshop. Attendees suggested that identifying core outcomes required equitable stakeholder engagement to ensure relevance across patient populations, flexibility to consider evolving priorities over time, deconstruction of language and meaning for conceptual consistency and clarity, understanding of potential overlap and associations between outcomes, and an assessment of applicability to the range of interventions in hemodialysis. For implementation, they proposed that core outcomes must have simple, inexpensive, and validated outcome measures that could be used in clinical care (quality indicators) and trials (including pragmatic trials) and endorsement by regulatory agencies. Integrating these recommendations may foster acceptance and optimize the uptake and translation of core outcomes in hemodialysis, leading to more informative research, for better treatment and improved patient outcomes

Access to Artemisinin-Based Anti-Malarial Treatment and its Related Factors in Rural Tanzania.

Artemisinin-based combination treatment (ACT) has been widely adopted as one of the main malaria control strategies. However, its promise to save thousands of lives in sub-Saharan Africa depends on how effective the use of ACT is within the routine health system. The INESS platform evaluated effective coverage of ACT in several African countries. Timely access within 24 hours to an authorized ACT outlet is one of the determinants of effective coverage and was assessed for artemether-lumefantrine (Alu), in two district health systems in rural Tanzania. From October 2009 to June 2011we conducted continuous rolling household surveys in the Kilombero-Ulanga and the Rufiji Health and Demographic Surveillance Sites (HDSS). Surveys were linked to the routine HDSS update rounds. Members of randomly pre-selected households that had experienced a fever episode in the previous two weeks were eligible for a structured interview. Data on individual treatment seeking, access to treatment, timing, source of treatment and household costs per episode were collected. Data are presented on timely access from a total of 2,112 interviews in relation to demographics, seasonality, and socio economic status. In Kilombero-Ulanga, 41.8% (CI: 36.6-45.1) and in Rufiji 36.8% (33.7-40.1) of fever cases had access to an authorized ACT provider within 24 hours of fever onset. In neither of the HDSS site was age, sex, socio-economic status or seasonality of malaria found to be significantly correlated with timely access. Timely access to authorized ACT providers is below 50% despite interventions intended to improve access such as social marketing and accreditation of private dispensing outlets. To improve prompt diagnosis and treatment, access remains a major bottle neck and new more innovative interventions are needed to raise effective coverage of malaria treatment in Tanzania

EXIT-chart aided hybrid multiuser detector design for frequency-domain-spread chip-interleaved MC-CDMA

With the advent of EXtrinsic Information Transfer (EXIT) charts, we are capable of analyzing, predicting and visually comparing the convergence behaviours of different turbo Multi-User Detectector (MUD)s. The different MUDs have diverse EXIT characteristics and hence their superposition allows us to create a combined EXIT curve, which closely matches that of the channel decoder. Hence a near-capacity operation is facilitated by combining the benifits of different MUDs and therefore to create a superior MUD. Thus in this contribution, we propose a novel hybrid MUD combining scheme, which combines the advantages of a high performance and low complexity in form of an advanced hybrid MUD solution. The transmitted bits are unknown at the receiver, hence it is not feasible to directly evaluate the mutual information gain of the iterative MUD in consecutive iterations, hence we propose a realistic algorithm for estimating this mutual information gain, which is then used for activating the most appropriate constituent MUD as and when it is necessary. The constituent MUDs are the Matched Filter (MF) based Soft Interference Cancellation (SoIC) and the optimum Bayesian MUDs, which are invoked in the scenario of Frequency-Domain-Spread Chip-Interleaved (FDSCI) Multiple Carrier Code Division Multiple Access (MC-CDMA). The resultant hybrid MUD is capable of outperforming both the MF-SoIC and Bayesian turbo MUDs in the terms of the attainable complexity and Bit-Error-Rate (BER) performance

How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core Outcome Set" - a practical guideline

BackgroundIn cooperation with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative aimed to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes (i.e., constructs or domains) included in a "Core Outcome Set" (COS). A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population.MethodsInformed by a literature review to identify potentially relevant tasks on outcome measurement instrument selection, a Delphi study was performed among a panel of international experts, representing diverse stakeholders. In three consecutive rounds, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments, to justify their choices, and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was defined as being achieved when 70 % or more of the panelists agreed and when fewer than 15 % of the panelists disagreed.ResultsOf the 481 invited experts, 120 agreed to participate of whom 95 (79 %) completed the first Delphi questionnaire. We reached consensus on four main steps in the selection of outcome measurement instruments for COS: Step 1, conceptual considerations; Step 2, finding existing outcome measurement instruments, by means of a systematic review and/or a literature search; Step 3, quality assessment of outcome measurement instruments, by means of the evaluation of the measurement properties and feasibility aspects of outcome measurement instruments; and Step 4, generic recommendations on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS (consensus ranged from 70 to 99 %).ConclusionsThis study resulted in a consensus-based guideline on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. This guideline can be used by COS developers in defining how to measure core outcomes

Developing a Set of Core Outcomes for Trials in Haemodialysis: An International Delphi Survey

AIM: To generate a consensus-based, prioritized list of core outcomes for trials in haemodialysis. BACKGROUND: Survival and quality of life for patients on haemodialysis remain poor despite substantial research efforts. Existing trials often report surrogate outcomes that may not be relevant to patients and clinicians. A core outcome set that reflects stakeholder priorities would improve the relevance, efficiency, and comparability of haemodialysis trials. METHODS: In an online Delphi survey, participants rated the importance of outcomes using a 9-point Likert scale. In Round 2 and 3, participants reviewed the scores and comments of other respondents and re-rated the outcomes. For each outcome, we calculated the median, mean, and proportion rating 7-9 (“critically important”). RESULTS: 1,181 participants (202 [17%] patients/caregivers, 979 health professionals) from 73 countries completed Round 1 and 838 (150 [18%] patients/caregivers) completed Round 3 (71% response rate). Outcomes achieving consensus as high priorities across both groups were: vascular access complications, cardiovascular disease, mortality, dialysis adequacy and fatigue. Patients/caregivers rated four outcomes higher than health professionals: ability to travel (mean difference 0.9), dialysis-free time (0.5), dialysis adequacy (0.3), and washed out after dialysis (0.2). Health professionals rated 11 outcomes higher: mortality (1.0), hospitalization (1.0), drop in blood pressure (1.0), vascular access complications (0.9), depression (0.9), cardiovascular disease (0.8), target weight (0.7), infection (0.4), potassium (0.4), ability to work (0.3), and pain (0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The top stakeholder prioritized outcomes were vascular access problems, cardiovascular disease, mortality, dialysis adequacy and fatigue. Patients/caregivers gave higher priority to lifestyle-related outcomes than health professionals. This prioritized set of outcomes can inform the establishment of a core outcome set, to improve the value of trial evidence to support decision-making for people on haemodialysis

The Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey: HerMES

The Herschel Multi-tiered Extragalactic Survey, HerMES, is a legacy program designed to map a set of nested fields totalling ~380 deg^2. Fields range in size from 0.01 to ~20 deg^2, using Herschel-SPIRE (at 250, 350 and 500 \mu m), and Herschel-PACS (at 100 and 160 \mu m), with an additional wider component of 270 deg^2 with SPIRE alone. These bands cover the peak of the redshifted thermal spectral energy distribution from interstellar dust and thus capture the re-processed optical and ultra-violet radiation from star formation that has been absorbed by dust, and are critical for forming a complete multi-wavelength understanding of galaxy formation and evolution. The survey will detect of order 100,000 galaxies at 5\sigma in some of the best studied fields in the sky. Additionally, HerMES is closely coordinated with the PACS Evolutionary Probe survey. Making maximum use of the full spectrum of ancillary data, from radio to X-ray wavelengths, it is designed to: facilitate redshift determination; rapidly identify unusual objects; and understand the relationships between thermal emission from dust and other processes. Scientific questions HerMES will be used to answer include: the total infrared emission of galaxies; the evolution of the luminosity function; the clustering properties of dusty galaxies; and the properties of populations of galaxies which lie below the confusion limit through lensing and statistical techniques. This paper defines the survey observations and data products, outlines the primary scientific goals of the HerMES team, and reviews some of the early results.Comment: 23 pages, 17 figures, 9 Tables, MNRAS accepte

Improving the quality of toxicology and environmental health systematic reviews:What journal editors can do

Systematic reviews are fast increasing in prevalence in the toxicology and environmental health literature. However, how well these complex research projects are being conducted and reported is unclear. Since editors have an essential role in ensuring the scientific quality of manuscripts being published in their journals, a workshop was convened where editors, systematic review practitioners, and research quality control experts could discuss what editors can do to ensure the systematic reviews they publish are of sufficient scientific quality. Interventions were explored along four themes: setting standards; reviewing protocols; optimizing editorial workflows; and measuring the effectiveness of editorial interventions. In total, 58 editorial interventions were proposed. Of these, 26 were shortlisted for being potentially effective, and 5 were prioritized as short-term actions that editors could relatively easily take to improve the quality of published systematic reviews. Recent progress in improving systematic reviews is summarized, and outstanding challenges to further progress are highlighted