Improving prescribing practices in primary care: A randomised trial and economic analysis of a multicomponent intervention showed small, but important, gains

Del Mar discusses the implications of the RaPP trial, a cluster RCT of a multi-component intervention to improve prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs in primary care

A guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trials

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into ‘major’ (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and ‘minor’ (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper’s strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role

Acute sinusitis and sore throat in primary care

Sore throat and acute sinusitis are not straightforward diagnoses. Trying to guess the responsible pathogen may not be the best approach. Being guided by empirical evidence may be more useful. It suggests some, but very few, benefits for antibiotics. This has to be balanced with some, but few, harms from antibiotics, including diarrhoea, rash and thrush. Prescribers should also be aware of the risk of antibiotic resistance for the individual, as well as for the population as a whole. GPs should explain the evidence for the benefits and the harms of antibiotics to patients within a shared decision-making framework

Shared decision making and antibiotic benefit-harm conversations: an observational study of consultations between general practitioners and patients with acute respiratory infections

Abstract Background Little research has examined whether shared decision making (SDM) occurs in consultations for acute respiratory infections (ARIs), including what, and how, antibiotic benefits and harms are discussed. We aimed to analyse the extent and nature of SDM in consultations between GPs and patients with ARIs, and explore communication with and without the use of patient decision aids. Methods This was an observational study in Australian general practices, nested within a cluster randomised trial of decision aids (for acute otitis media [AOM], sore throat, acute bronchitis) designed for general practitioners (GPs) to use with patients, compared with usual care (no decision aids). Audio-recordings of consultations of a convenience sample of consenting patients seeing a GP for an ARI were independently analysed by two raters using the OPTION-12 (observing patient involvement in decision making) scale (maximum score of 100) and 5 items (about communicating evidence) from the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool (maximum score of 5). Patients also self-completed a questionnaire post-consultation that contained items from CollaboRATE-5 (perceptions of involvement in the decision-making process), a decisional conflict scale, and a decision self-efficacy scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each measure. Results Thirty-six consultations, involving 13 GPs, were recorded (20 for bronchitis, 10 sore throat, 6 AOM). The mean (SD) total OPTION-12 score was 29.4 (12.5; range 4–54), with item 12 (need to review decision) the highest (mean = 3) and item 10 (eliciting patients’ preferred level of decision-making involvement) the lowest (mean = 0.1). The mean (SD) total ACEPP score was 2 (1.6), with the item about discussing benefits scoring highest. In consultations where a decision aid was used (15, 42%), compared to the 21 usual care consultations, mean observer-assessed SDM scores (OPTION-12, ACEPP scores) were higher and antibiotic harms mentioned in all (compared to only 1) consultations. Patients generally reported high decision involvement and self-efficacy, and low decisional conflict. Conclusions The extent of observer-assessed SDM between GPs and patients with ARIs was generally low. Balanced discussion of antibiotic benefits and harms occurred more often when decision aids were used

Antibiotics for sore throat

Background: Sore throat is a common reason for people to present for medical care. Although it remits spontaneously, primary care doctors commonly prescribe antibiotics for it. Objectives: To assess the benefits of antibiotics for sore throat for patients in primary care settings. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL 2013, Issue 6, MEDLINE (January 1966 to July week 1, 2013) and EMBASE (January 1990 to July 2013). Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi‐RCTs of antibiotics versus control assessing typical sore throat symptoms or complications. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened studies for inclusion and extracted data. We resolved differences in opinion by discussion. We contacted trial authors from three studies for additional information. Main results: We included 27 trials with 12,835 cases of sore throat. We did not identify any new trials in this 2013 update. 1. Symptoms - Throat soreness and fever were reduced by about half by using antibiotics. The greatest difference was seen at day three. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) to prevent one sore throat at day three was less than six; at week one it was 21. 2. Non‐suppurative complications - The trend was antibiotics protecting against acute glomerulonephritis but there were too few cases to be sure. Several studies found antibiotics reduced acute rheumatic fever by more than two‐thirds within one month (risk ratio (RR) 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.60). 3. Suppurative complications - Antibiotics reduced the incidence of acute otitis media within 14 days (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.58); acute sinusitis within 14 days (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.08 to 2.76); and quinsy within two months (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47) compared to those taking placebo. 4. Subgroup analyses of symptom reduction - Antibiotics were more effective against symptoms at day three (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.71) if throat swabs were positive for Streptococcus, compared to RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.97 if negative. Similarly at week one the RR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.70) for positive and 0.73 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.07) for negative Streptococcus swabs. Authors' conclusions: Antibiotics confer relative benefits in the treatment of sore throat. However, the absolute benefits are modest. Protecting sore throat sufferers against suppurative and non‐suppurative complications in high‐income countries requires treating many with antibiotics for one to benefit. This NNTB may be lower in low‐income countries. Antibiotics shorten the duration of symptoms by about 16 hours overall.Griffith Health, School of MedicineFull Tex

Parents' beliefs and knowledge about the management of acute otitis media: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media is a common reason for antibiotic prescribing, despite strong evidence that antibiotics provide minimal benefit. Studies have demonstrated that patients’ (or parents’) expectations of antibiotics often influence general practitioners’ (GPs) decision to prescribe antibiotics, but few have explored parents’ expectations of the management of infections in children, or which factors influence the development of these expectations. This study aimed to explore parents’ knowledge and beliefs about the management of acute otitis media in children. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 parents of children who had recently presented to their GP with acute otitis media. Parents were recruited at childcare centres or playgroups in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: Many parents did not have an accurate understanding of what causes acute otitis media. GPs were primarily consulted for the management of symptoms such as pain and fever. Others specifically wanted reassurance or were concerned about hearing loss. Most parents assumed that antibiotics were the best treatment option. Parents’ perceptions about the best treatment were mainly based on their previous experience and the advice of the GP. Pain relief medications, such as paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, were not considered by parents to be sufficient treatment on their own. CONCLUSION: There is discrepancy between parents’ beliefs and expectations of management of acute otitis media and the evidence-based recommendations. This study provides insights into parents’ expectations of management of acute otitis media, which may help inform clinicians about perceptions and misperceptions that may be valuable to elicit and discuss