Getting research findings into practice : when to act on the evidence.

There is increasing interest in providing evidence based health care—that is, care in which healthcare professionals, provider managers, those who commission health care, the public, and policymakers consistently consider research evidence when making decisions. Purchasers, for example, should be able to influence the organisation and delivery of care (such as for cancer and stroke services) and the type and content of services (such as using chiropractic for back pain or dilatation and curettage and drug treatment for menorrhagia). Policymakers should ensure that policies on treatment reflect and are consistent with research evidence, and that the incentive structure within the health system promotes cost effective practice. They must also ensure that there is an adequate infrastructure for monitoring changes in practice and for producing, gathering, summarising, and disseminating evidence. Clinicians determine the day to day care patients receive in healthcare systems, and user groups (for example, patients, their families, and their representatives) are also beginning to play an important role in influencing healthcare decisions

From the Trenches: A Cross-Sectional Study Applying the GRADE Tool in Systematic Reviews of Healthcare Interventions

Background: GRADE was developed to address shortcomings of tools to rate the quality of a body of evidence. While much has been published about GRADE, there are few empirical and systematic evaluations. Objective: To assess GRADE for systematic reviews (SRs) in terms of inter-rater agreement and identify areas of uncertainty. Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive study. Methods: We applied GRADE to three SRs (n = 48, 66, and 75 studies, respectively) with 29 comparisons and 12 outcomes overall. Two reviewers graded evidence independently for outcomes deemed clinically important a priori. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using kappas for four main domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision) and overall quality of evidence. Results: For the first review, reliability was: k = 0.41 for risk of bias; 0.84 consistency; 0.18 precision; and 0.44 overall quality. Kappa could not be calculated for directness as one rater assessed all items as direct; assessors agreed in 41 % of cases. For the second review reliability was: 0.37 consistency and 0.19 precision. Kappa could not be assessed for other items; assessors agreed in 33 % of cases for risk of bias; 100 % directness; and 58 % overall quality. For the third review, reliability was: 0.06 risk of bias; 0.79 consistency; 0.21 precision; and 0.18 overall quality. Assessors agreed in 100 % of cases for directness. Precision created the most uncertainty due to difficulties in identifying ‘‘optimal’ ’ information size and ‘‘clinica

Digitalis for treatment of heart failure in patients in sinus rhythm

<b>Background</b><p></p> Digitalis glycosides have been in clinical use for the treatment of heart failure (HF) for longer than 200 years. In recent years, several trials have been conducted to address concerns about their efficacy and toxicity.<p></p> <b>Objectives</b><p></p> To examine the effectiveness of digitalis glycosides in treating HF in patients with normal sinus rhythm. To examine the effects of digitalis in patients taking diuretics and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; in patients with varying severity and duration of disease; in patients with prior exposure to digitalis versus no prior exposure; and in patients with "HF due to systolic dysfunction" versus "HF with preserved ejection fraction."<p></p> <b>Search methods</b><p></p> Searches on the following databases were updated in May 2013: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Dissertation Abstracts. Annual meeting abstracts of the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the European Society of Cardiology were searched from 1996 to March 2013. In addition, reference lists provided by the pharmaceutical industry (GlaxoSmithKline and Covis Pharma) were searched.<p></p> <b>Selection criteria</b><p></p> Included were randomized placebo-controlled trials of 20 or more adult participants of either sex with symptomatic HF who were studied for seven weeks or longer. Excluded were trials in which the prevalence of atrial fibrillation was 2% or greater, or in which any arrhythmia that might compromise cardiac function or any potentially reversible cause of HF such as acute ischemic heart disease or myocarditis was present.<p></p> <b>Data collection and analysis</b><p></p> Articles selected from the searches described above were evaluated in a joint effort of the review authors. The staff of the Cochrane Heart Group ran searches on the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE.<p></p> <b>Main results</b><p></p> No new studies were identified in the updated searches. Thirteen studies (7896 participants) are included, and major endpoints of mortality, hospitalization, and clinical status, based respectively on 8, 4, and 12 of these selected studies, were recorded and analyzed. The data show no evidence of a difference in mortality between treatment and control groups, whereas digitalis therapy is associated with lower rates of both hospitalization and clinical deterioration. The largest study, in which most participants were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, showed a significant rise in “other cardiac” deaths, possibly due to arrhythmias. However collectively, these findings were based on studies done before beta-blockers, as well as angiotensin receptor blockers and aldosterone antagonists, became widely used to treat HF.<p></p> <b>Authors' conclusions</b><p></p> The literature indicates that digitalis may have a useful role in the treatment of patients with HF who are in normal sinus rhythm. New trials are needed to elucidate the importance of the dosage of digitalis and its usefulness in the era of beta-blockers and other agents shown to be effective in treating HF.<p></p&gt

Internet Versus Mailed Questionnaires: A Randomized Comparison (2)

BACKGROUND Low response rates among surgeons can threaten the validity of surveys. Internet technologies may reduce the time, effort, and financial resources needed to conduct surveys. OBJECTIVE We investigated whether using Web-based technology could increase the response rates to an international survey. METHODS We solicited opinions from the 442 surgeon–members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association regarding the treatment of femoral neck fractures. We developed a self-administered questionnaire after conducting a literature review, focus groups, and key informant interviews, for which we used sampling to redundancy techniques. We administered an Internet version of the questionnaire on a Web site, as well as a paper version, which looked similar to the Internet version and which had identical content. Only those in our sample could access the Web site. We alternately assigned the participants to receive the survey by mail (n=221) or an email invitation to participate on the Internet (n=221). Non-respondents in the mail arm received up to three additional copies of the survey, while non-respondents in the Internet arm received up to three additional requests, including a final mailed copy. All participants in the Internet arm had an opportunity to request an emailed Portable Document Format (PDF) version. RESULTS The Internet arm demonstrated a lower response rate (99/221, 45%) than the mail questionnaire arm (129/221, 58%) (absolute difference 13%, 95% confidence interval 4%-22%, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS. Our Internet-based survey to surgeons resulted in a significantly lower response rate than a traditional mailed survey. Researchers should not assume that the widespread availability and potential ease of Internet-based surveys will translate into higher response rates.Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canad

Baseline Risks of Venous Thromboembolism and Major Bleeding are Crucial in Decision-making on Thromboprophylaxis

Non peer reviewe

Professionalism, golf coaching and a master of science degree

A distinction can be made between 'professionalisation', which is concerned with occupational status and standing, and 'professionalism,' which refers to matters of quality and standards of practice (especially specialized knowledge, ethics and altruism). The purpose of this stimulus article is to present key features of contemporary medical professionalism as a basis for critically reflecting on discourse associated with Tiger Woods' current coach, Sean Foley. It is suggested that that provision of a Master of Science degree in golf teaching/coaching would facilitate the development of 'professionalism' in golf coaches

Impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations: an empirical study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence is necessary but not sufficient for decision-making, such as making recommendations by clinical practice guideline panels. However, the fundamental premise of evidence-based medicine (EBM) rests on the assumed link between the quality of evidence and "truth" and/or correctness in making guideline recommendations. If this assumption is accurate, then the quality of evidence ought to play a key role in making guideline recommendations. Surprisingly, and despite the widespread penetration of EBM in health care, there has been no empirical research to date investigating the impact of quality of evidence on the strength of recommendations made by guidelines panels.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The American Association of Blood Banking (AABB) has recently convened a 12 member panel to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for the use of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) for 6 different clinical indications. The panel was instructed that 4 factors should play a role in making recommendation: quality of evidence, uncertainty about the balance between desirable (benefits) and undesirable effects (harms), uncertainty or variability in values and preferences, and uncertainty about whether the intervention represents a wise use of resources (costs). Each member of the panel was asked to make his/her final judgments on the strength of recommendation and the overall quality of the body of evidence. "Voting" was anonymous and was based on the use of GRADE (Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations) system, which clearly distinguishes between quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Despite the fact that many factors play role in formulating CPG recommendations, we show that when the quality of evidence is higher, the probability of making a strong recommendation for or against an intervention dramatically increases. Probability of making strong recommendation was 62% when evidence is "moderate", while it was only 23% and 13% when evidence was "low" or "very low", respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We report the first empirical evaluation of the relationship between quality of evidence pertinent to a clinical question and strength of the corresponding guideline recommendations. Understanding the relationship between quality of evidence and probability of making (strong) recommendation has profound implications for the science of quality measurement in health care.</p

Vitamin supplementation for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and pre-term delivery: a systematic review of randomized trial including more than 2800 women

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have suggested that low serum vitamin levels are associated with increased mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV and increased preterm delivery. We aimed to determine the efficacy of vitamins on the prevention of MTCT and preterm delivery by systematically reviewing the available randomized controlled trials [RCTs]. We conducted systematic searches of 7 electronic databases. We extracted data from the RCTs independently, in duplicate. RESULTS: We included 4 trials in our review. Of the three trials on Vitamin A, two suggested no difference in MTCT, while the third and largest trial (n = 1078) suggested an increased risk of MTCT (Relative Risk 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.11–1.66, P = 0.009). Two of the vitamin A trials addressed the impact of supplementation on pre-term delivery; one suggested a benefit (RR 0.65, 95% CI, 0.44–0.94) and the other no difference. All three vitamin A trials found no significant effect on infant mortality at 1 year. Of the two trials that looked at multivitamin use, only one addressed the prevention of MTCT, and found a non-significant RR of 1.04 (95% CI, 0.82–1.32). Two of the multivitamin trials found no significant effects on pre-term delivery. The single multivitamin trial examining children's mortality at 1 year yielded a non-significant RR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.17–1.17). CONCLUSION: Randomized trials of vitamins to prevent MTCT have yielded conflicting results without strong evidence of benefit and have failed to exclude the possibility of harm

Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: The clinician's perspective

This article deals with the problem of interpreting health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes in clinical trials. First, we will briefly describe how dichotomization and item response theory can facilitate interpretation. Based on examples from the medical literature for the interpretation of HRQL scores we will show that dichotomies may help clinicians understand information provided by HRQL instruments in RCTs. They can choose thresholds to calculate proportions of patients benefiting based on absolute scores or change scores. For example, clinicians interpreting clinical trial results could consider the difference in the proportion of patients who achieve a mean score of 50 before and after an intervention on a scale from 1 to 100. For the change score approach, they could consider the proportion of patients who have changed by a score of 5 or more. Finally, they can calculate the proportion of patients benefiting and transform these numbers into a number needed to treat or natural frequencies. Second, we will describe in more detail an approach to the interpretation of HRQL scores based on the minimal important difference (MID) and proportions. The MID is the smallest difference in score in the outcome of interest that informed patients or informed proxies perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, and that would lead the patient or clinician to consider a change in the management. Any change in management will depend on the downsides, including cost and inconvenience, associated with the intervention. Investigators can help with the interpretation of HRQL scores by determining the MID of an HRQL instrument and provide mean differences in relation to the MID. For instance, for an MID of 0.5 on a seven point scale investigators could provide the mean change on the instrument as well as the proportion of patients with scores greater than the MID. Thus, there are several steps investigators can take to facilitate this process to help bringing HRQL information closer to the bedside