STARD for Abstracts: Essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts

Many abstracts of diagnostic accuracy studies are currently insufficiently informative. We extended the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy) statement by developing a list of essential items that authors should consider when reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in journal or conference abstracts. After a literature review of published guidance for reporting biomedical studies, we identified 39 items potentially relevant to report in an abstract. We then selected essential items through a two round web based survey among the 85 members of the STARD Group, followed by discussions within an executive committee. Seventy three STARD Group members responded (86%), with 100% completion rate. STARD for Abstracts is a list of 11 quintessential items, to be reported in every abstract of a diagnostic accuracy study. We provide examples of complete reporting, and developed template text for writing informative abstract

Intervention Synthesis: A Missing Link between a Systematic Review and Practical Treatment(s)

Paul Glasziou and colleagues discuss methods to guide selection of an intervention from individual trials within a systematic review. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Q-TWiST analysis of lapatinib combined with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

The addition of lapatinib (Tykerb/Tyverb) to capecitabine (Xeloda) delays disease progression more effectively than capecitabine monotherapy in women with previously treated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The quality-adjusted time without symptoms of disease or toxicity of treatment (Q-TWiST) method was used to compare treatments. The area under survival curves was partitioned into health states: toxicity (TOX), time without symptoms of disease progression or toxicity (TWiST), and relapse period until death or end of follow-up (REL). Average times spent in each state, weighted by utility, were derived and comparisons of Q-TWiST between groups performed with varying combinations of the utility weights. Utility weights of 0.5 for both TOX and REL, that is, counting 2 days of TOX or REL as 1 day of TWiST, resulted in a 7-week difference in quality-adjusted survival favouring combination therapy (P=0.0013). The Q-TWiST difference is clinically meaningful and was statistically significant across an entire matrix of possible utility weights. Results were robust in sensitivity analyses. An analysis with utilities based on EQ-5D scores was consistent with the above findings. Combination therapy of lapatinib with capecitabine resulted in greater quality-adjusted survival than capecitabine monotherapy in trastuzumab-refractory MBC patients

Updating a systematic review – what difference did it make? Case study of nicotine replacement therapy

AIMS: To examine the effect of updating a systematic review of nicotine replacement therapy on its contents and conclusions. METHODS: We examined the effects of regular updating of a systematic review of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation. We considered two outcomes. First, we assessed the effect of adding new data to meta-analyses, comparing results in 2000 with the results in 1994. Second, we assessed qualitatively the ways inwhich the nature of the questions addressed by the review had changed between the two dates. For the first outcome, we compared the number of trials, the pooled estimate of effect using the odds ratio, and the results of pre-specified subgroup analyses, for nicotine gum and patch separately. Using a test for interaction, we assessed whether differences between estimates were statistically significant. RESULTS: There were ten new trials of nicotine gum between 1994 and 2000, and the meta-analytic effect changed little. For the nicotine patch the number of trials increased from 9 to 30, and the meta-analytic effect fell from 2.07 (95% CI 1.64 – 2.62) to 1.73 (95% CI 1.56 – 1.93). Apparent differences in relative effect in sub-groups found in 1994 were not found in 2000. The updated systematic review addressed a number of questions not identified in the original version. CONCLUSIONS: Updating the meta-analyses lead to a more precise estimate of the likely effect of the nicotine patch, but the clinical message was unchanged. Further placebo controlled NRT trials are not likely to add to the evidence base. It is questionable whether updating the meta-analyses to include them is worthwhile. The content of the systematic review has, however, changed, with the addition of data addressing questions not considered in the original review. There is a tension between the principle of identifying the important questions prior to conducting a review, and keeping the review up to date as primary research identifies new avenues of enquiry

A Novel Method to Adjust Efficacy Estimates for Uptake of Other Active Treatments in Long-Term Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: When rates of uptake of other drugs differ between treatment arms in long-term trials, the true benefit or harm of the treatment may be underestimated. Methods to allow for such contamination have often been limited by failing to preserve the randomization comparisons. In the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) study, patients were randomized to fenofibrate or placebo, but during the trial many started additional drugs, particularly statins, more so in the placebo group. The effects of fenofibrate estimated by intention-to-treat were likely to have been attenuated. We aimed to quantify this effect and to develop a method for use in other long-term trials. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We applied efficacies of statins and other cardiovascular drugs from meta-analyses of randomized trials to adjust the effect of fenofibrate in a penalized Cox model. We assumed that future cardiovascular disease events were reduced by an average of 24% by statins, and 20% by a first other major cardiovascular drug. We applied these estimates to each patient who took these drugs for the period they were on them. We also adjusted the analysis by the rate of discontinuing fenofibrate. Among 4,900 placebo patients, average statin use was 16% over five years. Among 4,895 assigned fenofibrate, statin use was 8% and nonuse of fenofibrate was 10%. In placebo patients, use of cardiovascular drugs was 1% to 3% higher. Before adjustment, fenofibrate was associated with an 11% reduction in coronary events (coronary heart disease death or myocardial infarction) (P = 0.16) and an 11% reduction in cardiovascular disease events (P = 0.04). After adjustment, the effects of fenofibrate on coronary events and cardiovascular disease events were 16% (P = 0.06) and 15% (P = 0.008), respectively. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This novel application of a penalized Cox model for adjustment of a trial estimate of treatment efficacy incorporates evidence-based estimates for other therapies, preserves comparisons between the randomized groups, and is applicable to other long-term trials. In the FIELD study example, the effects of fenofibrate on the risks of coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease events were underestimated by up to one-third in the original analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN64783481

Method for evaluating prediction models that apply the results of randomized trials to individual patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>The clinical significance of a treatment effect demonstrated in a randomized trial is typically assessed by reference to differences in event rates at the group level. An alternative is to make individualized predictions for each patient based on a prediction model. This approach is growing in popularity, particularly for cancer. Despite its intuitive advantages, it remains plausible that some prediction models may do more harm than good. Here we present a novel method for determining whether predictions from a model should be used to apply the results of a randomized trial to individual patients, as opposed to using group level results.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We propose applying the prediction model to a data set from a randomized trial and examining the results of patients for whom the treatment arm recommended by a prediction model is congruent with allocation. These results are compared with the strategy of treating all patients through use of a net benefit function that incorporates both the number of patients treated and the outcome. We examined models developed using data sets regarding adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and Dutasteride for benign prostatic hypertrophy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For adjuvant chemotherapy, we found that patients who would opt for chemotherapy even for small risk reductions, and, conversely, those who would require a very large risk reduction, would on average be harmed by using a prediction model; those with intermediate preferences would on average benefit by allowing such information to help their decision making. Use of prediction could, at worst, lead to the equivalent of an additional death or recurrence per 143 patients; at best it could lead to the equivalent of a reduction in the number of treatments of 25% without an increase in event rates. In the Dutasteride case, where the average benefit of treatment is more modest, there is a small benefit of prediction modelling, equivalent to a reduction of one event for every 100 patients given an individualized prediction.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The size of the benefit associated with appropriate clinical implementation of a good prediction model is sufficient to warrant development of further models. However, care is advised in the implementation of prediction modelling, especially for patients who would opt for treatment even if it was of relatively little benefit.</p

No short-cut in assessing trial quality: a case study

Assessing the quality of included trials is a central part of a systematic review. Many check-list type of instruments for doing this exist. Using a trial of antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media, Burke et al., BMJ, 1991, as the case study, this paper illustrates some limitations of the check-list approach to trial quality assessment. The general verdict from the check list type evaluations in nine relevant systematic reviews was that Burke et al. (1991) is a good quality trial. All relevant meta-analyses extensively used its data to formulate therapeutic evidence. My comprehensive evaluation, on the other hand, brought to the surface a series of serious problems in the design, conduct, analysis and report of this trial that were missed by the earlier evaluations. A check-list or instrument based approach, if used as a short-cut, may at times rate deeply flawed trials as good quality trials. Check lists are crucial but they need to be augmented with an in-depth review, and where possible, a scrutiny of the protocol, trial records, and original data. The extent and severity of the problems I uncovered for this particular trial warrant an independent audit before it is included in a systematic review

The clinical course of acute otitis media in high-risk Australian Aboriginal children: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND: It is unclear why some children with acute otitis media (AOM) have poor outcomes. Our aim was to describe the clinical course of AOM and the associated bacterial nasopharyngeal colonisation in a high-risk population of Australian Aboriginal children. METHODS: We examined Aboriginal children younger than eight years who had a clinical diagnosis of AOM. Pneumatic otoscopy and video-otoscopy of the tympanic membrane (TM) and tympanometry was done every weekday if possible. We followed children for either two weeks (AOM without perforation), or three weeks (AOM with perforation), or for longer periods if the infection persisted. Nasopharyngeal swabs were taken at study entry and then weekly. RESULTS: We enrolled 31 children and conducted a total of 219 assessments. Most children had bulging of the TM or recent middle ear discharge at diagnosis. Persistent signs of suppurative OM (without ear pain) were present in most children 7 days (23/30, 77%), and 14 days (20/26, 77%) later. Episodes of AOM did not usually have a sudden onset or short duration. Six of the 14 children with fresh discharge in their ear canal had an intact or functionally intact TM. Perforation size generally remained very small (<2% of the TM). Healing followed by re-perforation was common. Ninety-three nasophyngeal swabs were taken. Most swabs cultured Streptococcus pneumoniae (82%), Haemophilus influenzae (71%), and Moraxella catarrhalis (95%); 63% of swabs cultured all three pathogens. CONCLUSION: In this high-risk population, AOM was generally painless and persistent. These infections were associated with persistent bacterial colonisation of the nasopharynx and any benefits of antibiotics were modest at best. Systematic follow up with careful examination and review of treatment are required and clinical resolution cannot be assumed

Diagnosing dementia: No easy job

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>From both clinical experience and research we learned that in complex progressive disorders such as dementia, diagnosis includes multiple steps, each with their own clinical and research characteristics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Diagnosing starts with a trigger phase in which the GP gradually realizes that dementia may be emerging. This is followed by a disease-oriented diagnosis and subsequently a care -oriented diagnosis. In parallel the GP should consider the consequences of this process for the caregiver and the interaction between both. As soon as a comprehensive diagnosis and care plan are available, monitoring follows.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>We propose to split the diagnostic process into four diagnostic steps, followed by a monitoring phase. We recommend to include these steps when designing studies on screening, diagnosis and monitoring of patients with dementia and their families.</p