Risk and Resilience of Somali Children in the Context of Climate Change, Famine, and Conflict

Climate change is an existential threat to all of humanity. Its impact on the children of Somalia provides insights into the severity of risks posed by climate change to current and future generations. Globally, there has been a continuous increase in mean annual temperatures since 1991 and scientists anticipate an increase of up to 4.3 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Concomitantly, Somalia has experienced a decrease in annual rainfall, resulting in recurrent droughts. According to the UN’s emergency aid coordination office, these droughts have grown in frequency and intensity over the past three decades, fueling increased frequency of famine and contributing to internal conflict and civil war. In this article, the impact of climate change on children, exemplified by the plight of Somali children, is viewed through the lens of cumulative adversity and related consequences of poverty on malnutrition, illness, disruptions of family systems, and displacement, with a diaspora around the globe. The paper promotes a multi-systems resilience framework that guides strategies for addressing the complex, cascading crises that accompany climate change, exploring the construct of resilience from the individual/interpersonal level through family systems and communities, including a reframing of the Somali diaspora. The paper concludes with a series of global transnational policy recommendations based on children’s rights, the promotion of resilience, and approaching climate change from a child sensitive perspective, encouraging youth engagement and leadership, along with peace-building

Quality of reporting of trial abstracts needs to be improved: using the CONSORT for abstracts to assess the four leading Chinese medical journals of traditional Chinese medicine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to language limitations, the abstract of journal article may be the only way for people of non-Chinese speaking countries to know about trials in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). However, little is known about the reporting quality of these trial abstracts. Our study is to assess the reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCT) published in four leading Chinese medical journals of TCM, and to identify any differences in reporting between the Chinese and English version of the same abstract publication.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Two reviewers hand-searched the Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, the Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, the China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica and the Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion for all abstracts of RCTs published between 2006 and 2007. Two reviewers independently assessed the reporting quality of the Chinese and English version of all eligible abstracts based on a modified version of the CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts (CONSORT for abstracts).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified a total of 345 RCTs of TCM with both a Chinese and English abstract. More than half of Chinese abstracts reported details of the trial participants (68%; 234/345), control group intervention (52%; 179/345), the number of participants randomized (73%; 253/345) and benefits when interpreting the trial results (55%; 190/345). Reporting of methodological quality or key features of trial design and trial results were poor; only 2% (7/345) included details of the trial design, 3% (11/345) defined the primary outcome, 5% (17/345) described the methods of random sequence generation, and only 4% (13/345) reported the number of participants analyzed. No abstracts provided details on allocation concealment and trial registration. The percentage agreement in reporting (between the Chinese and English version of the same abstract) ranged from 84% to 100% across individual checklist item.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs published in these four TCM journals needs to be improved. Since none of the four journals adopted CONSORT for Abstracts, we hope that the introduction and adoption of CONSORT for Abstracts by TCM journals will lead to an improvement in reporting quality.</p

The acute management of trauma hemorrhage: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

PublishedResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tReviewINTRODUCTION: Worldwide, trauma is a leading cause of death and disability. Haemorrhage is responsible for up to 40% of trauma deaths. Recent strategies to improve mortality rates have focused on optimal methods of early hemorrhage control and correction of coagulopathy. We undertook a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) which evaluated trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock within the first 24 hours of injury and appraised how the interventions affected three outcomes: bleeding and/or transfusion requirements; correction of trauma induced coagulopathy and mortality. METHODS: Comprehensive searches were performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2010), Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Systematic Review Initiative (NHSBT SRI) RCT Handsearch Database. RESULTS: A total of 35 RCTs were identified which evaluated a wide range of clinical interventions in trauma hemorrhage. Many of the included studies were of low methodological quality and participant numbers were small. Bleeding outcomes were reported in 32 studies; 7 reported significantly reduced transfusion use following a variety of clinical interventions, but this was not accompanied by improved survival. Minimal information was found on traumatic coagulopathy across the identified RCTs. Overall survival was improved in only three RCTs: two small studies and a large study evaluating the use of tranexamic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Despite 35 RCTs there has been little improvement in outcomes over the last few decades. No clear correlation has been demonstrated between transfusion requirements and mortality. The global trauma community should consider a coordinated and strategic approach to conduct well designed studies with pragmatic endpoints.This research project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant for Applied Research (RP-PG-0407-10036)

Assessment of reporting quality of conference abstracts in sports injury prevention according to CONSORT and STROBE criteria and their subsequent publication rate as full papers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The preliminary results of a study are usually presented as an abstract in conference meetings. The reporting quality of those abstracts and the relationship between their study designs and full paper publication rate is unknown. We hypothesized that randomized controlled trials are more likely to be published as full papers than observational studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>154 oral abstracts presented at the World Congress of Sports Injury Prevention 2005 Oslo and the corresponding full paper publication were identified and analysed. The main outcome measures were frequency of publication, time to publication, impact factor, CONSORT (for Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, STROBE (for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) score, and minor and major inconsistencies between the abstract and the full paper publication.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall, 76 of the 154 (49%) presented abstracts were published as full papers in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 1.946 ± 0.812. No significant difference existed between the impact factor for randomized controlled trials (2.122 ± 1.015) and observational studies (1.913 ± 0.765, p = 0.469). The full papers for the randomized controlled trials were published after an average (SD) of 17 months (± 13 months); for observational studies, the average (SD) was 12 months (± 14 months) (p = 0.323). A trend was observed in this study that a higher percentage of randomized controlled trial abstracts were published as full papers (71% vs. 47%, p = 0.078) than observational trials. The reporting quality of abstracts, published as full papers, significantly increased compared to conference abstracts both in randomized control studies (CONSORT: 5.7 ± 0.7 to 7.2 ± 1.3; p = 0.018, CI -2.7 to -0.32) and in observational studies (STROBE: 8.2 ± 1.3 to 8.6 ± 1.4; p = 0.007, CI -0.63 to -0.10). All of the published abstracts had at least one minor inconsistency (title, authors, research center, outcome presentation, conclusion), while 65% had at least major inconsistencies (study objective, hypothesis, study design, primary outcome measures, sample size, statistical analysis, results, SD/CI). Comparing the results of conference and full paper; results changed in 90% vs. 68% (randomized, controlled studies versus observational studies); data were added (full paper reported more result data) in 60% vs. 30%, and deleted (full paper reported fewer result data) in 40% vs. 30%.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>No significant differences with respect to type of study (randomized controlled versus observational), impact factor, and time to publication existed for the likelihood that a World Congress of Sports Injury conference abstract could be published as a full paper.</p

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Design and population</it>: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. <it>Main endpoint</it>: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. <it>Analysis</it>: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.</p

Progressive functional exercise versus best practice advice for adults aged 50 years or over after ankle fracture: protocol for a pilot randomised controlled trial in the UK - the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation (AFTER) study

Introduction Ankle fractures result in significant morbidity in adults, with prognosis worsening with increasing age. Previous trials have not found evidence supporting supervised physiotherapy sessions, but these studies have not focused on older adults or tailored the exercise interventions to the complex needs of this patient group. The Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation study is a pilot randomised controlled trial to assess feasibility of a later definitive trial comparing best-practice advice with progressive functional exercise for adults aged 50 years and over after ankle fracture. The main objectives are to assess: (i) patient engagement with the trial, measured by the participation rate of those eligible; (ii) establish whether the interventions are acceptable to participants and therapists, assessed by intervention adherence levels, participant interviews and a therapist focus group; (iii) participant retention in the trial, measured by the proportion of participants providing outcome data at 6 months; (iv) acceptability of measuring outcomes at 3 and 6 month follow-up. Methods and analysis A multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. At least 48 patients aged 50 years and over with an ankle fracture requiring surgical management, or non-operative management by immobilisation for at least 4 weeks, will be recruited from a minimum of three National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Participants will be allocated 1:1 via a central web-based randomisation system to: (i) best-practice advice (one session of face-to-face self-management advice delivered by a physiotherapist and up to two optional additional sessions) or (ii) progressive functional exercise (up to six sessions of individual face-to-face physiotherapy). An embedded qualitative study will include one-to-one interviews with up to 20 participants and a therapist focus group. Ethics and dissemination Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee (18/SC/0281) gave approval on 2nd July 2018. Trial registration number ISRCTN1661233

Can you believe what you read in the papers?

The number of reports of clinical trials grows by hundreds every week. However, this does not mean that people making decisions about healthcare are finding it easier to obtain reliable knowledge for these decisions. Some of the information is unreliable. Systematic reviews are helping to resolve this by bringing together the research on a topic, appraising and summarising it. But the quality of these reviews depends greatly on the quality of the studies, and this usually means the quality of their reports. If there are fundamental flaws within a study, such as the use of inappropriate 'randomisation' techniques in the context of reviews of the effects of interventions, the reviewers will not be able to fix these. Worse still, if they are not aware of underlying flaws, they might make incorrect judgements about the quality of the research in their review. A study by Wu and colleagues of 'randomised trials' from China provides a reminder of the cautious approach needed by users of scientific articles. They contacted the authors of more than 2000 research articles, which purported to be reports of randomised trials; and concluded that ten of every 11 studies claiming to be a randomised trial probably did not use random allocation. Better education of researchers, peer reviewers and editors about what is, and is not, a properly randomised trial is needed; along with better reporting of the details for how participants were allocated to the different interventions. Systematic reviewers must be cautious in making assumptions about the conduct of trials based on simple phrases about the trial methodology, rather than a full description of the methods actually used. It's not that you can't believe anything that you read in the papers, just that you cannot believe everything