Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. Randomized clinical trial of a quality improvement intervention in nursing homes. Quality of reporting in randomized trials published in high-quality surgical journals. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate the use of patient held records for the continuing care of patients with cancer. Quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials in cerebral palsy. Evidence-based postoperative pain management in nursing: is a randomized-controlled trial the most appropriate design? Randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of feedback in improving test ordering in general practice. Improving the quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery: the way forward.
Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials (a Bayesian interpretation for accumulating evidence) will profoundly affect medical care by summarizing evidence in the assessment of technology innovations. Application of the technique to the randomized control trials (RCTs) of streptokinase treatment of acute myocardial infarction, reduction of peri-operative mortality by antibiotic prophylaxis, and prevention of death from bleeding peptic ulcers has revealed efficacy years before it was suspected by any other means. Arrangement of the trials according to event rate in the controls, effect sizes, quality of the trials or according to covariables of interest has supplied unique information. If carried out prospectively the technique supplies invaluable information regarding indications for another trial, the number of patients necessary to determine the validity of past trends, and the type of patients who might be benefitted. Careful examination in a cumulative manner of the prior trials can reduce the need for future large trials. The purpose of the study was to determine if simply providing nursing facilities with comparative quality performance information and education about quality improvement would improve clinical practices and subsequently improve resident outcomes, or if a stronger intervention, expert clinical consultation with nursing facility staff, is needed.
                Nursing facilities (n = 113) were randomly assigned to one of three groups: workshop and feedback reports only, workshop and feedback reports with clinical consultation, and control. Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quality Indicator (QI) feedback reports were prepared and sent quarterly to each facility in intervention groups for a year. Clinical consultation by a gerontological clinical nurse specialist (GCNS) was offered to those in the second group.
                With the exception of MDS QI 27 (little or no activity), no significant differences in resident assessment measures were detected between the groups of facilities. However, outcomes of residents in nursing homes that actually took advantage of the clinical consultation of the GCNS demonstrated trends in improvements in QIs measuring falls, behavioral symptoms, little or no activity, and pressure ulcers (overall and for low-risk residents).
                Simply providing comparative performance feedback is not enough to improve resident outcomes. It appears that only those nursing homes that sought the additional intensive support of the GCNS were able to effect enough change in clinical practice to improve resident outcomes significantly. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery can provide valuable evidence of the efficacy of interventions if they are well-designed, appropriately executed, and adequately reported. Adequate reporting of methodology in surgical RCTs is known to be poor, and adverse-event reporting in surgical research is inconsistent. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a framework to help authors report their findings in a transparent manner. Extensions to the CONSORT statement have been published recently to address deficiencies in adverse-event reporting and in reporting of specific criteria related to nonpharmacologic treatments. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of trial methodology and adverse events in a sample of general surgical RCTs published in high-quality surgical journals using the criteria specified in the CONSORT statements.
                We used impact factor to identify the top three ranked surgical journals in 2004. We then obtained information on all RCTs published in these journals in the 2005 calendar year. We assessed quality of reporting using Jadad score, compared the quality of RCTs from CONSORT-endorsing journals with nonendorsers, and assessed the number of RCTs adequately reporting key generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria.
                Of 42 RCTs analyzed, only 40% (17 of 42) had a Jadad score > or = 3. There was no significant difference in the number of high-quality RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals compared with nonendorsers (p = 0.3). The median percentage of RCTs adequately reporting generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria was 32.5%, 17%, and 36.5%, respectively.
                Quality of reporting of generic methodologic, adverse-event-related, and specific nonpharmacologic criteria in surgical RCTs is poor. Increased attention to quality of reporting of surgical RCTs is required if studies are to meet published criteria. It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed. To evaluate the use of a multidisciplinary record held by patients with cancer in the community.
                Pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
                The environs of Swansea in south west Wales.
                501 patients under the care of the Department of Oncology, Singleton Hospital, Swansea.
                A patient held record used by the patient and healthcare professionals. Main outcome measures-Health related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) measured at entry into the study and at 6 months; patients' views at 6 months; healthcare professionals' views collected after the completion of patient follow up; NHS resource and booklet use.
                1148 patients were eligible for the study; 501 were recruited (44%) and 344 completed the study (172 in each group). There was no significant difference between the two groups in change in quality of life or NHS resource use. The patient held record did not have an impact on communication but was significantly helpful to patients in preparing for appointments, reducing difficulties in monitoring their own progress, and helping them to feel more in control (p<0.05). Fifty three percent of patients would have preferred not to have a patient held record. There was a low level of use of the record by healthcare professionals but most of those who remembered using it indicated that they would prefer patients to have it.
                The patient held record is valued by some patients and professionals but has no significant impact on the quality of life of patients or NHS resource use. It has a positive impact on quality by helping patients feel more in control and prepare for meetings with healthcare staff. Patients who find it useful tend to be younger and have more professionals involved in their care. It is recommended that it should be made available to patients on request and used by them according to need. In conducting reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy, the assessment of trials can be hampered by problems in reporting. Therefore, we set out to evaluate trial reporting by using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommendations.
                Randomized, controlled trials published in 1990 or later were identified in literature searches for reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions on children with cerebral palsy. Two independent reviewers evaluated the trial reporting by using a modified 33-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist.
                We identified 15 randomized, controlled trials. Almost half (48%) of the applicable items were reported adequately. Inadequate reporting was found in the following items: outcome measures, sample-size determination, details of the sequence generation, allocation concealment and implementation of the randomization, success of assessor blinding, recruitment and follow-up dates, intention-to-treat analysis, precision of the effect size, co-interventions, and adverse events.
                Only a small number of sufficiently reported trials were found. Because nearly all items had been described in at least 1 article, high-quality reporting seems feasible. Assessment of trials depends on appropriate reporting, and poor reporting jeopardizes judgments on the clinical implications. Authors of randomized, controlled trials are encouraged to follow the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials criteria. There is a clear need to improve the quality of reporting of trials in this field. There is an increasing drive to make nursing care evidence-based. High quality evidence from systematic reviews relevant to postoperative pain relief exists, yet pain after surgery remains poorly controlled for many patients. This study aimed to assess whether implementing evidence-based pain management improved postoperative pain outcomes. Pain on a 0-10 scale was the primary outcome and analgesic consumption a secondary outcome. A baseline audit was undertaken on four surgical wards to establish whether there was a need for the study. A randomized-controlled trial was then designed to assess the effects of implementing an evidence-based approach to postoperative pain management. The four wards were randomized to receive the intervention or act as a control. Outcomes were assessed 3 months after the intervention on both intervention and control wards. The intervention (implementation of an oral analgesic algorithm derived from systematic reviews) was then implemented on the control wards and outcomes reassessed after 3 months on the control wards. The intervention was designed using an evidence-based approach to effective implementation. Four interactive sessions covered: (1) detailed feedback of baseline data and discussion (utilizing audit and feedback), (2) why systematic reviews, analgesic league tables and choice of drugs to develop an analgesic algorithm (see Figure 1), (3) principles of evidence based health care (EBHC), including critical appraisal and (4) facilitation and change workshop. The findings revealed no significant differences in pain level or drug use between the intervention and control wards. However, the control wards also changed during the control period. Possible explanations for this are discussed. When looking at changes compared with baseline, both intervention and control wards increased their use of algorithm drugs and reduced use of non-algorithm drugs during the study. No effects were found on pain in the intervention wards. Pain ratings at rest since surgery, on movement since surgery and worst pain on movement were significantly reduced compared with baseline in the control wards. Although there are many pressures to utilize a randomized-controlled trial study design in the culture of evidence-based health care, there will be times, especially when implementing complex changes in practice that other types of design should be considered. To assess the effectiveness of feedback on the number of pathology tests ordered by general practices.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                General practices in two primary care groups in Leicestershire, UK.
                58 general practitioners in 17 practices received guidelines then feedback at 3-month intervals for 1 year about the numbers of thyroid function, rheumatoid factor tests and urine cultures they ordered, and 38 general practitioners in 16 practices received guidelines then feedback about lipid and plasma viscosity tests.
                Numbers of tests requested per thousand patients registered with each practice. RESULTS; There were no changes in the numbers of tests per thousand requested in either of the study groups for any of the tests.
                Feedback did not have an influence on test ordering by general practitioners in this study. More intensive strategies may be required to change the use of laboratory tests. To evaluate the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery, to identify factors associated with good reporting quality, and to assess the awareness of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement and ascertain the views of authors reporting randomized controlled trials on the difficulties in conducting randomized controlled trials and the possible ways to further improve the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery.
                Randomized controlled trials of cardiothoracic surgery published in principal cardiothoracic and 4 general medical journals in 2003 were included. The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials was assessed by using allocation concealment, the Jadad score, and a Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials checklist devised for the purpose. A questionnaire survey of authors reporting randomized controlled trials in principal cardiothoracic journals in 2003 was conducted.
                The overall reporting quality of the 64 randomized controlled trials included in the analysis was suboptimal as assessed by the 3 methods adopted. Most of the authors (63.5%) were not aware of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement; however, awareness was not associated with reporting quality. More than 65% of the authors responded that conducting randomized controlled trials in surgical specialties was difficult, and the main difficulties were blinding and obtaining a large-enough sample size to detect statistically significant differences. Fifty-four percent of the authors responded that endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement by the cardiothoracic journals may improve the reporting quality.
                The quality of reporting randomized controlled trials in cardiothoracic surgery is suboptimal. Endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement by the cardiothoracic journals may improve the quality of reporting.
Overall, the quality of evidence summarised in this review is not of sufficient quality to change current clinical practice. In the absence of clear evidence, the operators should continue to use methods and technique modifications with which they are most familiar with.
Any randomised trials of technique modifications that are performed to high standard with adequate safety outcomes and power to detect important clinical differences would be clearly welcome.