Randomised controlled trial of a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice [ISRCTN23257060]. Randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of adjuvant immunochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, using different combinations of the intracutaneous streptococcal preparation OK-432 and the oral pyrimidines 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil and uracil/tegafur. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. A randomized controlled trial of a specific reminiscence approach to promote the well-being of nursing home residents with dementia. An outreach intervention to implement evidence based practice in residential care: a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN67855475]. Customized feedback to patients and providers failed to improve safety or quality of diabetes care: a randomized trial. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Randomized clinical trial of a quality improvement intervention in nursing homes. Combination antibiotic susceptibility testing to treat exacerbations of cystic fibrosis associated with multiresistant bacteria: a randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
Previous studies have shown that Norwegian public health physicians do not systematically and explicitly use scientific evidence in their practice. They work in an environment that does not encourage the integration of this information in decision-making. In this study we investigate whether a theoretically grounded tailored intervention to diffuse evidence-based public health practice increases the physicians' use of research information.
                148 self-selected public health physicians were randomised to an intervention group (n = 73) and a control group (n = 75). The intervention group received a multifaceted intervention while the control group received a letter declaring that they had access to library services. Baseline assessments before the intervention and post-testing immediately at the end of a 1.5-year intervention period were conducted. The intervention was theoretically based and consisted of a workshop in evidence-based public health, a newsletter, access to a specially designed information service, to relevant databases, and to an electronic discussion list. The main outcome measure was behaviour as measured by the use of research in different documents.
                The intervention did not demonstrate any evidence of effects on the objective behaviour outcomes. We found, however, a statistical significant difference between the two groups for both knowledge scores: Mean difference of 0.4 (95% CI: 0.2-0.6) in the score for knowledge about EBM-resources and mean difference of 0.2 (95% CI: 0.0-0.3) in the score for conceptual knowledge of importance for critical appraisal. There were no statistical significant differences in attitude-, self-efficacy-, decision-to-adopt- or job-satisfaction scales. There were no significant differences in Cochrane library searching after controlling for baseline values and characteristics.
                Though demonstrating effect on knowledge the study failed to provide support for the hypothesis that a theory-based multifaceted intervention targeted at identified barriers will change professional behaviour. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant immunochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, using different combinations of the intracutaneous streptococcal preparation OK-432 and the oral pyrimidines 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (carmofur, HCFU) and uracil/tegafur (UFT).
                Patients with stage II, III, or IV (Dukes' B, C) colorectal cancer were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of three groups: an immunochemotherapy group (mitomycin C [MMC] + 5-fluorouracil [5-FU] + HCFU + OK-432), a chemotherapy group (MMC + 5-FU + HCFU), and a control group (surgery alone) for those with colon cancer (study 1); and an immunochemotherapy group (MMC + 5-FU + UFT + OK-432), a chemotherapy group (MMC + 5-FU + UFT), and a control group (surgery alone) for those with rectal cancer (study 2).
                A total of 760 patients with colon cancer and 669 patients with rectal cancer were entered into this randomized clinical trial (RCT). The incidence of side-effects was in the order of: immunochemotherapy group > chemotherapy group > control group in both the cohort of patients with colon cancer and the cohort with rectal cancer. In particular, the frequency of leucopenia and skin disorders was significantly higher than control groups. There were no severe adverse events such as death related to the adjuvant therapy. In both the colon cancer and rectal cancer cohorts, no significant difference in the 5-year survival rate and disease-free survival rate was noted among the three groups.
                The results of an RCT demonstrated that the combination of MMC + 5-FU + HCFU + OK-432 for colon cancer and that of MMC + 5-FU + UFT + OK-432 for rectal cancer could not prolong the survival of patients with surgically resected colorectal cancer, but that both combinations were well tolerated as adjuvant therapy. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adjuvant immunochemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer, using different combinations of the intracutaneous streptococcal preparation OK-432 and the oral pyrimidines 1-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (carmofur, HCFU) and uracil/tegafur (UFT). To explore whether reported methodologic quality affects estimated intervention effects in randomized trials and contributes to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses.
                Meta-analyses of randomized trials that included at least one large trial (>/=1000 participants) were included, regardless of the therapeutic area. Eligible meta-analyses were identified through electronic searches and bibliographies of relevant articles.
                Full-length randomized trials.
                Methodologic quality was assessed according to reported randomization, double blinding, and follow-up as separate components and by using the Jadad composite scale.
                Fourteen meta-analyses involving 190 randomized trials from eight therapeutic areas were included. Compared with large trials, intervention effects were exaggerated in small trials with inadequate allocation sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.25 to 0.83]; P = 0.011), inadequate allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.49 [CI, 0.27 to 0.86]; P = 0.014), and no double blinding (ratio of odds ratios, 0.52 [CI, 0.28 to 0.96]; P = 0.01). Large trials did not differ significantly from small trials with adequate generation of the allocation sequence, adequate allocation concealment, or adequate double blinding. No association was seen between reported follow-up and intervention effects. The Jadad scale provided no additional information because the scale and the quality components overlapped substantially.
                Inadequate generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, and double blinding lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention benefit and may contribute to discrepancies between the results of large randomized trials and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. To date, no firm conclusions can be reached regarding the effectiveness of reminiscence for dementia. Researchers have emphasized that there is an urgent need for more systematic research in the area.
                A single-blinded, parallel-groups (one intervention, one comparison, and one no-intervention group) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was adopted to investigate whether a specific reminiscence program leads to higher levels of psychosocial well-being in nursing home residents with dementia. The intervention adopted a life-story approach, while the comparison group provided friendly discussions to control for any changes in outcome as a result of social contacts and attention. The Social Engagement Scale (SES) and Well-being/Ill-being Scale (WIB) were the outcome measures used. The outcomes of the groups were examined with reference to the baseline (T0), immediately (T1), and six weeks (T2) after intervention. The final sample had 101 subjects (control group: n=30; comparison group: n=35; intervention group: n = 36). Using multivariate analysis with repeated measures, no significant differences in outcome were found between groups at either T1 or T2. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were performed for each group comparing outcomes between T1 and T0, T2 and T1, and T2 and T0. Significant differences were observed in the intervention group when comparing T1 and T0 WIB (p = .014), but not for the other groups.
                Although the intervention did not lead to significant differences between the three groups over time, there was a significant improvement in psychosocial well-being for the intervention group. The aim of this project was to assess whether outreach visits would improve the implementation of evidence based clinical practice in the area of falls reduction and stroke prevention in a residential care setting.
                Twenty facilities took part in a randomized controlled trial with a seven month follow-up period. Two outreach visits were delivered by a pharmacist. At the first a summary of the relevant evidence was provided and at the second detailed audit information was provided about fall rates, psychotropic drug prescribing and stroke risk reduction practices (BP monitoring, aspirin and warfarin use) for the facility relevant to the physician. The effect of the interventions was determined via pre- and post-intervention case note audit. Outcomes included change in percentage patients at risk of falling who fell in a three month period prior to follow-up and changes in use of psychotropic medications. Chi-square tests, independent samples t-test, and logistic regression were used in the analysis.
                Data were available from case notes at baseline (n = 897) and seven months follow-up (n = 902), 452 residential care staff were surveyed and 121 physicians were involved with 61 receiving outreach visits. Pre-and post-intervention data were available for 715 participants. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for the three month fall rate. We were unable to detect statistically significant differences between groups for the psychotropic drug use of the patients before or after the intervention. The exception was significantly greater use of "as required" antipsychotics in the intervention group compared with the control group after the pharmacy intervention (RR = 4.95; 95%CI 1.69-14.50). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for the numbers of patients "at risk of stroke" on aspirin at follow-up.
                While the strategy was well received by the physicians involved, there was no change in prescribing patterns. Patient care in residential settings is complex and involves contributions from the patient's physician, family and residential care staff. The project highlights challenges of delivering evidence based care in a setting in which there is a paucity of well controlled trial evidence but where significant health outcomes can be attained. To assess whether providing customized clinical information to patients and physicians improves safety or quality of diabetes care.
                Study subjects included 123 primary care physicians and 3,703 eligible adult diabetic patients with elevated A1C or LDL cholesterol, who were randomly assigned to receive customized feedback of clinical information as follows: 1) patient only, 2) physician only, 3) both the patient and physician, or 4) neither patient nor physician. In the intervention groups, patients received customized mailed information or physicians received printed, prioritized lists of patients with recommended clinical actions and performance feedback. Hierarchical models were used to accommodate group random assignment.
                Study interventions did not improve A1C test ordering (P = 0.35) and negatively affected LDL cholesterol test ordering (P < 0.001) in the 12 months postintervention. Interventions had no effect on LDL cholesterol values (P = 0.64), which improved in all groups over time. Interventions had a borderline unfavorable effect on A1C values among those with baseline A1C >or=7% (P = 0.10) and an unfavorable effect on A1C values among those with baseline A1C >or=8% (P < 0.01). Interventions did not reduce risky prescribing events or increase treatment intensification. Time to next visit was longer in all intervention groups compared with that for the control group (P < 0.05).
                Providing customized decision support to physicians and/or patients did not improve quality or safety of diabetes care and worsened A1C control in patients with baseline A1C >or=8%. Future researchers should consider providing point-of-care decision support with redesign of office systems and/or incentives to increase appropriate actions in response to decision-support information. Few meta-analyses of randomised trials assess the quality of the studies included. Yet there is increasing evidence that trial quality can affect estimates of intervention efficacy. We investigated whether different methods of quality assessment provide different estimates of intervention efficacy evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
                We randomly selected 11 meta-analyses that involved 127 RCTs on the efficacy of interventions used for circulatory and digestive diseases, mental health, and pregnancy and childbirth. We replicated all the meta-analyses using published data from the primary studies. The quality of reporting of all 127 clinical trials was assessed by means of component and scale approaches. To explore the effects of quality on the quantitative results, we examined the effects of different methods of incorporating quality scores (sensitivity analysis and quality weights) on the results of the meta-analyses.
                The quality of trials was low. Masked assessments provided significantly higher scores than unmasked assessments (mean 2.74 [SD 1.10] vs 2.55 [1.20]). Low-quality trials (score < or = 2), compared with high-quality trials (score > 2), were associated with an increased estimate of benefit of 34% (ratio of odds ratios [ROR] 0.66 [95% CI 0.52-0.83]). Trials that used inadequate allocation concealment, compared with those that used adequate methods, were also associated with an increased estimate of benefit (37%; ROR=0.63 [0.45-0.88]). The average treatment benefit was 39% (odds ratio [OR] 0.61 [0.57-0.65]) for all trials, 52% (OR 0.48 [0.43-0.54]) for low-quality trials, and 29% (OR 0.71 [0.65-0.77]) for high-quality trials. Use of all the trial scores as quality weights reduced the effects to 35% (OR 0.65 [0.59-0.71]) and resulted in the least statistical heterogeneity.
                Studies of low methodological quality in which the estimate of quality is incorporated into the meta-analyses can alter the interpretation of the benefit of intervention, whether a scale or component approach is used in the assessment of trial quality. 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. We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to prospectively assess whether use of combination antibiotic susceptibility testing improved clinical outcomes in patients with acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis who were infected with multiresistant bacteria.
                251 patients with cystic fibrosis who were chronically infected with multiresistant gram negative bacteria gave sputum at 3-month intervals for conventional culture and sensitivity tests and for combination antibiotic susceptibility tests using multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing (MCBT). Patients who developed an exacerbation of pulmonary disease were randomised to receive a 14-day course of any two blinded intravenous antibiotics chosen on the basis of either results from conventional sputum culture and sensitivity testing or the result of MCBT. The primary outcome was time from randomisation until the patient's next pulmonary exacerbation. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN60187870.
                132 patients had a pulmonary exacerbation and were randomised during the 4.5-year study period. The time to next pulmonary exacerbation was not prolonged in the MCBT-treated group (hazard ratio 0.86 in favour of the conventionally-treated group, 95% CI 0.60-1.23, p=0.40). There was no difference between the groups in treatment failure rate. After 14 days of intravenous antibiotic therapy, changes in lung function, dyspnoea, and sputum bacterial density were similar in both groups.
                Antibiotic therapy directed by combination antibiotic susceptibility testing did not result in better clinical and bacteriological outcomes compared with therapy directed by standard culture and sensitivity techniques. The non-bactericidal effects of antibiotic therapy might play an important part in determining improvement in patients with cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations.
The low methodological quality of the included studies means that results must be considered with caution. No adverse effects were reported. Nevertheless, although some studies find that the intervention had favourable effects for some outcomes, overall the studies show clinically-equivalent results between TFU and control groups. In summary, we cannot conclude that TFU is an effective intervention.