Chronic hepatitis B: A critical appraisal of current approaches to therapy

Background & Aims: Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) involves a number of complex and controversial issues. Expert opinions may differ from those of practicing hepatologists and gastroenterologists. We aimed to explore this issue further after a critical review of the literature. Methods: A panel of 14 international experts graded the strength of evidence for 16 statements addressing 3 content areas: patient selection, therapeutic end points, and treatment options. Available data relating to the statements were reviewed critically in 3 small work groups. After discussion of each statement with the entire panel, the experts voted anonymously to accept or reject statements based on the strength of evidence and their experience. A total of 241 members of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) responded to the same statements and their responses were compared with those of the experts. A discordant response was defined as a difference of more than 20% in any of the 5 graded levels of response (accept or reject) between the 2 groups. Results: With the exception of 2 statements, the experts’ responses were relatively uniform. However, the responses of the AASLD members were discordant from the experts in 12 statements, spanning all 3 content areas. Conclusions: Several areas of disagreement on the management of CHB exist between experts and AASLD members. Our results indicate a potential knowledge gap among practicing hepatologists. Better educational efforts are needed to meet the challenge of managing this complex disorder in which even expert opinion occasionally may disagree.

Appraising the quality of randomized controlled trials: inter-rater reliability for the OTseeker evidence database

Rationale and aims 'OTseeker' is an online database of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews relevant to occupational therapy. RCTs are critically appraised and rated for quality using the 'PEDro' scale. We aimed to investigate the inter-rater reliability of the PEDro scale before and after revising rating guidelines. Methods In study 1, five raters scored 100 RCTs using the original PEDro scale guidelines. In study 2, two raters scored 40 different RCTs using revised guidelines. All RCTs were randomly selected from the OTseeker database. Reliability was calculated using Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC (model 2,1)]. Results Inter-rater reliability was 'good to excellent' in the first study (Kappas >= 0.53; ICCs >= 0.71). After revising the rating guidelines, the reliability levels were equivalent or higher to those previously obtained (Kappas >= 0.53; ICCs >= 0.89), except for the item, 'groups similar at baseline', which still had moderate reliability (Kappa = 0.53). In study 2, two PEDro scale items, which had their definitions revised, 'less than 15% dropout' and 'point measures and variability', showed higher reliability. In both studies, the PEDro items with the lowest reliability were 'groups similar at baseline' (Kappas = 0.53), 'less than 15% dropout' (Kappas

Is modern medicine at risk of losing the plot?

Contemporary medicine has much to its credit, but has created an insatiable demand for new technologies and more health services, fed by commercial promotion, professional advocacy and sociopolitical pressure. Total health expenditure at the national level is now almost 10% of gross domestic product and is expected to top 16% by 2020. After recent inquiries into the failings of its public health system, the Queensland Government has committed itself to a 25% increase in expenditure on health over the next 5 years. But will it lead to better population health, and is it sustainable? The return-on-investment curve for modern health care may be flattening out, in an environment of growing numbers of older patients with chronic illnesses, maldistribution of services and hospital overcrowding. A change in thinking is required if current medical practice is to avoid imploding when confronted with the next major economic downturn. Health policy, service funding and clinical training must focus on critical appraisal of the effectiveness of health care technologies and the structure and financing of health care systems. Practising clinicians will be obliged to provide leadership in determining value for money in the choice of health care for specific patient populations and how that care is delivered.

Intensive case management: A critical re-appraisal of the scientific evidence for effectiveness

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is widely claimed to be an evidence-based and cost effective program for people with high levels of disability as a result of mental illness. However, the findings of recent randomized controlled trials comparing ICM with 'usual services' suggest that both clinical and cost effectiveness of ICM may be weakening. Possible reasons for this, including fidelity of implementation, researcher allegiance effects and changes in the wider service environment within which ICM is provided, are considered. The implications for service delivery and research are discussed.