Development and validation of a self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III).

Study design:Cross-sectional validation study.Objectives:To develop and validate a self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III).Setting:Two SCI rehabilitation facilities in Switzerland.Methods:SCIM III comprises 19 questions on daily tasks with a total score between 0 and 100 and subscales for 'self-care', 'respiration & sphincter management' and 'mobility'. A self-report version (SCIM-SR) was developed by expert discussions and pretests in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) using a German translation. A convenience sample of 99 inpatients with SCI was recruited. SCIM-SR data were analyzed together with SCIM III data obtained from attending health professionals.Results:High correlations between SCIM III and SCIM-SR were observed. Pearson's r for the total score was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.91), for the subscales self-care 0.87 (0.81-0.91); respiration & sphincter management 0.81 (0.73-0.87); and mobility 0.87 (0.82-0.91). Intraclass correlations were: total score 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.93); self-care 0.86 (0.79-0.90); respiration & sphincter management 0.80 (0.71-0.86); and mobility 0.83 (0.76-0.89). Bland-Altman plots showed that patients rated their functioning higher than professionals, in particular for mobility. The mean difference between SCIM-SR and SCIM III for the total score was 5.14 (point estimate 95% CI 2.95-7.34), self-care 0.89 (0.19-1.59), respiration & sphincter management 1.05 (0.18-2.28 ) and mobility 3.49 (2.44-4.54). Particularly patients readmitted because of pressure sores rated their independence higher than attending professionals.Conclusion:Our results support the criterion validity of SCIM-SR. The self-report version may facilitate long-term evaluations of independence in persons with SCI in their home situation.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Myocardial infarct size and mortality depend on the time of day-a large multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Different studies have shown circadian variation of ischemic burden among patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), but with controversial results. The aim of this study was to analyze circadian variation of myocardial infarction size and in-hospital mortality in a large multicenter registry. METHODS: This retrospective, registry-based study was based on data from AMIS Plus, a large multicenter Swiss registry of patients who suffered myocardial infarction between 1999 and 2013. Peak creatine kinase (CK) was used as a proxy measure for myocardial infarction size. Associations between peak CK, in-hospital mortality, and the time of day at symptom onset were modelled using polynomial-harmonic regression methods. RESULTS: 6,223 STEMI patients were admitted to 82 acute-care hospitals in Switzerland and treated with primary angioplasty within six hours of symptom onset. Only the 24-hour harmonic was significantly associated with peak CK (p = 0.0001). The maximum average peak CK value (2,315 U/L) was for patients with symptom onset at 23:00, whereas the minimum average (2,017 U/L) was for onset at 11:00. The amplitude of variation was 298 U/L. In addition, no correlation was observed between ischemic time and circadian peak CK variation. Of the 6,223 patients, 223 (3.58%) died during index hospitalization. Remarkably, only the 24-hour harmonic was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. The risk of death from STEMI was highest for patients with symptom onset at 00:00 and lowest for those with onset at 12:00. DISCUSSION: As a part of this first large study of STEMI patients treated with primary angioplasty in Swiss hospitals, investigations confirmed a circadian pattern to both peak CK and in-hospital mortality which were independent of total ischemic time. Accordingly, this study proposes that symptom onset time be incorporated as a prognosis factor in patients with myocardial infarction.

Delayed diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke in children - a registry-based study in Switzerland.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY/PRINCIPLES: After arterial ischemic stroke (AIS) an early diagnosis helps preserve treatment options that are no longer available later. Paediatric AIS is difficult to diagnose and often the time to diagnosis exceeds the time window of 6 hours defined for thrombolysis in adults. We investigated the delay from the onset of symptoms to AIS diagnosis in children and potential contributing factors. METHODS: We included children with AIS below 16 years from the population-based Swiss Neuropaediatric Stroke Registry (2000-2006). We evaluated the time between initial medical evaluation for stroke signs/symptoms and diagnosis, risk factors, co-morbidities and imaging findings. RESULTS: A total of 91 children (61 boys), with a median age of 5.3 years (range: 0.2-16.2), were included. The time to diagnosis (by neuro-imaging) was <6 hours in 32 (35%), 6-12 hours in 23 (25%), 12-24 hours in 15 (16%) and >24 hours in 21 (23%) children. Of 74 children not hospitalised when the stroke occurred, 42% had adequate outpatient management. Delays in diagnosis were attributed to: parents/caregivers (n = 20), physicians of first referral (n = 5) and tertiary care hospitals (n = 8). A co-morbidity hindered timely diagnosis in eight children. No other factors were associated with delay to diagnosis. A total of 17 children were inpatients at AIS onset. CONCLUSIONS: One-third of children with AIS were diagnosed within six hours. Diagnostic delay was predominately caused by insufficient recognition of stroke symptoms. Increased public and expert awareness and immediate access to diagnostic imaging are essential. The ability of parents/caregivers and health professionals to recognise stroke symptoms in a child needs to be improved.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION: Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.

Thrombolyse bei tiefer Venenthrombose? [Thrombolytic therapy in deep venous thrombosis?]

Sie sehen eine 45-jährige Patientin mit einem bläulich-zyanotischen rechten Bein. Vor fünf Tagen habe ein Spannungsschmerz in der Wade begonnen und sich zunehmend in den Oberschenkel hochgezogen. Die rechte Wade misst im Umfang 4 cm mehr als die linke. Die Anamnese ergibt keine familiäre oder persönliche Vorgeschichte einer thromboembolischen Erkrankung. Die Patientin ist übergewichtig ( BMI 35 kg/m2) und nimmt seit einigen Jahren eine Östrogen-Progesteron-Kombination. Der Ultraschall zeigt eine Thrombose der tiefen Beinvenen, die bis in die äussere Beckenvene reicht.

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted.

Hydrokolloid bei diabetischen Fussulzera: besser als herkömmliche Wundverbände

Sie betreuen einen 82-jährigen Typ-2-Diabetiker mit einer 1 cm grossen Wunde an der Grosszehe. Der Patient hat sich geschnitten, als er Hornhaut entfernte. Die Wunde vergrössert sich seither stetig und sondert Flüssigkeit ab. Die Wundumgebung ist hyperkeratotisch, aufgeweicht, leicht fibrinös und feucht. Weder ist Kontakt zum darunterliegenden Knochen vorhanden noch gibt es Infektionszeichen. Der Patient ist für eine Neuropathie und Veneninsuffizienz bekannt; die Fusspulse sind spürbar. Seine Blutzuckerwerte sind stabil, der HbA1c-Wert liegt bei 7,5%. Er möchte die Wunde selbst weiter versorgen und sich regelmässig duschen können.