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.

Pre-hospital tracheal intubation in patients with traumatic brain injury: systematic review of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed the current evidence on the benefit and harm of pre-hospital tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2007 without language restriction to identify interventional and observational studies comparing pre-hospital intubation with other airway management (e.g. bag-valve-mask or oxygen administration) in patients with TBI. Information on study design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by two investigators and cross-checked by two others. Seventeen studies were included with data for 15,335 patients collected from 1985 to 2004. There were 12 retrospective analyses of trauma registries or hospital databases, three cohort studies, one case-control study, and one controlled trial. Using Brain Trauma Foundation classification of evidence, there were 14 class 3 studies, three class 2 studies, and no class 1 study. Six studies were of adults, five of children, and three of both; age groups were unclear in three studies. Maximum follow-up was up to 6 months or hospital discharge. RESULTS: In 13 studies, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for an effect of pre-hospital intubation on in-hospital mortality ranged from 0.17 (favouring control interventions) to 2.43 (favouring pre-hospital intubation); adjusted ORs ranged from 0.24 to 1.42. Estimates for functional outcomes after TBI were equivocal. Three studies indicated higher risk of pneumonia associated with pre-hospital (when compared with in-hospital) intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the available evidence did not support any benefit from pre-hospital intubation and mechanical ventilation after TBI. Additional arguments need to be taken into account, including medical and procedural aspects.

Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien [Assessment of risk of bias in controlled studies].

BACKGROUND: Practicing physicians are faced with many medical decisions daily. These are mainly influenced by personal experience but should also consider patient preferences and the scientific evidence reflected by a constantly increasing number of medical publications and guidelines. With the objective of optimal medical treatment, the concept of evidence-based medicine is founded on these three aspects. It should be considered that there is a high risk of misinterpreting evidence, leading to medical errors and adverse effects without knowledge of the methodological background. OBJECTIVES: This article explains the concept of systematic error (bias) and its importance. Causes and effects as well as methods to minimize bias are discussed. This information should impart a deeper understanding, leading to a better assessment of studies and implementation of its recommendations in daily medical practice. CONCLUSION: Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the risk of bias (RoB) tool is an assessment instrument for the potential of bias in controlled trials. Good handling, short processing time, high transparency of judgements and a graphical presentation of findings that is easily comprehensible are among its strengths. Attached to this article the German translation of the RoB tool is published. This should facilitate the applicability for non-experts and moreover, support evidence-based medical decision-making.

Fate of clinical research studies after ethical approval--follow-up of study protocols until publication.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical studies are ultimately not fully published in peer-reviewed journals. Underreporting of clinical research is wasteful and can result in biased estimates of treatment effect or harm, leading to recommendations that are inappropriate or even dangerous. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of clinical studies approved 2000-2002 by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany. Published full articles were searched in electronic databases and investigators contacted. Data on study characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. We characterized the cohort, quantified its publication outcome and compared protocols and publications for selected aspects. RESULTS: Of 917 approved studies, 807 were started and 110 were not, either locally or as a whole. Of the started studies, 576 (71%) were completed according to protocol, 128 (16%) discontinued and 42 (5%) are still ongoing; for 61 (8%) there was no information about their course. We identified 782 full publications corresponding to 419 of the 807 initiated studies; the publication proportion was 52% (95% CI: 0.48-0.55). Study design was not significantly associated with subsequent publication. Multicentre status, international collaboration, large sample size and commercial or non-commercial funding were positively associated with subsequent publication. Commercial funding was mentioned in 203 (48%) protocols and in 205 (49%) of the publications. In most published studies (339; 81%) this information corresponded between protocol and publication. Most studies were published in English (367; 88%); some in German (25; 6%) or both languages (27; 6%). The local investigators were listed as (co-)authors in the publications corresponding to 259 (62%) studies. CONCLUSION: Half of the clinical research conducted at a large German university medical centre remains unpublished; future research is built on an incomplete database. Research resources are likely wasted as neither health care professionals nor patients nor policy makers can use the results when making decisions.

Learning from failure - rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study).

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be discontinued because of apparent harm, benefit, or futility. Other RCTs are discontinued early because of insufficient recruitment. Trial discontinuation has ethical implications, because participants consent on the premise of contributing to new medical knowledge, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) spend considerable effort reviewing study protocols, and limited resources for conducting research are wasted. Currently, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of discontinued RCTs. METHODS/DESIGN: Our aims are, first, to determine the prevalence of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons; second, to determine whether the risk of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons differs between investigator- and industry-initiated RCTs; third, to identify risk factors for RCT discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment; fourth, to determine at what stage RCTs are discontinued; and fifth, to examine the publication history of discontinued RCTs.We are currently assembling a multicenter cohort of RCTs based on protocols approved between 2000 and 2002/3 by 6 RECs in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. We are extracting data on RCT characteristics and planned recruitment for all included protocols. Completion and publication status is determined using information from correspondence between investigators and RECs, publications identified through literature searches, or by contacting the investigators. We will use multivariable regression models to identify risk factors for trial discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment. We aim to include over 1000 RCTs of which an anticipated 150 will have been discontinued due to insufficient recruitment. DISCUSSION: Our study will provide insights into the prevalence and characteristics of RCTs that were discontinued. Effective recruitment strategies and the anticipation of problems are key issues in the planning and evaluation of trials by investigators, Clinical Trial Units, RECs and funding agencies. Identification and modification of barriers to successful study completion at an early stage could help to reduce the risk of trial discontinuation, save limited resources, and enable RCTs to better meet their ethical requirements.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.