To differentiate complementary mri sequences to standard protocol in detecting degenerative inflammatory lumbar spine lesions

Purpose: To compare the additional informations obtainedwith axial and sagittal T2 weighted with fat saturation(T2FS) and T1 weighted with Gadolinium iv sequenceswith fat saturation (T1FSGd) to detect degenerativeinflammatory lumbar spine lesions.Materials and Methods: Our retrospective study included73 patients (365 lumbar levels) with lumbar spinedegenerative disease (25 males, 48 females, mean age56 years). MRI protocol was performed with T1 and T2weighted sagittal and T2 weighted axial sequences(standard protocol), axial and sagittal T2FS and T1FSGd.Images were independently analyzed by two musculoskeletalradiologists and a neurosurgeon. Two groups ofsequences were analyzed: standard + T2FS sequences(group 1), standard + T1FSGd sequences (group 2).Degenerative inflammatory lumbar spine lesions werenoted at each level in: anterior column (vertebralendplate), spinal canal (epidural and peri-radicular fat)and posterior column (facet joint with capsular recessand subchondral bone).Results: Degenerative inflammatory lesions were present in18% (66/365) of levels in group 1, and 48% (175/365) oflevels in group 2. In details, lesions were noted in group 1 and2 respectively:-in 44 and 66 levels for anterior column,-in22 and 131 levels for posterior column,-in 0 and 36 levelsfor spinal canal. All these differences were statisticallysignificant. Intra and Interobserver agreements were good.Conclusion: The T1FSGd sequence is more sensitive thanT2FS to show the degenerative inflammatory lumbar spinelesions, especially in spinal canal and posterior column.

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts.Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time).Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists' best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention's effects.As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:â-ª To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).â-ª To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure). METHODS/DESIGN: Inclusion criteria: Methodological research projects of a cohort of meta-analyses which compare the effect of the inclusion or exclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature.Literature search: To identify relevant research projects we will conduct electronic searches in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library; check reference lists; and contact experts.Outcomes: 1) The extent to which the effect estimate in a meta-analyses changes with the inclusion or exclusion of studies that were not published or published in the gray literature; and 2) the extent to which the inclusion of unpublished studies impacts the meta-analyses' conclusions.Data collection: Information will be collected on the area of health care; the number of meta-analyses included in the methodological research project; the number of studies included in the meta-analyses; the number of study participants; the number and type of unpublished studies; studies published in the gray literature and published studies; the sources used to retrieve studies that are unpublished, published in the gray literature, or commercially published; and the validity of the methodological research project.Data synthesis: Data synthesis will involve descriptive and statistical summaries of the findings of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in the middle of 2013.

Cost evaluation and comparison of three decision strategies to revascularize : results of the suspected CAD protocol of the european CMR registry

Background: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is accepted as a method to assess suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). Nonetheless, invasive coronary angiography (CXA) combined or not with fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains the main diagnostic test to evaluate CAD. Little data exist on the economic impact of the use of these procedures in a population with a low to intermediate pre-test probability. Objective: To compare the costs of 3 decision strategies to revascularize a patient with suspected CAD: 1) strategy guided by CMR 2) hypothetical strategy guided by CXA-FFR, 3) hypothetical strategy guided by CXA alone.

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: âeuro¢To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. âeuro¢To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. âeuro¢To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows:âeuro¢ To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.âeuro¢ To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/DESIGN: As part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.

CoDiab-VD: protocol of a prospective population-based cohort study on diabetes care in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes represents an increasing health burden worldwide. In 2010, the Public Health Department of the canton of Vaud (Switzerland) launched a regional diabetes programme entitled "Programme cantonal Diabète" (PcD), with the objectives to both decrease the incidence of diabetes and improve care for patients with diabetes. The cohort entitled CoDiab-VD emerged from that programme. It specifically aimed at following quality of diabetes care over time, at evaluating the coverage of the PcD within this canton and at assessing the impact of the PcD on care of patients with diabetes. METHODS/DESIGN: The cohort CoDiab-VD is a prospective population-based cohort study. Patients with diabetes were recruited in two waves (autumn 2011--summer 2012) through community pharmacies. Eligible participants were non-institutionalised adult patients (≥ 18 years) with diabetes diagnosed for at least one year, residing in the canton of Vaud and coming to a participating pharmacy with a diabetes-related prescription. Women with gestational diabetes, people with obvious cognitive impairment or insufficient command of French were not eligible. Self-reported data collected, included the following primary outcomes: processes-of-care indicators (annual checks) and outcomes of care such as HbA1C, (health-related) quality of life measures (Short Form-12 Health Survey--SF-12, Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life 19--ADDQoL) and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). Data on diabetes, health status, healthcare utilisation, health behaviour, self-management activities and support, knowledge of, or participation to, campaigns/activities proposed by the PcD, and socio-demographics were also obtained. For consenting participants, physicians provided few additional pieces of information about processes and laboratory results. Participants will be followed once a year, via a mailed self-report questionnaire. The core of the follow-up questionnaires will be similar to the baseline one, with the addition of thematic modules adapting to the development of the PcD. Physicians will be contacted every 2 years. DISCUSSION: CoDiab-VD will allow obtaining a broad picture of the care of patients with diabetes, as well as their needs regarding their chronic condition. The data will be used to evaluate the PcD and help prioritise targeted actions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01902043, July 9, 2013.

Traumatic injuries after mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (LUCAS?2): a forensic autopsy study.

AIM: The aim of our study was to compare traumatic injuries observed after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by means of standard (manual) or assisted (mechanical) chest compression by Lund University Cardiopulmonary Assist System, 2nd generation (LUCAS?2) device. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including cases from 2011 to 2013, analysing consecutive autopsy reports in two groups of patients who underwent medicolegal autopsy after unsuccessful CPR. We focused on traumatic injuries from dermal to internal trauma, collecting data according to a standardised protocol. RESULTS: The study group was comprised of 26 cases, while 32 cases were included in the control group. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed by LUCAS?2 was longer than manual CPR performed in control cases (study group: mean duration 51.5 min; controls 29.4 min; p201;=201;0.004). Anterior chest lesions (from bruises to abrasions) were described in 18/26 patients in the LUCAS?2 group and in 6/32 of the control group. A mean of 6.6 rib fractures per case was observed in the LUCAS?2 group, but this was only 3.1 in the control group (p201;=201;0.007). Rib fractures were less frequently observed in younger patients. The frequency of sternal factures was similar in both groups. A few trauma injuries to internal organs (mainly cardiac, pulmonary and hepatic bruises), and some petechiae (study 46 %; control 41 %; p201;=201;0.79) were recorded in both groups. CONCLUSION: LUCAS?2-CPR is associated with more rib fractures than standard CPR. Typical round concentric skin lesions were observed in cases of mechanical reanimation. No life-threatening injuries were reported. Petechiae were common findings.

PERC rule to exclude the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in emergency low-risk patients: study protocol for the PROPER randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) is crucial. As emergency physicians fear missing this potential life-threatening condition, PE tends to be over-investigated, exposing patients to unnecessary risks and uncertain benefit in terms of outcome. The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) is an eight-item block of clinical criteria that can identify patients who can safely be discharged from the ED without further investigation for PE. The endorsement of this rule could markedly reduce the number of irradiative imaging studies, ED length of stay, and rate of adverse events resulting from both diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Several retrospective and prospective studies have shown the safety and benefits of the PERC rule for PE diagnosis in low-risk patients, but the validity of this rule is still controversial. We hypothesize that in European patients with a low gestalt clinical probability and who are PERC-negative, PE can be safely ruled out and the patient discharged without further testing. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a controlled, cluster randomized trial, in 15 centers in France. Each center will be randomized for the sequence of intervention periods: a 6-month intervention period (PERC-based strategy) followed by a 6-month control period (usual care), or in reverse order, with 2 months of "wash-out" between the 2 periods. Adult patients presenting to the ED with a suspicion of PE and a low pre test probability estimated by clinical gestalt will be eligible. The primary outcome is the percentage of failure resulting from the diagnostic strategy, defined as diagnosed venous thromboembolic events at 3-month follow-up, among patients for whom PE has been initially ruled out. DISCUSSION: The PERC rule has the potential to decrease the number of irradiative imaging studies in the ED, and is reported to be safe. However, no randomized study has ever validated the safety of PERC. Furthermore, some studies have challenged the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule-out PE, especially in Europe where the prevalence of PE diagnosed in the ED is high. The PROPER study should provide high-quality evidence to settle this issue. If it confirms the safety of the PERC rule, physicians will be able to reduce the number of investigations, associated subsequent adverse events, costs, and ED length of stay for patients with a low clinical probability of PE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02375919 .