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 Published and unpublished projects will be included.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A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses.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

Partnership for fragility bone fracture care provision and prevention program (P4Bones): study protocol for a secondary fracture prevention pragmatic controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Fractures associated with bone fragility in older adults signal the potential for secondary fracture. Fragility fractures often precipitate further decline in health and loss of mobility, with high associated costs for patients, families, society and the healthcare system. Promptly initiating a coordinated, comprehensive pharmacological bone health and falls prevention program post-fracture may improve osteoporosis treatment compliance; and reduce rates of falls and secondary fractures, and associated morbidity, mortality and costs.Methods/design: This pragmatic, controlled trial at 11 hospital sites in eight regions in Quebec, Canada, will recruit community-dwelling patients over age 50 who have sustained a fragility fracture to an intervention coordinated program or to standard care, according to the site. Site study coordinators will identify and recruit 1,596 participants for each study arm. Coordinators at intervention sites will facilitate continuity of care for bone health, and arrange fall prevention programs including physical exercise. The intervention teams include medical bone specialists, primary care physicians, pharmacists, nurses, rehabilitation clinicians, and community program organizers.The primary outcome of this study is the incidence of secondary fragility fractures within an 18-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include initiation and compliance with bone health medication; time to first fall and number of clinically significant falls; fall-related hospitalization and mortality; physical activity; quality of life; fragility fracture-related costs; admission to a long term care facility; participants' perceptions of care integration, expectations and satisfaction with the program; and participants' compliance with the fall prevention program. Finally, professionals at intervention sites will participate in focus groups to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integrated fragility fracture prevention program.This integrated program will facilitate knowledge translation and dissemination via the following: involvement of various collaborators during the development and set-up of the integrated program; distribution of pamphlets about osteoporosis and fall prevention strategies to primary care physicians in the intervention group and patients in the control group; participation in evaluation activities; and eventual dissemination of study results.Study/trial registration: Clinical Trial.Gov NCT01745068Study ID number: CIHR grant # 267395.

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.

A pilot feasibility, safety and biological efficacy multicentre trial of therapeutic hypercapnia after cardiac arrest: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest causes ischaemic brain injury. Arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) is a major determinant of cerebral blood flow. Thus, mild hypercapnia in the 24 h following cardiac arrest may increase cerebral blood flow and attenuate such injury. We describe the Carbon Control and Cardiac Arrest (CCC) trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The CCC trial is a pilot multicentre feasibility, safety and biological efficacy randomized controlled trial recruiting adult cardiac arrest patients admitted to the intensive care unit after return of spontaneous circulation. At admission, using concealed allocation, participants are randomized to 24 h of either normocapnia (PaCO2 35 to 45 mmHg) or mild hypercapnia (PaCO2 50 to 55 mmHg). Key feasibility outcomes are recruitment rate and protocol compliance rate. The primary biological efficacy and biological safety measures are the between-groups difference in serum neuron-specific enolase and S100b protein levels at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. Secondary outcome measure include adverse events, in-hospital mortality, and neurological assessment at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The trial commenced in December 2012 and, when completed, will provide clinical evidence as to whether targeting mild hypercapnia for 24 h following intensive care unit admission for cardiac arrest patients is feasible and safe and whether it results in decreased concentrations of neurological injury biomarkers compared with normocapnia. Trial results will also be used to determine whether a phase IIb study powered for survival at 90 days is feasible and justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000690853 .

Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Patient safety is a major concern in healthcare systems worldwide. Although most safety research has been conducted in the inpatient setting, evidence indicates that medical errors and adverse events are a threat to patients in the primary care setting as well. Since information about the frequency and outcomes of safety incidents in primary care is required, the goals of this study are to describe the type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents in primary care in Switzerland and to elucidate possible risk factors for medication incidents. Label="METHODS AND ANALYSIS" ="METHODS"/> <AbstractText STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We will conduct a prospective surveillance study to identify cases of medication incidents among primary care patients in Switzerland over the course of the year 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing drug treatment by 167 general practitioners or paediatricians reporting to the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any erroneous event, as defined by the physician, related to the medication process and interfering with normal treatment course. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Lack of treatment effect, adverse drug reactions or drug-drug or drug-disease interactions without detectable treatment error. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Medication incidents. RISK FACTORS: Age, gender, polymedication, morbidity, care dependency, hospitalisation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics to assess type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents and logistic regression to assess their association with potential risk factors. Estimated sample size: 500 medication incidents. LIMITATIONS: We will take into account under-reporting and selective reporting among others as potential sources of bias or imprecision when interpreting the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal request was necessary because of fully anonymised data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0229537.

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.

Cost evaluation and comparison of three decision strategies for cardiac revascularization : results of the suspected CAD protocol of the European CMR registry

Background: The public health burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is important. Perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is generally accepted to detect and monitor CAD. Few studies have so far addressed its costs and costeffectiveness. Objectives: To compare in a large CMR registry the costs of a CMR-guided strategy vs two hypothetical invasive strategies for the diagnosis and the treatment of patients with suspected CAD. Methods: In 3'647 patients with suspected CAD included prospectively in the EuroCMR Registry (59 centers; 18 countries) costs were calculated for diagnostic examinations, revascularizations as well as for complication management over a 1-year follow-up. Patients with ischemia-positive CMR underwent an invasive X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) and revascularization at the discretion of the treating physician (=CMR+CXA strategy). Ischemia was found in 20.9% of patients and 17.4% of them were revascularized. In ischemia-negative patients by CMR, cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarctions occurred in 0.38%/y. In a hypothetical invasive arm the costs were calculated for an initial CXA followed by FFR testing in vessels with ≥50% diameter stenoses (=CXA+FFR strategy). To model this hypothetical arm, the same proportion of ischemic patients and outcome was assumed as for the CMR+CXA strategy. The coronary stenosis - FFR relationship reported in the literature was used to derive the proportion of patients with ≥50% diameter stenoses (Psten) in the study cohort. The costs of a CXA-only strategy were also calculated. Calculations were performed from a third payer perspective for the German, UK, Swiss, and US healthcare systems.

Multimorbidity in primary care : protocol of a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: With the ageing of the population and the general improvement of care, an increasing number of people are living with multiple chronic health conditions or 'multimorbidity'. Multimorbidity often implies multiple medical treatments. As a consequence, the risk of adverse events and the time spent by patients for their treatments increase exponentially. In many cases, treatment guidelines traditionally defined for single conditions are not easily applicable. Primary care for individuals with multimorbidity requires complex patient-centred care and good communication between the patient and the general practitioner (GP). This often includes prioritising among the different chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The main objectives of this study are to describe the burden related to multimorbidity (disease-related burden and burden of treatment) in primary care and to identify the factors influencing it. Other objectives include evaluating patients' perception of treatment burden and quality of life, assessing factors influencing that perception, and investigating prioritisation in the management of multimorbidity from the perspectives of GPs and patients. For this cross-sectional study, patient enrolment will take place in GP's private practices across Switzerland. A convenient sample of 100 GPs will participate; overall, 1000 patients with at least three chronic health conditions will be enrolled. Data will be collected as paper-based questionnaires for GPs and delayed telephone interview questionnaires for patients. GPs will provide demographic and practice-related data. In addition, each GP will complete a paper-based questionnaire for each patient that they enrol. Each patient will complete a telephone interview questionnaire. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the research ethics committee of Canton Vaud, Switzerland (Protocol 315/14). The results of the study will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.