Correcting non cephalic presentation with moxibustion: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND Non cephalic presentation in childbirth involves various risks to both the mother and the foetus. The incidence in Spain is 3.8% of all full-term pregnancies. The most common technique used to end the gestation in cases of non cephalic presentation is that of caesarian section, and although it provokes a lower rate of morbi-mortality than does vaginal delivery in such situations, there remains the possibility of traumatic injury to the foetal head and neck, while maternal morbidity is also increased. The application of heat (moxibustion) to an acupuncture point, in order to correct non cephalic presentation, has been practised in China since ancient times, but as yet there is insufficient evidence of its real effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN The experimental design consists of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms, used to compare real moxibustion, sham moxibustion and the natural course of events, among pregnant women with a non cephalic presentation and a gestational duration of 33-35 weeks (estimated by echography). The participants in the trial will be blinded to both interventions. The results obtained will be analyzed by professionals, blinded with respect to the allocation to the different types of intervention. In addition, we intend to carry out a economic analysis. DISCUSSION This trial will contribute to the development of evidence concerning moxibustion in the correction of non cephalic presentations. The primary outcome variable is the proportion of cephalic presentations at term. As secondary outcomes, we will evaluate the proportion of cephalic presentations at week 38 of gestation, determined by echography, together with the safety of the technique, the specificity of moxibustion and the control of the blinding process. This study has been funded by the Health Ministry of the Andalusian Regional Government. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10634508.

Evaluation of two HbA1c point-of-care analyzers.

BACKGROUND Measurement of HbA1c is the most important parameter to assess glycemic control in diabetic patients. Different point-of-care devices for HbA1c are available. The aim of this study was to evaluate two point-of-care testing (POCT) analyzers (DCA Vantage from Siemens and Afinion from Axis-Shield). We studied the bias and precision as well as interference from carbamylated hemoglobin. METHODS Bias of the POCT analyzers was obtained by measuring 53 blood samples from diabetic patients with a wide range of HbA1c, 4%-14% (20-130 mmol/mol), and comparing the results with those obtained by the laboratory method: HPLC HA 8160 Menarini. Precision was performed by 20 successive determinations of two samples with low 4.2% (22 mmol/mol) and high 9.5% (80 mmol/mol) HbA1c values. The possible interference from carbamylated hemoglobin was studied using 25 samples from patients with chronic renal failure. RESULTS The means of the differences between measurements performed by each POCT analyzer and the laboratory method (95% confidence interval) were: 0.28% (p<0.005) (0.10-0.44) for DCA and 0.27% (p<0.001) (0.19-0.35) for Afinion. Correlation coefficients were: r=0.973 for DCA, and r=0.991 for Afinion. The mean bias observed by using samples from chronic renal failure patients were 0.2 (range -0.4, 0.4) for DCA and 0.2 (-0.2, 0.5) for Afinion. Imprecision results were: CV=3.1% (high HbA1c) and 2.97% (low HbA1c) for DCA, CV=1.95% (high HbA1c) and 2.66% (low HbA1c) for Afinion. CONCLUSIONS Both POCT analyzers for HbA1c show good correlation with the laboratory method and acceptable precision.