CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Detection and identification of 700 drugs by multi-target screening with a 3200 Q TRAP LC-MS/MS system and library searching

The multi-target screening method described in this work allows the simultaneous detection and identification of 700 drugs and metabolites in biological fluids using a hybrid triple-quadrupole linear ion trap mass spectrometer in a single analytical run. After standardization of the method, the retention times of 700 compounds were determined and transitions for each compound were selected by a "scheduled" survey MRM scan, followed by an information-dependent acquisition using the sensitive enhanced product ion scan of a Q TRAP hybrid instrument. The identification of the compounds in the samples analyzed was accomplished by searching the tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) spectra against the library we developed, which contains electrospray ionization-MS/MS spectra of over 1,250 compounds. The multi-target screening method together with the library was included in a software program for routine screening and quantitation to achieve automated acquisition and library searching. With the help of this software application, the time for evaluation and interpretation of the results could be drastically reduced. This new multi-target screening method has been successfully applied for the analysis of postmortem and traffic offense samples as well as proficiency testing, and complements screening with immunoassays, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and liquid chromatography-diode-array detection. Other possible applications are analysis in clinical toxicology (for intoxication cases), in psychiatry (antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs), and in forensic toxicology (drugs and driving, workplace drug testing, oral fluid analysis, drug-facilitated sexual assault).

A Minimally Invasive Technique for the Detection and Analysis of Pulmonary Fat Embolism: A Feasibility Study*

We investigated the feasibility of postmortem percutaneous needle biopsy (PNB) for obtaining pulmonary samples adequate for the study of pulmonary fat embolism (PFE). Samples of both lungs were obtained from 26 cadavers via two different methods: (i) PNB and (ii) the double-edged knife technique, the gold standard at our institute. After water storage and Sudan III staining, six forensic pathologists independently examined all samples for the presence and severity of PFE. The results were compared and analyzed in each case regarding the vitality of the PFE and its relationship to the cause of death. The results showed that PFE was almost identically diagnosed and graded on the samples obtained via both methods. The discrepancies between the two techniques did not affect the diagnoses of vitality or cause of death related to PFE. This study demonstrates the feasibility of the PNB sampling method for the diagnosis and interpretation of PFE in the postmortem setting.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

Objectives Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. Design The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. Results The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. Conclusions The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.

Antimicrobial use in Swiss dairy farms: quantification and evaluation of data quality

Data on antimicrobial use play a key role in the development of policies for the containment of antimicrobial resistance. On-farm data could provide a detailed overview of the antimicrobial use, but technical and methodological aspects of data collection and interpretation, as well as data quality need to be further assessed. The aims of this study were (1) to quantify antimicrobial use in the study population using different units of measurement and contrast the results obtained, (2) to evaluate data quality of farm records on antimicrobial use, and (3) to compare data quality of different recording systems. During 1 year, data on antimicrobial use were collected from 97 dairy farms. Antimicrobial consumption was quantified using: (1) the incidence density of antimicrobial treatments; (2) the weight of active substance; (3) the used daily dose and (4) the used course dose for antimicrobials for intestinal, intrauterine and systemic use; and (5) the used unit dose, for antimicrobials for intramammary use. Data quality was evaluated by describing completeness and accuracy of the recorded information, and by comparing farmers' and veterinarians' records. Relative consumption of antimicrobials depended on the unit of measurement: used doses reflected the treatment intensity better than weight of active substance. The use of antimicrobials classified as high priority was low, although under- and overdosing were frequently observed. Electronic recording systems allowed better traceability of the animals treated. Recording drug name or dosage often resulted in incomplete or inaccurate information. Veterinarians tended to record more drugs than farmers. The integration of veterinarian and farm data would improve data quality.

Factors influencing subjective quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders: a pooled analysis

Subjective quality of life (SQOL) is an important outcome in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia. However, there is only limited evidence on factors influencing SQOL, and little is known about whether the same factors influence SQOL in patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders. This study aimed to identify the factors associated with SQOL and test whether these factors are equally important in schizophrenia and other disorders. For this we used a pooled data set obtained from 16 studies that had used either the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile or the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life for assessing SQOL. The sample comprised 3936 patients with schizophrenia, mood disorders, and neurotic disorders. After controlling for confounding factors, within-subject clustering, and heterogeneity of findings across studies in linear mixed models, patients with schizophrenia had more favourable SQOL scores than those with mood and neurotic disorders. In all diagnostic groups, older patients, those in employment, and those with lower symptom scores had higher SQOL scores. Whilst the strength of the association between age and SQOL did not differ across diagnostic groups, symptom levels were more strongly associated with SQOL in neurotic than in mood disorders and schizophrenia. The association of employment and SQOL was stronger in mood and neurotic disorders than in schizophrenia. The findings may inform the use and interpretation of SQOL data for patients with schizophrenia.

Self-conscious emotions and depression: Rumination explains why shame, but not guilt, is maladaptive

Feelings of shame and guilt are factors associated with depression. However, studies simultaneously investigating shame and guilt suggest that only shame has a strong unique effect, although it is not yet clear which psychological processes cause shame and not shame-free guilt to be related to depression. The authors hypothesized that shame, in contrast to guilt, elicits rumination, which then leads to depression. Therefore, in this study we investigated event-related shame and guilt, event-related rumination, and depression among 149 mothers and fathers following family breakup due to marital separation. Data were analyzed using latent variable modeling. The results confirm that shame but not guilt has a strong unique effect on depression. Moreover, the results show that the effect of shame is substantially mediated by rumination. The results are discussed against the background of self-discrepancies and self-esteem.

Practical sources of error in measuring pulmonary artery occlusion pressure: a study in participants of a special intensivist training program of The Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI)

BACKGROUND: Physiological data obtained with the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) are susceptible to errors in measurement and interpretation. Little attention has been paid to the relevance of errors in hemodynamic measurements performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The aim of this study was to assess the errors related to the technical aspects (zeroing and reference level) and actual measurement (curve interpretation) of the pulmonary artery occlusion pressure (PAOP). METHODS: Forty-seven participants in a special ICU training program and 22 ICU nurses were tested without pre-announcement. All participants had previously been exposed to the clinical use of the method. The first task was to set up a pressure measurement system for PAC (zeroing and reference level) and the second to measure the PAOP. RESULTS: The median difference from the reference mid-axillary zero level was - 3 cm (-8 to + 9 cm) for physicians and -1 cm (-5 to + 1 cm) for nurses. The median difference from the reference PAOP was 0 mmHg (-3 to 5 mmHg) for physicians and 1 mmHg (-1 to 15 mmHg) for nurses. When PAOP values were adjusted for the differences from the reference transducer level, the median differences from the reference PAOP values were 2 mmHg (-6 to 9 mmHg) for physicians and 2 mmHg (-6 to 16 mmHg) for nurses. CONCLUSIONS: Measurement of the PAOP is susceptible to substantial error as a result of practical mistakes. Comparison of results between ICUs or practitioners is therefore not possible.

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 generalizability 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.

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.