[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

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.

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.

Joint lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee

Background Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disorder and a leading cause of pain and physical disability. Observational studies suggested a benefit for joint lavage, but recent, sham-controlled trials yielded conflicting results, suggesting joint lavage not to be effective. Objectives To compare joint lavage with sham intervention, placebo or non-intervention control in terms of effects on pain, function and safety outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL up to 3 August 2009, checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. Selection criteria We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised trials that compared arthroscopic and non-arthroscopic joint lavage with a control intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. We did not apply any language restrictions. Data collection and analysis Two independent review authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. Main results We included seven trials with 567 patients. Three trials examined arthroscopic joint lavage, two non-arthroscopic joint lavage and two tidal irrigation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and we identified a moderate to large degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 65%). We found little evidence for a benefit of joint lavage in terms of pain relief at three months (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.21), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between joint lavage and control of 0.3 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Results for improvement in function at three months were similar (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.11), corresponding to a difference in function scores between joint lavage and control of 0.2 cm on a WOMAC disability sub-scale from 0 to 10. For pain, estimates of effect sizes varied to some degree depending on the type of lavage, but this variation was likely to be explained by differences in the credibility of control interventions: trials using sham interventions to closely mimic the process of joint lavage showed a null-effect. Reporting on adverse events and drop out rates was unsatisfactory, and we were unable to draw conclusions for these secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions Joint lavage does not result in a relevant benefit for patients with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain relief or improvement of function.

Critical incident monitoring in paediatric and adult critical care: from reporting to improved patient outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.

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.

'New perspectives on well-known issues': patients' experiences and perceptions of safety in Swiss hospitals

Patients' reports of safety-related events and perceptions of safety can be a valuable source for hospitals. Patients of eight acute care hospitals in Switzerland were surveyed for safety-related events and concerns for safety. In workshops with hospitals areas for improvement were analyzed and priorities for change identified. To evaluate the benefit of the approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted with hospital risk managers. 3,983 patients returned the survey (55% response rate). 21.4% reported at least one definite safety event, and the mean number of 'definite' incidents per patient was 0.31 (95% CI=0.29 to 0.34). 3.2% were very concerned and 14.7% were somewhat concerned about medical errors and safety. Having experienced a safety-related event, younger age, length of stay, poor health and a poor education increased the probability of reporting concerns. With some exceptions, results confirmed the hospitals' a priori expectations regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their institutions. Risk managers emphasized the usability of results for their work and the special value of referring to the patient's perspective at their home institutions. A considerable fraction of patients subjectively experiences safety-related events and is concerned about safety. Patient-generated data introduced a new quality into the discussion of safety issues within hospitals, and some expected that patients' experiences and concerns could affect patient volumes. Though the study is limited by the short time horizon and the lack of follow-up, the results suggest that the described approach is feasible and can serve as a supplemental tool for risk identification and management.

[Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) in the canton of Jura: an epidemiological outbreak investigation]

Following an abortion in a beef herd in the summer of 2009, three outbreaks of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) were diagnosed in the cantons of Jura and Neuchatel. An epidemiological outbreak investigation was conducted with the aims to identify the source of introduction of the bovine herpes virus 1 (BoHV-1) into the affected herds and to prevent further spread of the disease. The attack rates in the three outbreak farms were 0.89, 0.28 and 0, respectively. BoHV-1 could be isolated from nasal swabs of two animals originating from one of the affected farms. Comparative restriction enzyme analysis revealed slight differences between the isolates of the two animals, but a high similarity to previous BoHV-1 isolates from the canton of Jura, as well as to a French BoHV-1 isolate. This IBR outbreak has shown the importance of reporting and analyzing abortions. The current disease outbreaks recall the main risk factors for the spread of IBR in Switzerland: purchase and movement of bovines and semen of often unknown IBR status.

S-Adenosylmethionine for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and disability in the elderly. S-Adenosylmethionine may be a viable treatment option but the evidence about its effectiveness and safety is equivocal. OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) with placebo or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and function and safety outcomes in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared SAMe at any dosage and in any formulation with placebo or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent authors extracted data using standardised forms. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and function, and relative risks for safety outcomes. We combined trials using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Four trials including 656 patients were included in the systematic review, all compared SAMe with placebo. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting were poor. For pain, the analysis indicated a small SMD of -0.17 (95% CI -0.34 to 0.01), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between SAMe and placebo of 0.4 cm on a 10 cm VAS, with no between trial heterogeneity (I(2) = 0). For function, the analysis suggested a SMD of 0.02 (95% CI -0.68 to 0.71) with a moderate degree of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 = 54%). The meta-analyses of the number of patients experiencing any adverse event, and withdrawals or drop-outs due to adverse events, resulted in relative risks of 1.27 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.71) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.86), respectively, but confidence intervals were wide and tests for overall effect were not significant. No trial provided information concerning the occurrence of serious adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of mainly small trials of questionable quality. The effects of SAMe on both pain and function may be potentially clinically relevant and, although effects are expected to be small, deserve further clinical evaluation in adequately sized randomised, parallel-group trials in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. Meanwhile, routine use of SAMe should not be advised.

Transcutaneous electrostimulation for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in the elderly. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), interferential current stimulation and pulsed electrostimulation are used widely to control both acute and chronic pain arising from several conditions, but some policy makers regard efficacy evidence as insufficient. OBJECTIVES: To compare transcutaneous electrostimulation with sham or no specific intervention in terms of effects on pain and withdrawals due to adverse events in patients with knee osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the search in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro up to 5 August 2008, checked conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared transcutaneously applied electrostimulation with a sham intervention or no intervention in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using standardised forms and contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. Main outcomes were pain and withdrawals or dropouts due to adverse events. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) for pain and relative risks for safety outcomes and used inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. The analysis of pain was based on predicted estimates from meta-regression using the standard error as explanatory variable. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified 14 additional trials resulting in the inclusion of 18 small trials in 813 patients. Eleven trials used TENS, four interferential current stimulation, one both TENS and interferential current stimulation, and two pulsed electrostimulation. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting was poor and a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I(2) = 80%) was revealed. The funnel plot for pain was asymmetrical (P < 0.001). The predicted SMD of pain intensity in trials as large as the largest trial was -0.07 (95% CI -0.46 to 0.32), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between electrostimulation and control of 0.2 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. There was little evidence that SMDs differed on the type of electrostimulation (P = 0.94). The relative risk of being withdrawn or dropping out due to adverse events was 0.97 (95% CI 0.2 to 6.0). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we could not confirm that transcutaneous electrostimulation is effective for pain relief. The current systematic review is inconclusive, hampered by the inclusion of only small trials of questionable quality. Appropriately designed trials of adequate power are warranted.

Surgical glove perforation and the risk of surgical site infection

HYPOTHESIS: Clinically apparent surgical glove perforation increases the risk of surgical site infection (SSI). DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: University Hospital Basel, with an average of 28,000 surgical interventions per year. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive series of 4147 surgical procedures performed in the Visceral Surgery, Vascular Surgery, and Traumatology divisions of the Department of General Surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was SSI occurrence as assessed pursuant to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention standards. The primary predictor variable was compromised asepsis due to glove perforation. RESULTS: The overall SSI rate was 4.5% (188 of 4147 procedures). Univariate logistic regression analysis showed a higher likelihood of SSI in procedures in which gloves were perforated compared with interventions with maintained asepsis (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.8; P < .001). However, multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that the increase in SSI risk with perforated gloves was different for procedures with vs those without surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis (test for effect modification, P = .005). Without antimicrobial prophylaxis, glove perforation entailed significantly higher odds of SSI compared with the reference group with no breach of asepsis (adjusted OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.7-10.8; P = .003). On the contrary, when surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis was applied, the likelihood of SSI was not significantly higher for operations in which gloves were punctured (adjusted OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.9-1.9; P = .26). CONCLUSION: Without surgical antimicrobial prophylaxis, glove perforation increases the risk of SSI.

Potential clinical utility of polymerase chain reaction in microbiological testing for sepsis

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential improvement of antimicrobial treatment by utilizing a new multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay that identifies sepsis-relevant microorganisms in blood. DESIGN: Prospective, observational international multicentered trial. SETTING: University hospitals in Germany (n = 2), Spain (n = 1), and the United States (n = 1), and one Italian tertiary general hospital. PATIENTS: 436 sepsis patients with 467 episodes of antimicrobial treatment. METHODS: Whole blood for PCR and blood culture (BC) analysis was sampled independently for each episode. The potential impact of reporting microorganisms by PCR on adequacy and timeliness of antimicrobial therapy was analyzed. The number of gainable days on early adequate antimicrobial treatment attributable to PCR findings was assessed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sepsis criteria, days on antimicrobial therapy, antimicrobial substances administered, and microorganisms identified by PCR and BC susceptibility tests. RESULTS: BC diagnosed 117 clinically relevant microorganisms; PCR identified 154. Ninety-nine episodes were BC positive (BC+); 131 episodes were PCR positive (PCR+). Overall, 127.8 days of clinically inadequate empirical antibiotic treatment in the 99 BC+ episodes were observed. Utilization of PCR-aided diagnostics calculates to a potential reduction of 106.5 clinically inadequate treatment days. The ratio of gainable early adequate treatment days to number of PCR tests done is 22.8 days/100 tests overall (confidence interval 15-31) and 36.4 days/100 tests in the intensive care and surgical ward populations (confidence interval 22-51). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid PCR identification of microorganisms may contribute to a reduction of early inadequate antibiotic treatment in sepsis.

The controversy in the management of the N0 neck for squamous cell carcinoma of the maxillary sinus

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the maxillary sinus is a relatively rare disease. As the reported incidence of regional metastasis varies widely, controversy exists as to whether or not the N0 classified neck should be treated electively. In this review, the data from published series are analyzed to decide on a recommendation of elective treatment of the neck in maxillary SCC. The published series consist of heterogeneous populations of different subsites of the paranasal sinuses, different histological types, different staging and treatment modalities used and different ways of reporting the results. These factors do not allow for recommendations based on high levels of evidence. Given this fact, the relatively high incidence rate of regional metastasis at presentation or in follow-up in the untreated N0 neck, and the relatively low toxicity of elective neck irradiation, such irradiation in SCC of the maxillary sinus should be considered.

Current practice in neuropsychological outcome reporting after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage

BACKGROUND Neuropsychological deficits (NPD) are common in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH). NPD are one of the major limiting factors for patients with an otherwise acceptable prognosis for sustained quality of life. There are only a few studies reporting outcome after aSAH, which used a standardized neuropsychological test battery as a primary or secondary outcome measure. Aim of this study was to determine the current practice of reporting NPD following aSAH in clinical studies. METHODS A MEDLINE analysis was performed using the search term "subarachnoid haemorrhage outcome". The latest 1,000 articles were screened. We recorded study design, number of patients, and the presence of neuropsychological outcome report. Additionally, the time of testing after aSAH, the neuropsychological tests administered, as well as the percentage of patients with NPD were analyzed. RESULTS A total of 324 publications between 2009 and 2012 were selected for further review. Of those, 21 studies (6.5%) reported neuropsychological outcome, in 2,001 of 346,666 patients (0.6%). The assessment of NPD differed broadly using both subjective and objective cognitive evaluation, and a large variety of tests were used. CONCLUSION Neuropsychological outcome is underreported, and there is great variety in assessment in currently published clinical articles on aSAH. Prospective randomized trials treating aSAH may benefit from implementing more comprehensive and standardized neuropsychological outcome measures. This approach might identify otherwise unnoticed treatment effects in future interventional studies of aSAH patients.

The neural circuitry of a broken promise

Promises are one of the oldest human-specific psychological mechanisms fostering cooperation and trust. Here, we study the neural underpinnings of promise keeping and promise breaking. Subjects first make a promise decision (promise stage), then they anticipate whether the promise affects the interaction partner's decision (anticipation stage) and are subsequently free to keep or break the promise (decision stage). Findings revealed that the breaking of the promise is associated with increased activation in the DLPFC, ACC, and amygdala, suggesting that the dishonest act involves an emotional conflict due to the suppression of the honest response. Moreover, the breach of the promise can be predicted by a perfidious brain activity pattern (anterior insula, ACC, inferior frontal gyrus) during the promise and anticipation stage, indicating that brain measurements may reveal malevolent intentions before dishonest or deceitful acts are actually committed.

Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans.

Trust and betrayal of trust are ubiquitous in human societies. Recent behavioral evidence shows that the neuropeptide oxytocin increases trust among humans, thus offering a unique chance of gaining a deeper understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying trust and the adaptation to breach of trust. We examined the neural circuitry of trusting behavior by combining the intranasal, double-blind, administration of oxytocin with fMRI. We find that subjects in the oxytocin group show no change in their trusting behavior after they learned that their trust had been breached several times while subjects receiving placebo decrease their trust. This difference in trust adaptation is associated with a specific reduction in activation in the amygdala, the midbrain regions, and the dorsal striatum in subjects receiving oxytocin, suggesting that neural systems mediating fear processing (amygdala and midbrain regions) and behavioral adaptations to feedback information (dorsal striatum) modulate oxytocin's effect on trust. These findings may help to develop deeper insights into mental disorders such as social phobia and autism, which are characterized by persistent fear or avoidance of social interactions.