Does a reference to evaluations contribute to discourse quality? The case of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on school policy: a conceptual framework

This article examines how references to evaluations in school policy debates contribute to discourse quality. The article consists of two parts: First, it presents a descriptive overview of the references to evidence in direct-democratic campaigns. These results are based on a quantitative content analysis of the newspaper coverage and governmental information documents of 103 direct-democratic Swiss school policy votes. In a second step, it discusses these findings in view of the question of whether the incorporation of evaluation results in policy debates contributes to discourse quality. It presents a conceptual framework, including hypotheses and a research design to answer this question.

Minimally invasive surgery when treating endometriosis has a positive effect on health and on quality of work life of affected women

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of the minimally invasive surgical treatment of endometriosis on health and on quality of work life (e.g. working performance) of affected women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Absence from work, performance loss and the general negative impact of endometriosis on the job are reduced significantly by the laparoscopic surgery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The benefits of surgery overall and of the laparoscopic method in particular for treating endometriosis have been described before. However, previous studies focus on medical benchmarks without including the patient's perspective in a quantitative manner. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective questionnaire-based survey covering 211 women with endometriosis and a history of specific laparoscopic surgery in a Swiss university hospital, tertiary care center. Data were returned anonymously and were collected from the beginning of 2012 until March 2013. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women diagnosed with endometriosis and with at least one specific laparoscopic surgery in the past were enrolled in the study. The study investigated the effect of the minimally invasive surgery on health and on quality of work life of affected women. Questions used were obtained from the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) Global Study on Women's Health (GSWH) instrument. The questionnaire was shortened and adapted for the purpose of the present study. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 587 women invited to participate in the study, 232 (232/587 = 40%) returned the questionnaires. Twenty-one questionnaires were excluded due to incomplete data and 211 sets (211/587 = 36%) were included in the study. Our data show that 62% (n = 130) of the study population declared endometriosis as influencing the job during the period prior to surgery, compared with 28% after surgery (P < 0.001). The mean (maximal) absence from work due to endometriosis was reduced from 2.0 (4.9) to 0.5 (1.4) hours per week (P < 0.001). The mean (maximal) loss in working performance after the surgery averaged out at 5.7% (12.6%) compared with 17.5% (30.5%) before this treatment (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The mediocre response rate of the study weakens the representativeness of the investigated population. Considering the anonymous setting a non-responder investigation was not performed. A bias due to selection, information and negativity effects within a retrospective survey cannot be excluded, although study-sensitive questions were provided in multiple ways. The absence of a control group (sham group; e.g. patients undergoing specific diagnostic laparoscopy without treatment) is a further limitation of the study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study shows that indicated minimally invasive surgery has a clear positive effect on the wellbeing and working performance of women suffering from moderate to severe endometriosis. Furthermore, national net savings in indirect costs with the present number of surgeries is estimated to be €10.7 million per year. In an idealized setting (i.e. without any diagnosis delay) this figure could be more than doubled. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was performed on behalf of the University Hospital of Bern (Inselspital) as one of the leading Swiss tertiary care centers. The authors do not declare any competing interests.

First international external quality assessment of molecular diagnostics for Mers-CoV

BACKGROUND: Since the discovery of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in 2012, diagnostic protocols were quickly published and deployed globally. OBJECTIVES: We set out to assess the quality of MERS-CoV molecular diagnostics worldwide. STUDY DESIGN: Both sensitivity and specificity were assessed using 12 samples containing different viral loads of MERS-CoV or common coronaviruses (OC43, 229E, NL63, HKU1). RESULTS: The panel was sent to more than 106 participants, of which 99 laboratories from 6 continents returned 189 panel results.Scores ranged from 100% (84 laboratories) to 33% (1 laboratory). 15% of respondents reported quantitative results, 61% semi-quantitative (Ct-values or time to positivity) and 24% reported qualitative results. The major specific technique used was real-time RT-PCR using the WHO recommended targets upE, ORF1a and ORF1b. The evaluation confirmed that RT-PCRs targeting the ORF1b are less sensitive, and therefore not advised for primary diagnostics. CONCLUSIONS: The first external quality assessment MERS-CoV panel gives a good insight in molecular diagnostic techniques and their performances for sensitive and specific detection of MERS-CoV RNA globally. Overall, all laboratories were capable of detecting MERS-CoV with some differences in sensitivity. The observation that 8% of laboratories reported false MERS-CoV positive single assay results shows room for improvement, and the importance of using confirmatory targets.

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

Owner-perceived, weighted quality-of-life assessments in dogs with spinal cord injuries.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate changes over time in owner-perceived, weighted quality-of-life assessments in dogs with spinal cord injuries and determine whether scores were associated with underlying etiology or with veterinarian-assigned scores for severity of neurologic dysfunction. DESIGN Cohort study. ANIMALS 100 dogs with spinal cord injury. PROCEDURES Duration of dysfunction, modified Frankel neurologic injury score, and etiology were recorded. At initial and recheck (4- to 6-week) evaluations, owners were asked to identify 5 areas or activities they believed had the most influence on their dogs' quality of life, assess their dogs' current status in each area, and provide a weighting for the importance of each area; results were used to construct a weighted quality-of-life score. Owners were also asked to provide a quality-of-life score with a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS At initial and recheck evaluations, weighted quality-of-life scores were higher for ambulatory than for nonambulatory dogs. However, scores did not differ among groups when dogs were grouped on the basis of underlying etiology or duration of injury. Dogs with an increase in Frankel score between the initial and recheck evaluations had a significant increase in weighted quality-of-life score, whereas for dogs that did not have any change in Frankel score, initial and recheck weighted quality-of-life scores were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results suggested that owner-assigned, weighted quality-of-life scores for dogs with spinal cord injuries did not vary significantly on the basis of underlying etiology or duration of injury but were higher for ambulatory than for nonambulatory dogs.

Evaluation of a questionnaire for obtaining owner-perceived, weighted quality-of-life assessments for dogs with spinal cord injuries.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate a questionnaire for obtaining owner-perceived, weighted quality-oflife assessments for dogs with spinal cord injuries. DESIGN Evaluation study. Animals-100 dogs with spinal cord injuries and 48 healthy control dogs. PROCEDURES The questionnaire was adapted from a questionnaire (the schedule for the evaluation of individual quality of life-direct weighting) used for human patients. Specifically, owners were asked to identify 5 areas or activities they believed had the most influence on their dogs' quality of life, assess their dogs' current status in each of those areas, and provide a weighting for the importance of each area. Results were used to construct a weighted quality-of-life score ranging from 0 to 100 for each dog. Owners were also asked to provide a quality-of-life score with a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS A good correlation was found between weighted and VAS quality-of-life scores. Dogs with spinal cord injuries had weighted quality-of-life scores that were significantly lower than scores for control dogs. Quality-of-life areas and activities provided by owners of dogs with spinal cord injuries were similar to areas and activities provided by owners of healthy control dogs and could mostly be encompassed by 5 broader domains: mobility, play or mental stimulation, health, companionship, and other. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results suggested that the questionnaire could be used to obtain owner-perceived, weighted quality-of-life assessments for dogs with spinal cord injuries. Obtaining owner-perceived quality-of-life assessments for individual dogs should allow veterinarians to better address quality-of-life concerns and expectations of owners.

The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES The main objective was to assess the credibility of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in oral health systematic reviews on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and elsewhere. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic Reviews or meta-analyses (January 2008-December 2013) from 14 high impact general dental and specialty dental journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened for meta-analyses. Data was collected at the systematic review, meta-analysis and trial level. Two reviewers applied and agreed on the GRADE rating for the selected meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 510 systematic reviews initially identified 91 reviews (41 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was high in 2% and moderate in 18% of the included meta-analyses with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, journal impact factor or year of publication. The most common domains prompting downgrading of the evidence were study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision (risk of play of chance). CONCLUSION The quality of the evidence in oral health assessed using GRADE is predominantly low or very low suggesting a pressing need for more randomised clinical trials and other studies of higher quality in order to inform clinical decisions thereby reducing the risk of instituting potentially ineffective and/or harmful therapies.

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

OBJECTIVES To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. RESULTS Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. CONCLUSION We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.