The pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC) rule does not safely exclude pulmonary embolism

The Pulmonary Embolism Rule-out Criteria (PERC) rule is a clinical diagnostic rule designed to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) without further testing. We sought to externally validate the diagnostic performance of the PERC rule alone and combined with clinical probability assessment based on the revised Geneva score.

Antibiotic use in adult outpatients in Switzerland in relation to regions, seasonality and point of care tests

The use of antibiotics is highest in primary care and directly associated with antibiotic resistance in the community. We assessed regional variations in antibiotic use in primary care in Switzerland and explored prescription patterns in relation to the use of point of care tests. Defined daily doses of antibiotics per 1000 inhabitants (DDD(1000pd) ) were calculated for the year 2007 from reimbursement data of the largest Swiss health insurer, based on the anatomic therapeutic chemical classification and the DDD methodology recommended by WHO. We present ecological associations by use of descriptive and regression analysis. We analysed data from 1 067 934 adults, representing 17.1% of the Swiss population. The rate of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions in the entire population was 8.5 DDD(1000pd) , and varied between 7.28 and 11.33 DDD(1000pd) for northwest Switzerland and the Lake Geneva region. DDD(1000pd) for the three most prescribed antibiotics were 2.90 for amoxicillin and amoxicillin-clavulanate, 1.77 for fluoroquinolones, and 1.34 for macrolides. Regions with higher DDD(1000pd) showed higher seasonal variability in antibiotic use and lower use of all point of care tests. In regression analysis for each class of antibiotics, the use of any point of care test was consistently associated with fewer antibiotic prescriptions. Prescription rates of primary care physicians showed variations between Swiss regions and were lower in northwest Switzerland and in physicians using point of care tests. Ecological studies are prone to bias and whether point of care tests reduce antibiotic use has to be investigated in pragmatic primary care trials.

Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS): Experience with a transdisciplinary tool in the NCCR North-South programme

Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes (PAMS) are small transdisciplinary projects which bring scientific research insights from the NCCR North-South into policy and practice. They are implemented by researchers from different disciplines in collaboration with non-scientific actors. PAMS aim to implement and test approaches, methods and tools developed in research, in order to identify promising strategies and potentials for sustainable development. In this sense, they are solution-oriented. This paper will provide insights into our experience with PAMS, with a special focus on the implementation of transdisciplinarity and its outcomes. From 2001 to 2010, 77 PAMS were implemented in Africa, Asia and Latin America. An internal evaluation of the first 55 projects was conducted in 2006. Results of this evaluation led to a refinement and improvement of the tool. A second internal evaluation is currently underway in the NCCR North-South. This evaluation will provide an overview of 22 new PAMS. We will look at partners involved, project beneficiaries, activities implemented, outcomes achieved, and lessons learnt. In the first evaluation, transdisciplinarity was considered as “a form of collaboration within scientific fields … and as a form of continuous dialogue between research and society” (Messerli et al., 2007). The evaluation report concluded that this understanding of transdisciplinarity was not satisfactorily applied in the 55 projects. Only about half of the PAMS addressed mutual exchange between researchers and society. Some involved only one specific field of research and clearly lacked interdisciplinary co-operation, and most often knowledge was transferred mainly unilaterally from the scientific community to society, without society having any effect on science. It was therefore recommended to address transdisciplinarity more carefully in Phase 2 PAMS. The second evaluation, which is currently under way, is analysing whether and how this recommendation has been met, based on criteria defined in the NCCR North-South’s Outcome Monitoring Strategy. The analysis is focusing on partners with whom researchers interact and investigating whether practices have changed both in research and society. We are also exploring the role of researchers in PAMS. Preliminary results show that researchers can assume different roles, from direct implementation, mediation, and promotion of social learning between different actors, to giving advice as neutral outsiders.

Compliance and knowledge about glaucoma in patients at tertiary glaucoma units

To document the rate of self-reported compliance and glaucoma-related knowledge in Swiss patients and to identify risk factors for their poor compliance. This was an observational study, including a total of 200 consecutive patients already under glaucoma medication in two Swiss tertiary glaucoma clinics (Geneva and Bern). Personal characteristics, presence of systemic disease, compliance with glaucoma medication, attitude to the ophthalmologist, and glaucoma-related attitudes were ascertained by means of a predetermined questionnaire with 40 questions. Patients were subsequently assessed for the ability to correctly instil placebo eye drops. Non-compliance with glaucoma medication was defined as omitting more than two doses a week as reported by the patient. Logistic regression was used to evaluate how patient characteristics and knowledge about the disease were related to compliance. Overall, 81% (n = 162) of patients reported to be compliant. Forgetfulness was the most frequently cited reason for non-compliance with dosing regimen (63%). Although 90.5% (n = 181) of patients believed glaucoma medication to be efficient, only 28% (n = 56) could correctly define glaucoma. Factors positively associated with compliance were 'knowledge of glaucoma' [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.77 (95% CI 1.36-16.70)] and 'getting help for administration of drops' [OR 2.95 (1.25-6.94)]. These findings indicate that despite the comparatively high compliance rate among glaucoma patients, knowledge of glaucoma remains poor in long-term glaucoma sufferers. Improving knowledge about the disease is important since it is positively associated with compliance in our study.