The CONSORT statement checklist in allergen-specific immunotherapy: a GA2LEN paper

The methodology of randomized clinical trials is essential for the critical assessment and registration of therapeutic interventions. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement was developed to alleviate the problems arising from the inadequate reporting of randomized controlled trials. The present article reflects on the items that we believe should be included in the CONSORT checklist in the context of conducting and reporting trials in allergen-specific immunotherapy. Only randomized, blinded (in particular blinding of patients, health care providers, and outcome assessors), placebo-controlled Phase III studies in this article. Our analysis focuses on the definition of patients' inclusion and exclusion criteria, allergen standardization, primary, secondary and exploratory outcomes, reporting of adverse events and analysis.

Molecular beacons with a homo-DNA stem: improving target selectivity

Molecular beacons (MBs) are stem-loop DNA probes used for identifying and reporting the presence and localization of nucleic acid targets in vitro and in vivo via target-dependent dequenching of fluorescence. A drawback of conventional MB design is present in the stem sequence that is necessary to keep the MBs in a closed conformation in the absence of a target, but that can participate in target binding in the open (target-on) conformation, giving rise to the possibility of false-positive results. In order to circumvent these problems, we designed MBs in which the stem was replaced by an orthogonal DNA analog that does not cross-pair with natural nucleic acids. Homo-DNA seemed to be specially suited, as it forms stable adenine-adenine base pairs of the reversed Hoogsteen type, potentially reducing the number of necessary building blocks for stem design to one. We found that MBs in which the stem part was replaced by homo-adenylate residues can easily be synthesized using conventional automated DNA synthesis. As conventional MBs, such hybrid MBs show cooperative hairpin to coil transitions in the absence of a DNA target, indicating stable homo-DNA base pair formation in the closed conformation. Furthermore, our results show that the homo-adenylate stem is excluded from DNA target binding, which leads to a significant increase in target binding selectivity

Factorial designs: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials.

Factorial designs for clinical trials are often encountered in medical, dental, and orthodontic research. Factorial designs assess two or more interventions simultaneously and the main advantage of this design is its efficiency in terms of sample size as more than one intervention may be assessed on the same participants. However, the factorial design is efficient only under the assumption of no interaction (no effect modification) between the treatments under investigation and, therefore, this should be considered at the design stage. Conversely, the factorial study design may also be used for the purpose of detecting an interaction between two interventions if the study is powered accordingly. However, a factorial design powered to detect an interaction has no advantage in terms of the required sample size compared to a multi-arm parallel trial for assessing more than one intervention. It is the purpose of this article to highlight the methodological issues that should be considered when planning, analysing, and reporting the simplest form of this design, which is the 2 × 2 factorial design. An example from the field of orthodontics using two parameters (bracket type and wire type) on maxillary incisor torque loss will be utilized in order to explain the design requirements, the advantages and disadvantages of this design, and its application in orthodontic research.

Improvement of the processes around the radiology workplace : avoidance of time delays

Radiologists have been confronted with multiple new challenges in recent years. While there has been a steady increase in the number of radiological examinations and imaging material per examination, examination protocols have become more complex and highly time-consuming whereas case-based remuneration is on the decline. The identification of inefficient components in examination processes and reporting is therefore essential. Where and why do time delays occur? How can they be avoided? The following article provides a brief overview and is designed to stimulate discussion.

Privacy-preserving genomic testing in the clinic: a model using HIV treatment

PURPOSE The implementation of genomic-based medicine is hindered by unresolved questions regarding data privacy and delivery of interpreted results to health-care practitioners. We used DNA-based prediction of HIV-related outcomes as a model to explore critical issues in clinical genomics. METHODS We genotyped 4,149 markers in HIV-positive individuals. Variants allowed for prediction of 17 traits relevant to HIV medical care, inference of patient ancestry, and imputation of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) types. Genetic data were processed under a privacy-preserving framework using homomorphic encryption, and clinical reports describing potentially actionable results were delivered to health-care providers. RESULTS A total of 230 patients were included in the study. We demonstrated the feasibility of encrypting a large number of genetic markers, inferring patient ancestry, computing monogenic and polygenic trait risks, and reporting results under privacy-preserving conditions. The average execution time of a multimarker test on encrypted data was 865 ms on a standard computer. The proportion of tests returning potentially actionable genetic results ranged from 0 to 54%. CONCLUSIONS The model of implementation presented herein informs on strategies to deliver genomic test results for clinical care. Data encryption to ensure privacy helps to build patient trust, a key requirement on the road to genomic-based medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 14 January 2016Genetics in Medicine (2016); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.167.

Statistical testing against baseline was common in dental research

OBJECTIVES To assess the presence of within-group comparisons with baseline in a subset of leading dental journals and to explore possible associations with a range of study characteristics including journal and study design. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Thirty consecutive issues of five leading dental journals were electronically searched. The conduct and reporting of statistical analysis in respect of comparisons against baseline or otherwise along with the manner of interpretation of the results were assessed. Descriptive statistics were obtained, and chi-square test and Fisher's exact were undertaken to test the association between trial characteristics and overall study interpretation. RESULTS A total of 184 studies were included with the highest proportion published in Journal of Endodontics (n = 84, 46%) and most involving a single center (n = 157, 85%). Overall, 43 studies (23%) presented interpretation of their outcomes based solely on comparisons against baseline. Inappropriate use of baseline testing was found to be less likely in interventional studies (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Use of comparisons with baseline appears to be common among both observational and interventional research studies in dentistry. Enhanced conduct and reporting of statistical tests are required to ensure that inferences from research studies are appropriate and informative.

[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.

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.

Quality of reporting of clinical studies to assess and compare performance of implant-supported restorations

The objective of this analysis was to assess and compare the 5- and 10-year survival of different types of tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and single crowns (SCs), and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications with emphasis on quality of reporting.