First results from a Swiss level I trauma centre participating in the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN): Prospective cohort study

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Patient characteristics and risk factors for death of Swiss trauma patients in the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). METHODS: Descriptive analysis of trauma patients (≥16 years) admitted to a level I trauma centre in Switzerland (September 1, 2009 to August 31, 2010) and entered into TARN. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 458 patients 71% were male. The median age was 50.5 years (inter-quartile range [IQR] 32.2-67.7), median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 14 (IQR 9-20) and median Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was 15 (IQR 14-15). The ISS was >15 for 47%, and 14% had an ISS >25. A total of 17 patients (3.7%) died within 30 days of trauma. All deaths were in patients with ISS >15. Most injuries were due to falls <2 m (35%) or road traffic accidents (29%). Injuries to the head (39%) were followed by injuries to the lower limbs (33%), spine (28%) and chest (27%). The time of admission peaked between 12:00 and 22:00, with a second peak between 00:00 and 02:00. A total of 64% of patients were admitted directly to our trauma centre. The median time to CT was 30 min (IQR 18-54 min). Using multivariable regression analysis, the predictors of mortality were older age, higher ISS and lower GCS. CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of Swiss trauma patients derived from TARN were described for the first time, providing a detailed overview of the institutional trauma population. Based on these results, patient management and hospital resources (e.g. triage of patients, time to CT, staffing during night shifts) could be evaluated as a further step.

Comparison of noninferiority margins reported in protocols and publications showed incomplete and inconsistent reporting.

OBJECTIVES To compare noninferiority margins defined in study protocols and trial registry records with margins reported in subsequent publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Comparison of protocols of noninferiority trials submitted 2001 to 2005 to ethics committees in Switzerland and The Netherlands with corresponding publications and registry records. We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library issue 01/2012), and Google Scholar in September 2013 to identify published reports, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the World Health Organization in March 2013 to identify registry records. Two readers recorded the noninferiority margin and other data using a standardized data-abstraction form. RESULTS The margin was identical in study protocol and publication in 43 (80%) of 54 pairs of study protocols and articles. In the remaining pairs, reporting was inconsistent (five pairs, 9%), or the noninferiority margin was either not reported in the publication (five pairs, 9%) or not defined in the study protocol (one pair). The confidence interval or the exact P-value required to judge whether the result was compatible with noninferior, inferior, or superior efficacy was reported in 43 (80%) publications. Complete and consistent reporting of both noninferiority margin and confidence interval (or exact P-value) was present in 39 (72%) protocol-publication pairs. Twenty-nine trials (54%) were registered in trial registries, but only one registry record included the noninferiority margin. CONCLUSION The reporting of noninferiority margins was incomplete and inconsistent with study protocols in a substantial proportion of published trials, and margins were rarely reported in trial registries.

Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: The STARDdem Initiative.

OBJECTIVE To provide guidance on standards for reporting studies of diagnostic test accuracy for dementia disorders. METHODS An international consensus process on reporting standards in dementia and cognitive impairment (STARDdem) was established, focusing on studies presenting data from which sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be derived. A working group led the initiative through 4 rounds of consensus work, using a modified Delphi process and culminating in a face-to-face consensus meeting in October 2012. The aim of this process was to agree on how best to supplement the generic standards of the STARD statement to enhance their utility and encourage their use in dementia research. RESULTS More than 200 comments were received during the wider consultation rounds. The areas at most risk of inadequate reporting were identified and a set of dementia-specific recommendations to supplement the STARD guidance were developed, including better reporting of patient selection, the reference standard used, avoidance of circularity, and reporting of test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION STARDdem is an implementation of the STARD statement in which the original checklist is elaborated and supplemented with guidance pertinent to studies of cognitive disorders. Its adoption is expected to increase transparency, enable more effective evaluation of diagnostic tests in Alzheimer disease and dementia, contribute to greater adherence to methodologic standards, and advance the development of Alzheimer biomarkers.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement.

OBJECTIVES Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a new data collection methodology used to estimate characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence in drug users. Many national public health systems and international organizations rely on RDS data. However, RDS reporting quality and available reporting guidelines are inadequate. We carried out a systematic review of RDS studies and present Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for RDS Studies (STROBE-RDS), a checklist of essential items to present in RDS publications, justified by an explanation and elaboration document. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched the MEDLINE (1970-2013), EMBASE (1974-2013), and Global Health (1910-2013) databases to assess the number and geographical distribution of published RDS studies. STROBE-RDS was developed based on STROBE guidelines, following Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. RESULTS RDS has been used in over 460 studies from 69 countries, including the USA (151 studies), China (70), and India (32). STROBE-RDS includes modifications to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The two key areas that required modification concerned the selection of participants and statistical analysis of the sample. CONCLUSION STROBE-RDS seeks to enhance the transparency and utility of research using RDS. If widely adopted, STROBE-RDS should improve global infectious diseases public health decision making.

Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

EIRS: Ewaso Incident Reporting System

Ewaso Incident Reporting System: reports on human-elephant interaction in Laikipia

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals

The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implantology journals. Thirty issues of nine journals in prosthodontics and implant dentistry were searched for RCTs, covering the years 2005-2012: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, The International Journal of Prosthodontics, The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Clinical Implant Dentistry & Related Research, The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, Implant Dentistry and Journal of Dentistry. The reporting quality was assessed using a modified Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement checklist. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics followed by univariable and multivariable examination of statistical associations (α = 0·05). A total of 147 RCTs were identified with a mean CONSORT score of 69·4 (s.d. = 9·7). Significant differences were found among journals with the Journal of Oral Rehabilitation achieving the highest score (80·6, s.d. = 5·5) followed by Clinical Oral Implants Research (73·7, s.d. = 8·3). Involvement of a statistician/methodologist was significantly associated with increased CONSORT scores. Overall, the reporting quality of RCTs in major prosthodontic and implantology journals requires improvement. This is of paramount importance considering that optimal reporting of RCTs is an important prerequisite for clinical decision-making.