QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

Meta-analysis: diagnostic performance of low-radiation-dose coronary computed tomography angiography

A new radiation dose-saving technique for noninvasive coronary artery imaging with computed tomography (CT) is available.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials

Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.

Viscosupplementation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Viscosupplementation, the intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid, is widely used for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Threats to patient safety in the primary care office: concerns of physicians and nurses

Little is known about primary care professionals' concerns about risks to patient safety.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Meta-analysis: chondroitin for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses described moderate to large benefits of chondroitin in patients with osteoarthritis. However, recent large-scale trials did not find evidence of an effect. PURPOSE: To determine the effects of chondroitin on pain in patients with osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES: The authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1980 to 2006), CINAHL (1970 to 2006), and conference proceedings; checked reference lists; and contacted authors. The last update of searches was performed on 30 November 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they were randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials that compared chondroitin with placebo or with no treatment in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. There were no language restrictions. DATA EXTRACTION: The authors extracted data in duplicate. Effect sizes were calculated from the differences in means of pain-related outcomes between treatment and control groups at the end of the trial, divided by the pooled SD. Trials were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis. DATA SYNTHESIS: 20 trials (3846 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, which revealed a high degree of heterogeneity among the trials (I2 = 92%). Small trials, trials with unclear concealment of allocation, and trials that were not analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle showed larger effects in favor of chondroitin than did the remaining trials. When the authors restricted the analysis to the 3 trials with large sample sizes and an intention-to-treat analysis, 40% of patients were included. This resulted in an effect size of -0.03 (95% CI, -0.13 to 0.07; I2 = 0%) and corresponded to a difference of 0.6 mm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale. A meta-analysis of 12 trials showed a pooled relative risk of 0.99 (CI, 0.76 to 1.31) for any adverse event. LIMITATIONS: For 9 trials, the authors had to use approximations to calculate effect sizes. Trial quality was generally low, heterogeneity among the trials made initial interpretation of results difficult, and exploring sources of heterogeneity in meta-regression and stratified analyses may be unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit of chondroitin is minimal or nonexistent. Use of chondroitin in routine clinical practice should therefore be discouraged.

Prognostic value of the modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion morphology classification for clinical outcome after sirolimus-eluting stent placement (results of the prospective multicenter German Cypher Registry)

The modified American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) lesion morphology classification scheme has prognostic impact for early and late outcomes when bare-metal stents are used. Its value after drug-eluting stent placement is unknown. The predictive value of this lesion morphology classification system in patients treated using sirolimus-eluting stents included in the German Cypher Registry was prospectively examined. The study population included 6,755 patients treated for 7,960 lesions using sirolimus-eluting stents. Lesions were classified as type A, B1, B2, or C. Lesion type A or B1 was considered simple (35.1%), and type B2 or C, complex (64.9%). The combined end point of all deaths, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization was seen in 2.6% versus 2.4% in the complex and simple groups, respectively (p = 0.62) at initial hospital discharge, with a trend for higher rates of myocardial infarction in the complex group. At the 6-month clinical follow-up and after adjusting for other independent factors, the composite of cumulative death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was nonsignificantly different between groups (11.4% vs 11.2% in the complex and simple groups, respectively; odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 1.46). This was also true for target vessel revascularization alone (8.3% of the complex group, 9.0% of the simple group; odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.05). In conclusion, the modified ACC/AHA lesion morphology classification system has some value in determining early complications after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Clinical follow-up results at 6 months were generally favorable and cannot be adequately differentiated on the basis of this lesion morphology classification scheme.

The James Lind Library: explaining and illustrating the evolution of fair tests of medical treatments

The James Lind Library (www.jameslindlibrary.org) has been established to improve public and professional general knowledge about fair tests of treatments in healthcare and their history. Its foundation was laid ten years ago at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, and its administrative centre is in the College's Sibbald Library, one of the most important collections of historic medical manuscripts, papers and books in the world. The James Lind Library is a website that introduces visitors to the principles of fair tests of treatments, with a series of short, illustrated essays, which are currently available in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. A 100-page book-- Testing Treatments--is now available free through the website, both in English and in Arabic and Spanish translations. To illustrate the evolution of ideas related to fair tests of treatments from 2000 BC to the present, the James Lind Library contains key passages and images from manuscripts, books and journal articles, many of them accompanied by commentaries, biographies, portraits and other relevant documents and images, including audio and video files. New material is being added to the website continuously, as relevant new records are identified and as methods for testing treatments evolve. A multinational, multilingual editorial team oversees the development of the website, which currently receives tens of thousands of visitors every month.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.