How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach

Background External validity of study results is an important issue from a clinical point of view. From a methodological point of view, however, the concept of external validity is more complex than it seems to be at first glance. Methods Methodological review to address the concept of external validity. Results External validity refers to the question whether results are generalizable to persons other than the population in the original study. The only formal way to establish the external validity would be to repeat the study for that specific target population. We propose a three-way approach for assessing the external validity for specified target populations. (i) The study population might not be representative for the eligibility criteria that were intended. It should be addressed whether the study population differs from the intended source population with respect to characteristics that influence outcome. (ii) The target population will, by definition, differ from the study population with respect to geographical, temporal and ethnical conditions. Pondering external validity means asking the question whether these differences may influence study results. (iii) It should be assessed whether the study's conclusions can be generalized to target populations that do not meet all the eligibility criteria. Conclusion Judging the external validity of study results cannot be done by applying given eligibility criteria to a single target population. Rather, it is a complex reflection in which prior knowledge, statistical considerations, biological plausibility and eligibility criteria all have place.

Mortality from road traffic accidents in Switzerland: longitudinal and spatial analyses

Road traffic accidents (RTA) are an important cause of premature death. We examined socio-demographic and geographical determinants of RTA mortality in Switzerland by linking 2000 census data to RTA mortality records 2000-2005 (ICD-10 codes V00-V99). Data from 5.5 million residents aged 18-94 years, 1744 study areas, and 1620 RTA deaths were analyzed, including 978 deaths (60.4%) in motor vehicle occupants, 254 (15.7%) in motorcyclists, 107 (6.6%) in cyclists, and 259 (16.0%) in pedestrians. Weibull survival models and Bayesian methods were used to calculate hazard ratios (HR), and standardized mortality ratios (SMR) across study areas. Adjusted HR comparing women with men ranged from 0.04 (95% CI 0.02-0.07) in motorcyclists to 0.43 (95% CI 0.32-0.56) in pedestrians. There was a u-shaped relationship with age in motor vehicle occupants and motorcyclists. In cyclists and pedestrians, mortality increased after age 55 years. Mortality was higher in individuals with primary education (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.29-1.81), and higher in single (HR 1.24; 95% CI 1.05-1.46), widowed (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.05-1.65) and divorced individuals (HR 1.62; 95% CI 1.33-1.97), compared to persons with tertiary education or married persons. The association with education was particularly strong for pedestrians (HR 1.87; 95% CI 1.20-2.91). RTA mortality increased with decreasing population density of study areas for motor vehicle occupants (test for trend p<0.0001) and motorcyclists (p=0.0021) but not for cyclists (p=0.39) or pedestrians (p=0.29). SMR standardized for socio-demographic and geographical variables ranged from 82 to 190. Prevention efforts should aim to reduce inequities across socio-demographic and educational groups, and across geographical areas, with interventions targeted at high-risk groups and areas, and different traffic users, including pedestrians.

Infantile spasms: does season influence onset and long-term outcome?

To study whether onset of infantile spasms manifests seasonal variation, as previously reported, and whether any such seasonality is associated with treatment response and long-term outcome, data for 57 patients were retrospectively reviewed. The data were collected from hospital files and through a mail survey of children with infantile spasms born from 1980 to 2002 and monitored at the University Children's Hospital of Berne, Switzerland. The mean age at time of onset of infantile spasms was 7 months (range, 0.75-40), at diagnosis 8 months (range, 1-42) and at follow-up 11.3 years (range, 1-23 years). In 77% of participants, the etiology of infantile spasms was known (symptomatic); in the remaining 23% it was not known (nonsymptomatic). In contrast to previous findings, onset of infantile spasms was not associated with calendar month, photoperiod, or global solar radiation. Long-term prognosis was poor: 4 of the 57 (7%) children died; 49 (86%) had cognitive impairment and 40 (70%) had physical impairment; 31 (54%) had cerebral palsy, 37 had (65%) persistent seizures, and 9 (16%) had Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Symptomatic infantile spasms were associated with worse cognitive outcome (P < 0.001), but treatment modality and overall duration of infantile spasms were not. There was no association of calendar month or photoperiod at onset with cognitive outcome or treatment response.

Delayed diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke in children - a registry-based study in Switzerland

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY/PRINCIPLES: After arterial ischemic stroke (AIS) an early diagnosis helps preserve treatment options that are no longer available later. Paediatric AIS is difficult to diagnose and often the time to diagnosis exceeds the time window of 6 hours defined for thrombolysis in adults. We investigated the delay from the onset of symptoms to AIS diagnosis in children and potential contributing factors.

Learning from failure--rationale and design for a study about discontinuation of randomized trials (DISCO study)

Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be discontinued because of apparent harm, benefit, or futility. Other RCTs are discontinued early because of insufficient recruitment. Trial discontinuation has ethical implications, because participants consent on the premise of contributing to new medical knowledge, Research Ethics Committees (RECs) spend considerable effort reviewing study protocols, and limited resources for conducting research are wasted. Currently, little is known regarding the frequency and characteristics of discontinued RCTs. Methods/Design Our aims are, first, to determine the prevalence of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons; second, to determine whether the risk of RCT discontinuation for specific reasons differs between investigator- and industry-initiated RCTs; third, to identify risk factors for RCT discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment; fourth, to determine at what stage RCTs are discontinued; and fifth, to examine the publication history of discontinued RCTs. We are currently assembling a multicenter cohort of RCTs based on protocols approved between 2000 and 2002/3 by 6 RECs in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. We are extracting data on RCT characteristics and planned recruitment for all included protocols. Completion and publication status is determined using information from correspondence between investigators and RECs, publications identified through literature searches, or by contacting the investigators. We will use multivariable regression models to identify risk factors for trial discontinuation due to insufficient recruitment. We aim to include over 1000 RCTs of which an anticipated 150 will have been discontinued due to insufficient recruitment. Discussion Our study will provide insights into the prevalence and characteristics of RCTs that were discontinued. Effective recruitment strategies and the anticipation of problems are key issues in the planning and evaluation of trials by investigators, Clinical Trial Units, RECs and funding agencies. Identification and modification of barriers to successful study completion at an early stage could help to reduce the risk of trial discontinuation, save limited resources, and enable RCTs to better meet their ethical requirements.

Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To review the efficacy of pharmacological prevention of serious reactions to iodinated contrast media. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search (multiple databases, bibliographies, all languages, to October 2005) for randomised comparisons of pretreatment with placebo or no treatment (control) in patients receiving iodinated contrast media. Review methods Trial quality was assessed by all investigators. Information on trial design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by one investigator and cross checked by the others. Data were combined by using Peto odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Nine trials (1975-96, 10 011 adults) tested H1 antihistamines, corticosteroids, and an H1-H2 combination. No trial included exclusively patients with a history of allergic reactions. Many outcomes were not allergy related, and only a few were potentially life threatening. No reports on death, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, irreversible neurological deficit, or prolonged hospital stays were found. In two trials, 3/778 (0.4%) patients who received oral methylprednisolone 2x32 mg or intravenous prednisolone 250 mg had laryngeal oedema compared with 11/769 (1.4%) controls (odds ratio 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.88). In two trials, 7/3093 (0.2%) patients who received oral methylprednisolone 2x32 mg had a composite outcome (including shock, bronchospasm, and laryngospasm) compared with 20/2178 (0.9%) controls (odds ratio 0.28, 0.13 to 0.60). In one trial, 1/196 (0.5%) patients who received intravenous clemastine 0.03 mg/kg and cimetidine 2-5 mg/kg had angio-oedema compared with 8/194 (4.1%) controls (odds ratio 0.20, 0.05 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Life threatening anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media are rare. In unselected patients, the usefulness of premedication is doubtful, as a large number of patients need to receive premedication to prevent one potentially serious reaction. Data supporting the use of premedication in patients with a history of allergic reactions are lacking. Physicians who are dealing with these patients should not rely on the efficacy of premedication.

Quantitative analysis of OCT characteristics in patients with achromatopsia and blue-cone monochromatism

PURPOSE: To quantify optical coherence tomography (OCT) images of the central retina in patients with blue-cone monochromatism (BCM) and achromatopsia (ACH) compared with healthy control individuals. METHODS: The study included 15 patients with ACH, 6 with BCM, and 20 control subjects. Diagnosis of BCM and ACH was established by visual acuity testing, morphologic examination, color vision testing, and Ganzfeld ERG recording. OCT images were acquired with the Stratus OCT 3 (Carl Zeiss Meditec AG, Oberkochen, Germany). Foveal OCT images were analyzed by calculating longitudinal reflectivity profiles (LRPs) from scan lines. Profiles were analyzed quantitatively to determine foveal thickness and distances between reflectivity layers. RESULTS: Patients with ACH and BCM had a mean visual acuity of 20/200 and 20/60, respectively. Color vision testing results were characteristic of the diseases. The LRPs of control subjects yielded four peaks (P1-P4), presumably representing the RPE (P1), the ovoid region of the photoreceptors (P2), the external limiting membrane (ELM) (P3), and the internal limiting membrane (P4). In patients with ACH, P2 was absent, but foveal thickness (P1-P4) did not differ significantly from that in the control subjects (187 +/- 20 vs. 192 +/- 14 microm, respectively). The distance from P1 to P3 did not differ significantly (78 +/- 10 vs. 82 +/- 5 microm) between ACH and controls subjects. In patients with BCM, P3 was lacking, and P2 advanced toward P1 compared with the control subjects (32 +/- 6 vs. 48 +/- 4 microm). Foveal thickness (153 +/- 16 microm) was significantly reduced compared with that in control subjects and patients with ACH. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative OCT image analysis reveals distinct patterns for controls subjects and patients with ACH and BCM, respectively. Quantitative analysis of OCT imaging can be useful in differentiating retinal diseases affecting photoreceptors. Foveal thickness is similar in both normal subjects and patients with ACH but is decreased in patients with BCM.

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 generalisability. 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 three 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.18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies.A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalizability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies.The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers.This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

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 three 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. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed "Explanation and Elaboration" document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

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 three main study designs: cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. We convened a two-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 three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

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 generalisability. 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 three 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. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

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 generalisability. 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 three 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. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.