Stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus at an earlier disease stage of Parkinson's disease: Concept and standards of the EARLYSTIM-study

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is an established treatment for advanced Parkinson's disease (PD) with disabling motor complications. However, stimulation may be beneficial at an earlier stage of PD when motor fluctuations and dyskinesia are only mild and psychosocial competence is still maintained. The EARLYSTIM trial was conducted in patients with recent onset of levodopa-induced motor complications (<3 years) whose social and occupational functioning remained preserved. This is called 'early' here. The study was a randomized, multicenter, bi-national pivotal trial with a 2 year observation period. Quality of life was the main outcome measure, and a video-based motor score was a blinded secondary outcome of the study. Motor, neuropsychological, psychiatric and psychosocial aspects were captured by established scales and questionnaires. The patient group randomized here is the earliest in the disease course and the youngest recruited in controlled DBS trials so far. The methodological innovation for DBS-studies of this study lies in novel procedures developed and used for monitoring best medical treatment, neurosurgical consistency, best management of stimulation programming, blinded video assessment of motor disability, and prevention of suicidal behaviors.

[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.

Tooth wear and erosion: methodological issues in epidemiological and public health research and the future research agenda

This paper addresses methodological issues in the field of tooth wear and erosion research including the epidemiological indices, and identifies future work that is needed to improve knowledge about tooth wear and erosion.

An AMSTAR assessment of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS)

Systematic reviews are not an assembly of anecdotes but a distillation of current best available evidence on a particular topic and as such have an important role to play in evidence-based healthcare. A substantial proportion of these systematic reviews focus on interventions, and are able to provide clinicians with the opportunity to understand and translate the best available evidence on the effects of these healthcare interventions into clinical practice. The importance of systematic reviews in summarising and identifying the gaps in evidence which might inform new research initiatives is also widely acknowledged. Their potential impact on practice and research makes their methodological quality especially important as it may directly influence their utility for clinicians, patients and policy makers. The objectives of this study were to identify systematic reviews of oral healthcare interventions published in the Journal of Applied Oral Science (JAOS) and to evaluate their methodological quality using the evaluation tool, AMSTAR.

The design of artificial nestboxes for the study of secondary hole-nesting birds: a review of methodological inconsistencies and potential biases

The widespread use of artificial nestboxes has led to significant advances in our knowledge of the ecology, behaviour and physiology of cavity nesting birds, especially small passerines Nestboxes have made it easier to perform routine monitoring and experimental manipulation of eggs or nestlings, and also repeatedly to capture, identify and manipulate the parents However, when comparing results across study sites the use of nestboxes may also Introduce a potentially significant confounding variable in the form of differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained However, the use of nestboxes may also introduce an unconsidered and potentially significant confounding variable clue to differences in nestbox design amongst studies, such as their physical dimensions, placement height, and the way in which they are constructed and maintained Here we review to what extent the characteristics of artificial nestboxes (e g size, shape, construction material, colour) are documented in the 'methods' sections of publications involving hole-nesting passerine birds using natural or excavated cavities or artificial nestboxes for reproduction and roosting Despite explicit previous recommendations that authors describe in detail the characteristics of the nestboxes used, we found that the description of nestbox characteristics in most recent publications remains poor and insufficient We therefore list the types of descriptive data that should be included in the methods sections of relevant manuscripts and justify this by discussing how variation in nestbox characteristics can affect or confound conclusions from nestbox studies We also propose several recommendations to improve the reliability and usefulness of research based on long-term studies of any secondary hole-nesting species using artificial nestboxes for breeding or roosting.

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.

[Analgesia for pediatric patients. Standards and special aspects]

In this paper we describe the assessment and medical treatment of pain in children according to the concept of the Centre of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine at the university of Freiburg, Germany. Opiate therapy in children as well as novel data about the association of paracetamol (acetaminophen) and wheezing/asthma bronchiale in children are discussed. Special aspects of analgesia for painful procedures and a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture which has been recently introduced in Germany are described. The second part of the paper presents results of our prospective study about continuous infusion of fentanyl and midazolam in a fixed combination in 19 critically ill patients with a median age of 46 months, 40% of these patients had an ARDS. The mortality rate was 21%. A median dose of fentanyl of 3.9 microg/kg/h (midazolam 0.26 mg/kg/h) was infused. The fentanyl serum level (median 4.2 ng/ml, range 1.7-17.8 ng/ml) correlated significantly with the administered dose while the midazolam serum levels (median 911 ng/ml, range 234-4 651 ng/ml) correlated neither with the administered dose nor with any of the analysed parameters. Conclusion: A standard protocol for the assessment and treatment of pain should be established in every pediatric hospital. The data about the association of asthma bronchiale and paracetamol cannot be interpreted conclusively, but show that even for well known substances clinical trials may lead to new awareness. The study data about continuous infusion of fentanyl and midazolam show a good correlation of the fentanyl application to serum levels, while midazolam appears to be not the optimal substance for continuous sedation in this setting.

Methodological issues in quantifying the magnitude of the tuberculosis problem in a prison population

SETTING: Correctional settings and remand prisons. OBJECTIVE: To critically discuss calculations for epidemiological indicators of the tuberculosis (TB) burden in prisons and to provide recommendations to improve study comparability. METHODS: A hypothetical data set illustrates issues in determining incidence and prevalence. The appropriate calculation of the incidence rate is presented and problems arising from cross-sectional surveys are clarifi ed. RESULTS: Cases recognized during the fi rst 3 months should be classifi ed as prevalent at entry and excluded from any incidence rate calculation. The numerator for the incidence rate includes persons detected as having developed TB during a specifi ed period of time subsequent to the initial 3 months. The denominator is persontime at risk from 3 months onward to the end point (TB or end of the observation period). Preferably, entry time, exit time and event time are known for each inmate to determine person-time at risk. Failing that, an approximation consists of the sum of monthly head counts, excluding prevalent cases and those persons no longer at risk from both the numerator and the denominator. CONCLUSIONS: The varying durations of inmate incarceration in prisons pose challenges for quantifying the magnitude of the TB problem in the inmate population. Recommendations are made to measure incidence and prevalence.