How valuable are multiple treatment comparison methods in evidence-based health-care evaluation?

Objectives To compare the use of pair-wise meta-analysis methods to multiple treatment comparison (MTC) methods for evidence-based health-care evaluation to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative health-care interventions based on the available evidence. Methods Pair-wise meta-analysis and more complex evidence syntheses, incorporating an MTC component, are applied to three examples: 1) clinical effectiveness of interventions for preventing strokes in people with atrial fibrillation; 2) clinical and cost-effectiveness of using drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with coronary artery disease; and 3) clinical and cost-effectiveness of using neuraminidase inhibitors in the treatment of influenza. We compare the two synthesis approaches with respect to the assumptions made, empirical estimates produced, and conclusions drawn. Results The difference between point estimates of effectiveness produced by the pair-wise and MTC approaches was generally unpredictable—sometimes agreeing closely whereas in other instances differing considerably. In all three examples, the MTC approach allowed the inclusion of randomized controlled trial evidence ignored in the pair-wise meta-analysis approach. This generally increased the precision of the effectiveness estimates from the MTC model. Conclusions The MTC approach to synthesis allows the evidence base on clinical effectiveness to be treated as a coherent whole, include more data, and sometimes relax the assumptions made in the pair-wise approaches. However, MTC models are necessarily more complex than those developed for pair-wise meta-analysis and thus could be seen as less transparent. Therefore, it is important that model details and the assumptions made are carefully reported alongside the results.

Microscopic wire guide-based orotracheal mouse intubation: description, evaluation and comparison with transillumination

Airway access is needed for a number of experimental animal models, and the majority of animal research is based on mouse models. Anatomical conditions in mice are small, and the narrow glottic opening allows intubation only with a subtle technique. We therefore developed a microscopic endotracheal intubation method with a wire guide technique in mice anaesthetized with halothane in oxygen. The mouse is hung perpendicularly with its incisors on a thread fixed on a vertical plate. The tongue is placed with a pair of forceps between the left hand's thumb and forefinger and slightly pulled, while the neck and thorax are positioned using the third and fourth fingers. By doing so, the neck can be slightly stretched, which allows optimal visualization of the larynx and the vocal cords. To ensure a safe intubation, a fine wire guide is placed under vision between the vocal cords and advanced about 5 mm into the trachea. An intravenous 22G x 1 in. plastic or Teflon catheter is guided over this wire. In a series of 41 mice, between 21 and 38 g, the success rate for the first intubation attempt was >95%. Certainty of the judgement procedure was 100% and success rate was higher using the described method when compared with a transillumination method in a further series. The technique is safe, less invasive than tracheostomy and suitable for controlled ventilation and pulmonary substance application.

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.