Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.

Comparison of treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by physicians and midwives at district level in Uganda : a randomised controlled equivalence trial

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is established for the treatment of incomplete abortion but has not been systematically assessed when provided by midwives at district level in a low-resource setting. We investigated the effectiveness and safety of midwives diagnosing and treating incomplete abortion with misoprostol, compared with physicians. METHODS: We did a multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial at district level at six facilities in Uganda. Eligibility criteria were women with signs of incomplete abortion. We randomly allocated women with first-trimester incomplete abortion to clinical assessment and treatment with misoprostol either by a physician or a midwife. The randomisation (1:1) was done in blocks of 12 and was stratified for study site. Primary outcome was complete abortion not needing surgical intervention within 14-28 days after initial treatment. The study was not masked. Analysis of the primary outcome was done on the per-protocol population with a generalised linear-mixed effects model. The predefined equivalence range was -4% to 4%. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01844024. FINDINGS: From April 30, 2013, to July 21, 2014, 1108 women were assessed for eligibility. 1010 women were randomly assigned to each group (506 to midwife group and 504 to physician group). 955 women (472 in the midwife group and 483 in the physician group) were included in the per-protocol analysis. 452 (95·8%) of women in the midwife group had complete abortion and 467 (96·7%) in the physician group. The model-based risk difference for midwife versus physician group was -0·8% (95% CI -2·9 to 1·4), falling within the predefined equivalence range (-4% to 4%). The overall proportion of women with incomplete abortion was 3·8% (36/955), similarly distributed between the two groups (4·2% [20/472] in the midwife group, 3·3% [16/483] in the physician group). No serious adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION: Diagnosis and treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by midwives is equally safe and effective as when provided by physicians, in a low-resource setting. Scaling up midwives' involvement in treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol at district level would increase access to safe post-abortion care. FUNDING: The Swedish Research Council, Karolinska Institutet, and Dalarna University.

Women's acceptability of misoprostol treatment for incomplete abortion by midwives and physicians : secondary outcome analysis from a randomized controlled equivalence trial at district level in Uganda

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess women´s acceptability of diagnosis and treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by midwives, compared with physicians. METHODS: This was an analysis of secondary outcomes from a multi-centre randomized controlled equivalence trial at district level in Uganda. Women with first trimester incomplete abortion were randomly allocated to clinical assessment and treatment with misoprostol by a physician or a midwife. The randomisation (1:1) was done in blocks of 12 and stratified for health care facility. Acceptability was measured in expectations and satisfaction at a follow up visit 14-28 days following treatment. Analysis of women's overall acceptability was done using a generalized linear mixed-effects model with an equivalence range of -4% to 4%. The study was not masked. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.org, NCT 01844024. RESULTS: From April 2013 to June 2014, 1108 women were assessed for eligibility of which 1010 were randomized (506 to midwife and 504 to physician). 953 women were successfully followed up and included in the acceptability analysis. 95% (904) of the participants found the treatment satisfactory and overall acceptability was found to be equivalent between the two study groups. Treatment failure, not feeling calm and safe following treatment, experiencing severe abdominal pain or heavy bleeding following treatment, were significantly associated with non-satisfaction. No serious adverse events were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of incomplete abortion with misoprostol by midwives and physician was highly, and equally, acceptable to women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01844024.