Pre-hospital tracheal intubation in patients with traumatic brain injury: systematic review of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed the current evidence on the benefit and harm of pre-hospital tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2007 without language restriction to identify interventional and observational studies comparing pre-hospital intubation with other airway management (e.g. bag-valve-mask or oxygen administration) in patients with TBI. Information on study design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by two investigators and cross-checked by two others. Seventeen studies were included with data for 15,335 patients collected from 1985 to 2004. There were 12 retrospective analyses of trauma registries or hospital databases, three cohort studies, one case-control study, and one controlled trial. Using Brain Trauma Foundation classification of evidence, there were 14 class 3 studies, three class 2 studies, and no class 1 study. Six studies were of adults, five of children, and three of both; age groups were unclear in three studies. Maximum follow-up was up to 6 months or hospital discharge. RESULTS: In 13 studies, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for an effect of pre-hospital intubation on in-hospital mortality ranged from 0.17 (favouring control interventions) to 2.43 (favouring pre-hospital intubation); adjusted ORs ranged from 0.24 to 1.42. Estimates for functional outcomes after TBI were equivocal. Three studies indicated higher risk of pneumonia associated with pre-hospital (when compared with in-hospital) intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the available evidence did not support any benefit from pre-hospital intubation and mechanical ventilation after TBI. Additional arguments need to be taken into account, including medical and procedural aspects.

A systematic review of longitudinal population-based studies on the predictors of smoking cessation in adolescent and young adult smokers.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the determinants of self-initiated smoking cessation of duration of at least 6 months as identified in longitudinal population-based studies of adolescent and young adult smokers. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases using smoking, tobacco, cessation, quit and stop as keywords was performed. Limits included articles related to humans, in English, published between January 1984 and August 2010, and study population aged 10-29 years. A total of 4502 titles and 871 abstracts were reviewed independently by 2 and 3 reviewers, respectively. Nine articles were retained for data abstraction. Data on study location, timeframe, duration of follow-up, number of data collection points, sample size, age/grade of participants, number of quitters, smoking status at baseline, definition of cessation, covariates and analytic method were abstracted from each article. The number of studies that reported a statistically significant association between each determinant investigated and cessation were tabulated, from among all studies that assessed the determinant. RESULTS: Despite heterogeneity in methods across studies, five factors robustly predicted quitting across studies in which the factor was investigated: not having friends who smoke, not having intentions to smoke in the future, resisting peer pressure to smoke, being older at first use of cigarette and having negative beliefs about smoking. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on longitudinal predictors of cessation in adolescent and young adult smokers is not well developed. Cessation interventions for this population will remain less than optimally effective until there is a solid evidence base on which to develop interventions.

First explicit criteria to decide on the appropriateness of therapy of ulcerative colitis: the European EPATUC panel

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease with a wide variety of treatment options many of which are not evidence based. Supplementing available guidelines, which are often broadly defined, consensus-based and generally not tailored to specifically reflect the individual patient situation, we developed explicit appropriateness criteria to assist, and improve treatment decisions. Methods: We used the RAND appropriateness method which does not force consensus. An extensive literature review was compiled based on and supplementing, where necessary, the ECCO UC 2011 guidelines. EPATUC (endorsed by ECCO) was formed by 7 gastroenterologists, 2 surgeons and 2 general practitioners from throughout Europe. Clinical scenarios reflecting practice were rated on a 9-point scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate), based on the expert's experience and the available literature. After extensive discussion, all scenarios were re-rated at a two-day panel meeting. Median and disagreement (D) were used to categorize ratings into 3 categories: appropriate (A), uncertain (U) and inappropriate (I). Results: 718 clinical scenarios were rated, structured in 13 main clinical presentations: not refractory (n = 64) or refractory (n = 33) proctitis, mild to moderate left-sided (n = 72) or extensive (n = 48) colitis, severe colitis (n = 36), steroid- dependant colitis (n = 36), steroid-refractory colitis (n = 55), acute pouchitis (n = 96), maintenance of remission (n = 248), colorectal cancer prevention (n = 9) and fulminant colitis (n = 9). Overall, 100 indications were judged appropriate (14%), 129 uncertain (18%) and 489 inappropriate (68%). Disagreement between experts was very low (6%). Conclusions: For the very first time, explicit appropriateness criteria for therapy of UC were developed that allow both specific and rapid therapeutic decision making and prospective assessment of treatment appropriateness. Comparison of these detailed scenarios with patient profiles encountered in the Swiss IBD cohort study indicates good concordance. EPATUC criteria will be freely accessible on the internet (epatuc.ch)

Improvement of cardiovascular risk prediction: time to review current knowledge, debates, and fundamentals on how to assess test characteristics.

Cardiovascular risk assessment might be improved with the addition of emerging, new tests derived from atherosclerosis imaging, laboratory tests or functional tests. This article reviews relative risk, odds ratios, receiver-operating curves, posttest risk calculations based on likelihood ratios, the net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination. This serves to determine whether a new test has an added clinical value on top of conventional risk testing and how this can be verified statistically. Two clinically meaningful examples serve to illustrate novel approaches. This work serves as a review and basic work for the development of new guidelines on cardiovascular risk prediction, taking into account emerging tests, to be proposed by members of the 'Taskforce on Vascular Risk Prediction' under the auspices of the Working Group 'Swiss Atherosclerosis' of the Swiss Society of Cardiology in the future.

Choosing among techniques for quantifying single-case intervention effectiveness

If single case experimental designs are to be used to establish guidelines for evidence-based interventions in clinical and educational settings, numerical values that reflect treatment effect sizes are required. The present study compares four recently developed procedures for quantifying the magnitude of intervention effect using data with known characteristics. Monte Carlo methods were used to generate AB designs data with potential confounding variables (serial dependence, linear and curvilinear trend, and heteroscedasticity between phases) and two types of treatment effect (level and slope change). The results suggest that data features are important for choosing the appropriate procedure and, thus, inspecting the graphed data visually is a necessary initial stage. In the presence of serial dependence or a change in data variability, the Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) and the Slope and Level Change (SLC) were the only techniques of the four examined that performed adequately. Introducing a data correction step in NAP renders it unaffected by linear trend, as is also the case for the Percentage of Nonoverlapping Corrected Data and SLC. The performance of these techniques indicates that professionals" judgments concerning treatment effectiveness can be readily complemented by both visual and statistical analyses. A flowchart to guide selection of techniques according to the data characteristics identified by visual inspection is provided.

Bewertung des Risikos für Bias in kontrollierten Studien [Assessment of risk of bias in controlled studies].

BACKGROUND: Practicing physicians are faced with many medical decisions daily. These are mainly influenced by personal experience but should also consider patient preferences and the scientific evidence reflected by a constantly increasing number of medical publications and guidelines. With the objective of optimal medical treatment, the concept of evidence-based medicine is founded on these three aspects. It should be considered that there is a high risk of misinterpreting evidence, leading to medical errors and adverse effects without knowledge of the methodological background. OBJECTIVES: This article explains the concept of systematic error (bias) and its importance. Causes and effects as well as methods to minimize bias are discussed. This information should impart a deeper understanding, leading to a better assessment of studies and implementation of its recommendations in daily medical practice. CONCLUSION: Developed by the Cochrane Collaboration, the risk of bias (RoB) tool is an assessment instrument for the potential of bias in controlled trials. Good handling, short processing time, high transparency of judgements and a graphical presentation of findings that is easily comprehensible are among its strengths. Attached to this article the German translation of the RoB tool is published. This should facilitate the applicability for non-experts and moreover, support evidence-based medical decision-making.

Population based screening - the difficulty of how to do more good than harm and how to achieve it.

Screening people without symptoms of disease is an attractive idea. Screening allows early detection of disease or elevated risk of disease, and has the potential for improved treatment and reduction of mortality. The list of future screening opportunities is set to grow because of the refinement of screening techniques, the increasing frequency of degenerative and chronic diseases, and the steadily growing body of evidence on genetic predispositions for various diseases. But how should we decide on the diseases for which screening should be done and on recommendations for how it should be implemented? We use the examples of prostate cancer and genetic screening to show the importance of considering screening as an ongoing population-based intervention with beneficial and harmful effects, and not simply the use of a test. Assessing whether screening should be recommended and implemented for any named disease is therefore a multi-dimensional task in health technology assessment. There are several countries that already use established processes and criteria to assess the appropriateness of screening. We argue that the Swiss healthcare system needs a nationwide screening commission mandated to conduct appropriate evidence-based evaluation of the impact of proposed screening interventions, to issue evidence-based recommendations, and to monitor the performance of screening programmes introduced. Without explicit processes there is a danger that beneficial screening programmes could be neglected and that ineffective, and potentially harmful, screening procedures could be introduced.

Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with glioblastoma are older than 60 years, but treatment guidelines are based on trials in patients aged only up to 70 years. We did a randomised trial to assess the optimum palliative treatment in patients aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were recruited from Austria, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. They were assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre, to receive temozolomide (200 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 of every 28 days for up to six cycles), hypofractionated radiotherapy (34·0 Gy administered in 3·4 Gy fractions over 2 weeks), or standard radiotherapy (60·0 Gy administered in 2·0 Gy fractions over 6 weeks). Patients and study staff were aware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN81470623. FINDINGS: 342 patients were enrolled, of whom 291 were randomised across three treatment groups (temozolomide n=93, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=98, standard radiotherapy n=100) and 51 of whom were randomised across only two groups (temozolomide n=26, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=25). In the three-group randomisation, in comparison with standard radiotherapy, median overall survival was significantly longer with temozolomide (8·3 months [95% CI 7·1-9·5; n=93] vs 6·0 months [95% CI 5·1-6·8; n=100], hazard ratio [HR] 0·70; 95% CI 0·52-0·93, p=0·01), but not with hypofractionated radiotherapy (7·5 months [6·5-8·6; n=98], HR 0·85 [0·64-1·12], p=0·24). For all patients who received temozolomide or hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=242) overall survival was similar (8·4 months [7·3-9·4; n=119] vs 7·4 months [6·4-8·4; n=123]; HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·06; p=0·12). For age older than 70 years, survival was better with temozolomide and with hypofractionated radiotherapy than with standard radiotherapy (HR for temozolomide vs standard radiotherapy 0·35 [0·21-0·56], p<0·0001; HR for hypofractionated vs standard radiotherapy 0·59 [95% CI 0·37-0·93], p=0·02). Patients treated with temozolomide who had tumour MGMT promoter methylation had significantly longer survival than those without MGMT promoter methylation (9·7 months [95% CI 8·0-11·4] vs 6·8 months [5·9-7·7]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·34-0·93], p=0·02), but no difference was noted between those with methylated and unmethylated MGMT promoter treated with radiotherapy (HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·69-1·38]; p=0·81). As expected, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the temozolomide group were neutropenia (n=12) and thrombocytopenia (n=18). Grade 3-5 infections in all randomisation groups were reported in 18 patients. Two patients had fatal infections (one in the temozolomide group and one in the standard radiotherapy group) and one in the temozolomide group with grade 2 thrombocytopenia died from complications after surgery for a gastrointestinal bleed. INTERPRETATION: Standard radiotherapy was associated with poor outcomes, especially in patients older than 70 years. Both temozolomide and hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered as standard treatment options in elderly patients with glioblastoma. MGMT promoter methylation status might be a useful predictive marker for benefit from temozolomide. FUNDING: Merck, Lion's Cancer Research Foundation, University of Umeå, and the Swedish Cancer Society.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Screening for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances. RESULTS: Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Recommendations for term and late preterm infants at risk for perinatal bacterial infection.

Since publication of the initial guidelines for the prevention of group B streptococcal disease in 1996, the incidence of perinatal infection has decreased significantly. Intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis together with appropriate management of neonates at increased risk for early-onset sepsis not only reduces morbidity and mortality, but also decreases the burden of unnecessary or prolonged antibiotic therapy. This article provides healthcare workers in Switzerland with evidence-based and best-practice derived guidelines for the assessment and management of term and late preterm infants (>34 weeks) at increased risk for perinatal bacterial infection. Management of neonates at increased risk for early-onset sepsis depends on clinical presentation and risk factors. Asymptomatic infants with risk factors for early-onset sepsis should be observed closely in an inpatient setting for the first 48 hours of life. Symptomatic neonates must be treated promptly with intravenous antibiotics. As clinical and laboratory signs of neonatal infection are nonspecific, it is mandatory to reevaluate the need for continued antibiotic therapy after 48 hours.

Rétablissement postopératoire optimisé, applique aux patients après cystectomie [Enhanced recovery after surgery applied to cystectomy patients].

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal concept combining pre, intra and postoperative evidence-based care elements to reduce surgical stress. ERAS pathways have been shown to significantly reduce morbidity, length of hospital stay and total costs when applied to colorectal surgery. It is therefore considered standard of care in this specialty. There can be no doubt that ERAS principles can be applied also in other major surgeries. However, uncritical application of the guidelines issued from colonic procedures seems inappropriate as the surgical procedures in pelvic cancer surgery differ considerably. This article reports on the first steps of an ERAS project and his introduction in urology.

A novel approach to the determination of clinical decision thresholds

Our objective was to determine the test and treatment thresholds for common acute primary care conditions. We presented 200 clinicians with a series of web-based clinical vignettes, describing patients with possible influenza, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and urinary tract infection (UTI). We randomly varied the probability of disease and asked whether the clinician wanted to rule out disease, order tests or rule in disease. By randomly varying the probability, we obtained clinical decisions across a broad range of disease probabilities that we used to create threshold curves. For influenza, the test (4.5% vs 32%, p<0.001) and treatment (55% vs 68%, p=0.11) thresholds were lower for US compared with Swiss physicians. US physicians had somewhat higher test (3.8% vs 0.7%, p=0.107) and treatment (76% vs 58%, p=0.005) thresholds for ACS than Swiss physicians. For both groups, the range between test and treatment thresholds was greater for ACS than for influenza (which is sensible, given the consequences of incorrect diagnosis). For pneumonia, US physicians had a trend towards higher test thresholds and lower treatment thresholds (48% vs 64%, p=0.076) than Swiss physicians. The DVT and UTI scenarios did not provide easily interpretable data, perhaps due to poor wording of the vignettes. We have developed a novel approach for determining decision thresholds. We found important differences in thresholds for US and Swiss physicians that may be a function of differences in healthcare systems. Our results can also guide development of clinical decision rules and guidelines.

Responding to Young People's Health Risks in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomised Trial of Training Clinicians in Screening and Motivational Interviewing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention implementing best practice guidelines recommending clinicians screen and counsel young people across multiple psychosocial risk factors, on clinicians' detection of health risks and patients' risk taking behaviour, compared to a didactic seminar on young people's health. DESIGN: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial where volunteer general practices were stratified by postcode advantage or disadvantage score and billing type (private, free national health, community health centre), then randomised into either intervention or comparison arms using a computer generated random sequence. Three months post-intervention, patients were recruited from all practices post-consultation for a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview and followed up three and 12 months later. Researchers recruiting, consenting and interviewing patients and patients themselves were masked to allocation status; clinicians were not. SETTING: General practices in metropolitan and rural Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: General practices with at least one interested clinician (general practitioner or nurse) and their 14-24 year old patients. INTERVENTION: This complex intervention was designed using evidence based practice in learning and change in clinician behaviour and general practice systems, and included best practice approaches to motivating change in adolescent risk taking behaviours. The intervention involved training clinicians (nine hours) in health risk screening, use of a screening tool and motivational interviewing; training all practice staff (receptionists and clinicians) in engaging youth; provision of feedback to clinicians of patients' risk data; and two practice visits to support new screening and referral resources. Comparison clinicians received one didactic educational seminar (three hours) on engaging youth and health risk screening. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were patient report of (1) clinician detection of at least one of six health risk behaviours (tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug use, risks for sexually transmitted infection, STI, unplanned pregnancy, and road risks); and (2) change in one or more of the six health risk behaviours, at three months or at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were likelihood of future visits, trust in the clinician after exit interview, clinician detection of emotional distress and fear and abuse in relationships, and emotional distress at three and 12 months. Patient acceptability of the screening tool was also described for the intervention arm. Analyses were adjusted for practice location and billing type, patients' sex, age, and recruitment method, and past health risks, where appropriate. An intention to treat analysis approach was used, which included multilevel multiple imputation for missing outcome data. RESULTS: 42 practices were randomly allocated to intervention or comparison arms. Two intervention practices withdrew post allocation, prior to training, leaving 19 intervention (53 clinicians, 377 patients) and 21 comparison (79 clinicians, 524 patients) practices. 69% of patients in both intervention (260) and comparison (360) arms completed the 12 month follow-up. Intervention clinicians discussed more health risks per patient (59.7%) than comparison clinicians (52.7%) and thus were more likely to detect a higher proportion of young people with at least one of the six health risk behaviours (38.4% vs 26.7%, risk difference [RD] 11.6%, Confidence Interval [CI] 2.93% to 20.3%; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.7, CI 1.1 to 2.5). Patients reported less illicit drug use (RD -6.0, CI -11 to -1.2; OR 0·52, CI 0·28 to 0·96), and less risk for STI (RD -5.4, CI -11 to 0.2; OR 0·66, CI 0·46 to 0·96) at three months in the intervention relative to the comparison arm, and for unplanned pregnancy at 12 months (RD -4.4; CI -8.7 to -0.1; OR 0·40, CI 0·20 to 0·80). No differences were detected between arms on other health risks. There were no differences on secondary outcomes, apart from a greater detection of abuse (OR 13.8, CI 1.71 to 111). There were no reports of harmful events and intervention arm youth had high acceptance of the screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: A complex intervention, compared to a simple educational seminar for practices, improved detection of health risk behaviours in young people. Impact on health outcomes was inconclusive. Technology enabling more efficient, systematic health-risk screening may allow providers to target counselling toward higher risk individuals. Further trials require more power to confirm health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.com ISRCTN16059206.