Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1894/04 (T7,N26)-1894/06.

Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1910/01 (T23,N101)-1901/02.

Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1921/01 (T34,N156)-1921/12 (T34,N159).

Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1922/07 (T35,N162)-1922/09.

Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1924/07 (T37,N172)-1924/09.

Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1892/04 (T5,N18)-1892/06.

Revue des études grecques : publication trimestrielle de l'Association pour l'encouragement des études grecques / Théodore Reinard, rédacteur en chef

1900/05 (T13,N52)-1900/06.

Reporting of methodologic information on trial registries for quality assessment: a study of trial records retrieved from the WHO search portal

Background: Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard of evidence, their reporting is often suboptimal. Trial registries have the potential to contribute important methodologic information for critical appraisal of study results. Methods and Findings: The objective of the study was to evaluate the reporting of key methodologic study characteristics in trial registries. We identified a random sample (n = 265) of actively recruiting RCTs using the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in 2008. We assessed the reporting of relevant domains from the Cochrane Collaboration’s ‘Risk of bias’ tool and other key methodological aspects. Our primary outcomes were the proportion of registry records with adequate reporting of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and trial outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed each record. Weighted overall proportions in the ICTRP search portal for adequate reporting of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (including and excluding open label RCT) and primary outcomes were 5.7% (95% CI 3.0–8.4%), 1.4% (0–2.8%), 41% (35–47%), 8.4% (4.1–13%), and 66% (60–72%), respectively. The proportion of adequately reported RCTs was higher for registries that used specific methodological fields for describing methods of randomization and allocation concealment compared to registries that did not. Concerning other key methodological aspects, weighted overall proportions of RCTs with adequately reported items were as follows: eligibility criteria (81%), secondary outcomes (46%), harm (5%) follow-up duration (62%), description of the interventions (53%) and sample size calculation (1%). Conclusions: Trial registries currently contain limited methodologic information about registered RCTs. In order to permit adequate critical appraisal of trial results reported in journals and registries, trial registries should consider requesting details on key RCT methods to complement journal publications. Full protocols remain the most comprehensive source of methodologic information and should be made publicly available.

Outcomes of minimally invasive simple prostatectomy for benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: (1) To assess the outcomes of minimally invasive simple prostatectomy (MISP) for the treatment of symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia in men with large prostates and (2) to compare them with open simple prostatectomy (OSP). METHODS: A systematic review of outcomes of MISP for benign prostatic hyperplasia with meta-analysis was conducted. The article selection process was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-seven observational studies with 764 patients were analyzed. The mean prostate volume was 113.5 ml (95 % CI 106-121). The mean increase in Qmax was 14.3 ml/s (95 % CI 13.1-15.6), and the mean improvement in IPSS was 17.2 (95 % CI 15.2-19.2). Mean duration of operation was 141 min (95 % CI 124-159), and the mean intraoperative blood loss was 284 ml (95 % CI 243-325). One hundred and four patients (13.6 %) developed a surgical complication. In comparative studies, length of hospital stay (WMD -1.6 days, p = 0.02), length of catheter use (WMD -1.3 days, p = 0.04) and estimated blood loss (WMD -187 ml, p = 0.015) were significantly lower in the MISP group, while the duration of operation was longer than in OSP (WMD 37.8 min, p < 0.0001). There were no differences in improvements in Qmax, IPSS and perioperative complications between both procedures. The small study sizes, publication bias, lack of systematic complication reporting and short follow-up are limitations. CONCLUSIONS: MISP seems an effective and safe treatment option. It provides similar improvements in Qmax and IPSS as OSP. Despite taking longer, it results in less blood loss and shorter hospital stay. Prospective randomized studies comparing OSP, MISP and laser enucleation are needed to define the standard surgical treatment for large prostates.

The REporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) Statement: Methods for Arriving at Consensus and Developing Reporting Guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Routinely collected health data, collected for administrative and clinical purposes, without specific a priori research questions, are increasingly used for observational, comparative effectiveness, health services research, and clinical trials. The rapid evolution and availability of routinely collected data for research has brought to light specific issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines. The aim of the present project was to determine the priorities of stakeholders in order to guide the development of the REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. METHODS: Two modified electronic Delphi surveys were sent to stakeholders. The first determined themes deemed important to include in the RECORD statement, and was analyzed using qualitative methods. The second determined quantitative prioritization of the themes based on categorization of manuscript headings. The surveys were followed by a meeting of RECORD working committee, and re-engagement with stakeholders via an online commentary period. RESULTS: The qualitative survey (76 responses of 123 surveys sent) generated 10 overarching themes and 13 themes derived from existing STROBE categories. Highest-rated overall items for inclusion were: Disease/exposure identification algorithms; Characteristics of the population included in databases; and Characteristics of the data. In the quantitative survey (71 responses of 135 sent), the importance assigned to each of the compiled themes varied depending on the manuscript section to which they were assigned. Following the working committee meeting, online ranking by stakeholders provided feedback and resulted in revision of the final checklist. CONCLUSIONS: The RECORD statement incorporated the suggestions provided by a large, diverse group of stakeholders to create a reporting checklist specific to observational research using routinely collected health data. Our findings point to unique aspects of studies conducted with routinely collected health data and the perceived need for better reporting of methodological issues.

Positive Outcomes Influence the Rate and Time to Publication, but Not the Impact Factor of Publications of Clinical Trial Results

Objectives: Publication bias may affect the validity of evidence based medical decisions. The aim of this study is to assess whether research outcomes affect the dissemination of clinical trial findings, in terms of rate, time to publication, and impact factor of journal publications. Methods and Findings: All drug-evaluating clinical trials submitted to and approved by a general hospital ethics committee between 1997 and 2004 were prospectively followed to analyze their fate and publication. Published articles were identified by searching Pubmed and other electronic databases. Clinical study final reports submitted to the ethics committee, final reports synopses available online and meeting abstracts were also considered as sources of study results. Study outcomes were classified as positive (when statistical significance favoring experimental drug was achieved), negative (when no statistical significance was achieved or it favored control drug) and descriptive (for non-controlled studies). Time to publication was defined as time from study closure to publication. A survival analysis was performed using a Cox regression model to analyze time to publication. Journal impact factors of identified publications were recorded. Publication rate was 48·4% (380/785). Study results were identified for 68·9% of all completed clinical trials (541/785). Publication rate was 84·9% (180/212) for studies with results classified as positive and 68·9% (128/186) for studies with results classified as negative (p<0·001). Median time to publication was 2·09 years (IC95 1·61-2·56) for studies with results classified as positive and 3·21 years (IC95 2·69-3·70) for studies with results classified as negative (hazard ratio 1·99 (IC95 1·55-2·55). No differences were found in publication impact factor between positive (median 6·308, interquartile range: 3·141-28·409) and negative result studies (median 8·266, interquartile range: 4·135-17·157). Conclusions: Clinical trials with positive outcomes have significantly higher rates and shorter times to publication than those with negative results. However, no differences have been found in terms of impact factor.

Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Patient safety is a major concern in healthcare systems worldwide. Although most safety research has been conducted in the inpatient setting, evidence indicates that medical errors and adverse events are a threat to patients in the primary care setting as well. Since information about the frequency and outcomes of safety incidents in primary care is required, the goals of this study are to describe the type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents in primary care in Switzerland and to elucidate possible risk factors for medication incidents. Label="METHODS AND ANALYSIS" ="METHODS"/> <AbstractText STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We will conduct a prospective surveillance study to identify cases of medication incidents among primary care patients in Switzerland over the course of the year 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing drug treatment by 167 general practitioners or paediatricians reporting to the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any erroneous event, as defined by the physician, related to the medication process and interfering with normal treatment course. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Lack of treatment effect, adverse drug reactions or drug-drug or drug-disease interactions without detectable treatment error. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Medication incidents. RISK FACTORS: Age, gender, polymedication, morbidity, care dependency, hospitalisation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics to assess type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents and logistic regression to assess their association with potential risk factors. Estimated sample size: 500 medication incidents. LIMITATIONS: We will take into account under-reporting and selective reporting among others as potential sources of bias or imprecision when interpreting the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal request was necessary because of fully anonymised data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0229537.

Under-reporting of dietary energy intake in five populations of the African diaspora.

Studies on the role of diet in the development of chronic diseases often rely on self-report surveys of dietary intake. Unfortunately, many validity studies have demonstrated that self-reported dietary intake is subject to systematic under-reporting, although the vast majority of such studies have been conducted in industrialised countries. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether or not systematic reporting error exists among the individuals of African ancestry (n 324) in five countries distributed across the Human Development Index (HDI) scale, a UN statistic devised to rank countries on non-income factors plus economic indicators. Using two 24 h dietary recalls to assess energy intake and the doubly labelled water method to assess total energy expenditure, we calculated the difference between these two values ((self-report - expenditure/expenditure) × 100) to identify under-reporting of habitual energy intake in selected communities in Ghana, South Africa, Seychelles, Jamaica and the USA. Under-reporting of habitual energy intake was observed in all the five countries. The South African cohort exhibited the highest mean under-reporting ( - 52·1% of energy) compared with the cohorts of Ghana ( - 22·5%), Jamaica ( - 17·9%), Seychelles ( - 25·0%) and the USA ( - 18·5%). BMI was the most consistent predictor of under-reporting compared with other predictors. In conclusion, there is substantial under-reporting of dietary energy intake in populations across the whole range of the HDI, and this systematic reporting error increases according to the BMI of an individual.

Reporting for account and sales management

Tutkimuksen tavoitteena oli kerätä Elcoteq Network Oyj:n myyntihenkilöiden tietotarpeet ja konkretisoida ne raportoinnin kautta. Tutkimus keskittyi asiakasvirran eri vaiheissa tarvittavaan asiakas- ja projektikohtaiseen tietoon. Tarkoituksena oli parantaa raportointia vastaamaan asiakkaan ja sales case:n hallintaa alkaen asiakasvirran uusasiakasvaiheesta ja projektin arvioinnista. Tietotarpeet kerättiin haastattelujen avulla ja osallistumalla aiheeseen liittyviin projekteihin. Haastattelujen ja teorian avulla projektiliiketoiminnan avainpiirteet ja asiakaskannattavuuteen vaikuttavat tekijät kerättiin yhteen ja muutettiin konkretiaksi raportoinnin parannusehdotuksien kautta. Tutkimus osoitti, että myyntihenkilöiden näkökulmasta olisi muodostettava uudet raportit tukemaan asiakkaan ja projektin hallintaa. Ennustettu voidaan verrata toteutuneeseen ja sekä asikkuuden, että sales case:n seuranta paranee uusien raporttien avulla. Budjetit, sekä asiakaskohtaiset tavoitteet voidaan laatia luotettavimmin ja kokonaiskuva asiakkuuden ja projektin kannattavuudesta pystytään näkemään ko. raporteista sekä graafein, että numeerisena tietona.