Attitudes and Beliefs of Pig Farmers and Wild Boar Hunters Towards Reporting of African Swine Fever in Bulgaria, Germany and the Western Part of the Russian Federation

This study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of pig farmers and hunters in Germany, Bulgaria and the western part of the Russian Federation towards reporting suspected cases of African swine fever (ASF). Data were collected using a web-based questionnaire survey targeting pig farmers and hunters in these three study areas. Separate multivariable logistic regression models identified key variables associated with each of the three binary outcome variables whether or not farmers would immediately report suspected cases of ASF, whether or not hunters would submit samples from hunted wild boar for diagnostic testing and whether or not hunters would report wild boar carcasses. The results showed that farmers who would not immediately report suspected cases of ASF are more likely to believe that their reputation in the local community would be adversely affected if they were to report it, that they can control the outbreak themselves without the involvement of veterinary services and that laboratory confirmation would take too long. The modelling also indicated that hunters who did not usually submit samples of their harvested wild boar for ASF diagnosis, and hunters who did not report wild boar carcasses are more likely to justify their behaviour through a lack of awareness of the possibility of reporting. These findings emphasize the need to develop more effective communication strategies targeted at pig farmers and hunters about the disease, its epidemiology, consequences and control methods, to increase the likelihood of early reporting, especially in the Russian Federation where the virus circulates

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.

Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: The STARDdem Initiative.

OBJECTIVE To provide guidance on standards for reporting studies of diagnostic test accuracy for dementia disorders. METHODS An international consensus process on reporting standards in dementia and cognitive impairment (STARDdem) was established, focusing on studies presenting data from which sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be derived. A working group led the initiative through 4 rounds of consensus work, using a modified Delphi process and culminating in a face-to-face consensus meeting in October 2012. The aim of this process was to agree on how best to supplement the generic standards of the STARD statement to enhance their utility and encourage their use in dementia research. RESULTS More than 200 comments were received during the wider consultation rounds. The areas at most risk of inadequate reporting were identified and a set of dementia-specific recommendations to supplement the STARD guidance were developed, including better reporting of patient selection, the reference standard used, avoidance of circularity, and reporting of test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION STARDdem is an implementation of the STARD statement in which the original checklist is elaborated and supplemented with guidance pertinent to studies of cognitive disorders. Its adoption is expected to increase transparency, enable more effective evaluation of diagnostic tests in Alzheimer disease and dementia, contribute to greater adherence to methodologic standards, and advance the development of Alzheimer biomarkers.

International Frameworks for Disaster Risk Reduction: Useful Guidance for Sustainable Mountain Development?

In recent decades, a number of global frameworks have been developed for disaster risk reduction (DRR). The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 and its successor document, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted in Japan in March 2015, provide general guidance for reducing risks from natural hazards. This is particularly important for mountainous areas, but DRR for mountain areas and sustainable mountain development received little attention in the recent policy debate. The question remains whether the Hyogo and Sendai frameworks can provide guidance for sustainable mountain development. This article evaluates the 2 frameworks in light of the special challenges of DRR in mountain areas and argues that, while the frameworks offer valuable guidance, they need to be further adapted for local contexts—particularly for mountain areas, which require special attention because of changing risk patterns like the effects of climate change and high land-use pressure.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement.

OBJECTIVES Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a new data collection methodology used to estimate characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence in drug users. Many national public health systems and international organizations rely on RDS data. However, RDS reporting quality and available reporting guidelines are inadequate. We carried out a systematic review of RDS studies and present Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for RDS Studies (STROBE-RDS), a checklist of essential items to present in RDS publications, justified by an explanation and elaboration document. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched the MEDLINE (1970-2013), EMBASE (1974-2013), and Global Health (1910-2013) databases to assess the number and geographical distribution of published RDS studies. STROBE-RDS was developed based on STROBE guidelines, following Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. RESULTS RDS has been used in over 460 studies from 69 countries, including the USA (151 studies), China (70), and India (32). STROBE-RDS includes modifications to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The two key areas that required modification concerned the selection of participants and statistical analysis of the sample. CONCLUSION STROBE-RDS seeks to enhance the transparency and utility of research using RDS. If widely adopted, STROBE-RDS should improve global infectious diseases public health decision making.

Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

EIRS: Ewaso Incident Reporting System

Ewaso Incident Reporting System: reports on human-elephant interaction in Laikipia

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.