Single-trial multisensory memories affect later auditory and visual object discrimination.

Multisensory memory traces established via single-trial exposures can impact subsequent visual object recognition. This impact appears to depend on the meaningfulness of the initial multisensory pairing, implying that multisensory exposures establish distinct object representations that are accessible during later unisensory processing. Multisensory contexts may be particularly effective in influencing auditory discrimination, given the purportedly inferior recognition memory in this sensory modality. The possibility of this generalization and the equivalence of effects when memory discrimination was being performed in the visual vs. auditory modality were at the focus of this study. First, we demonstrate that visual object discrimination is affected by the context of prior multisensory encounters, replicating and extending previous findings by controlling for the probability of multisensory contexts during initial as well as repeated object presentations. Second, we provide the first evidence that single-trial multisensory memories impact subsequent auditory object discrimination. Auditory object discrimination was enhanced when initial presentations entailed semantically congruent multisensory pairs and was impaired after semantically incongruent multisensory encounters, compared to sounds that had been encountered only in a unisensory manner. Third, the impact of single-trial multisensory memories upon unisensory object discrimination was greater when the task was performed in the auditory vs. visual modality. Fourth, there was no evidence for correlation between effects of past multisensory experiences on visual and auditory processing, suggestive of largely independent object processing mechanisms between modalities. We discuss these findings in terms of the conceptual short term memory (CSTM) model and predictive coding. Our results suggest differential recruitment and modulation of conceptual memory networks according to the sensory task at hand.

A pilot feasibility, safety and biological efficacy multicentre trial of therapeutic hypercapnia after cardiac arrest: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest causes ischaemic brain injury. Arterial carbon dioxide tension (PaCO2) is a major determinant of cerebral blood flow. Thus, mild hypercapnia in the 24 h following cardiac arrest may increase cerebral blood flow and attenuate such injury. We describe the Carbon Control and Cardiac Arrest (CCC) trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The CCC trial is a pilot multicentre feasibility, safety and biological efficacy randomized controlled trial recruiting adult cardiac arrest patients admitted to the intensive care unit after return of spontaneous circulation. At admission, using concealed allocation, participants are randomized to 24 h of either normocapnia (PaCO2 35 to 45 mmHg) or mild hypercapnia (PaCO2 50 to 55 mmHg). Key feasibility outcomes are recruitment rate and protocol compliance rate. The primary biological efficacy and biological safety measures are the between-groups difference in serum neuron-specific enolase and S100b protein levels at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. Secondary outcome measure include adverse events, in-hospital mortality, and neurological assessment at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The trial commenced in December 2012 and, when completed, will provide clinical evidence as to whether targeting mild hypercapnia for 24 h following intensive care unit admission for cardiac arrest patients is feasible and safe and whether it results in decreased concentrations of neurological injury biomarkers compared with normocapnia. Trial results will also be used to determine whether a phase IIb study powered for survival at 90 days is feasible and justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000690853 .

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.

Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious. METHODS: A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Clinical trial designs for rare diseases: studies developed and discussed by the International Rare Cancers Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The past three decades have seen rapid improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of most cancers and the most important contributor has been research. Progress in rare cancers has been slower, not least because of the challenges of undertaking research. SETTINGS: The International Rare Cancers Initiative (IRCI) is a partnership which aims to stimulate and facilitate the development of international clinical trials for patients with rare cancers. It is focused on interventional--usually randomized--clinical trials with the clear goal of improving outcomes for patients. The key challenges are organisational and methodological. A multi-disciplinary workshop to review the methods used in ICRI portfolio trials was held in Amsterdam in September 2013. Other as-yet unrealised methods were also discussed. RESULTS: The IRCI trials are each presented to exemplify possible approaches to designing credible trials in rare cancers. Researchers may consider these for use in future trials and understand the choices made for each design. INTERPRETATION: Trials can be designed using a wide array of possibilities. There is no 'one size fits all' solution. In order to make progress in the rare diseases, decisions to change practice will have to be based on less direct evidence from clinical trials than in more common diseases.

MGMT Promoter Methylation Is a Strong Prognostic Biomarker for Benefit from Dose-Intensified Temozolomide Rechallenge in Progressive Glioblastoma: The DIRECTOR Trial.

PURPOSE: Rechallenge with temozolomide (TMZ) at first progression of glioblastoma after temozolomide chemoradiotherapy (TMZ/RT→TMZ) has been studied in retrospective and single-arm prospective studies, applying temozolomide continuously or using 7/14 or 21/28 days schedules. The DIRECTOR trial sought to show superiority of the 7/14 regimen. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with glioblastoma at first progression after TMZ/RT→TMZ and at least two maintenance temozolomide cycles were randomized to Arm A [one week on (120 mg/m(2) per day)/one week off] or Arm B [3 weeks on (80 mg/m(2) per day)/one week off]. The primary endpoint was median time-to-treatment failure (TTF) defined as progression, premature temozolomide discontinuation for toxicity, or death from any cause. O(6)-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation was prospectively assessed by methylation-specific PCR. RESULTS: Because of withdrawal of support, the trial was prematurely closed to accrual after 105 patients. There was a similar outcome in both arms for median TTF [A: 1.8 months; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.8-3.2 vs. B: 2.0 months; 95% CI, 1.8-3.5] and overall survival [A: 9.8 months (95% CI, 6.7-13.0) vs. B: 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.1-11.6)]. Median TTF in patients with MGMT-methylated tumors was 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-7.4) versus 1.8 months (95% CI, 1.8-2) in MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma. Progression-free survival rates at 6 months (PFS-6) were 39.7% with versus 6.9% without MGMT promoter methylation. CONCLUSIONS: Temozolomide rechallenge is a treatment option for MGMT promoter-methylated recurrent glioblastoma. Alternative strategies need to be considered for patients with progressive glioblastoma without MGMT promoter methylation.

Effect Estimation of an Innovative Nursing Intervention to Improve Delirium among Home-Dwelling Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.

AIMS: Estimating the effect of a nursing intervention in home-dwelling older adults on the occurrence and course of delirium and concomitant cognitive and functional impairment. METHODS: A randomized clinical pilot trial using a before/after design was conducted with older patients discharged from hospital who had a medical prescription to receive home care. A total of 51 patients were randomized into the experimental group (EG) and 52 patients into the control group (CG). Besides usual home care, nursing interventions were offered by a geriatric nurse specialist to the EG at 48 h, 72 h, 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days after discharge. All patients were monitored for symptoms of delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method. Cognitive and functional statuses were measured with the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Katz and Lawton Index. RESULTS: No statistical differences with regard to symptoms of delirium (p = 0.085), cognitive impairment (p = 0.151), and functional status (p = 0.235) were found between the EG and CG at study entry and at 1 month. After adjustment, statistical differences were found in favor of the EG for symptoms of delirium (p = 0.046), cognitive impairment (p = 0.015), and functional status (p = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Nursing interventions to detect delirium at home are feasible and accepted. The nursing interventions produced a promising effect to improve delirium.

Effects of CPAP on oxidative stress and nitrate efficiency in sleep apnoea: a randomised trial.

Background: Previous studies have presented contradictory data concerning obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS), lipid oxidation and nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability. This study was undertaken to (1) compare the concentration of 8-isoprostane and total nitrate and nitrite (NOx) in plasma of middle-aged men with OSAS and no other known co-morbidity and healthy controls of the same age, gender and body mass index; and (2) test the hypothesis that nasal continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy attenuates oxidative stress and nitrate deficiency. Methods: A prospective, randomised, placebo controlled, double-blind, crossover study was performed in 31 consecutive middle-aged men with newly diagnosed OSAS and 15 healthy control subjects. Patients with OSAS were randomised to receive sham CPAP or effective CPAP for 12 weeks. Blood pressure, urinary catecholamine levels and plasma 8-isoprostane and NOx concentrations were obtained before and after both treatment modalities. Results: Patients with OSAS had significantly higher 8-isoprostane levels (median (IQR) 42.5 (29.2-78.2) vs 20.0 (12.5-52.5) pg/ml, p = 0.041, Mann-Whitney test) and lower NOx levels (264 (165-650) vs 590 (251- 1465) mmol/l, p = 0.022) than healthy subjects. Body mass index, blood pressure and urinary catecholamines were unchanged by CPAP therapy, but 8-isoprostane concentrations decreased (38.5 (24.2-58.7) pg/ml at baseline vs 22.5 (16.2-35.3) pg/ml on CPAP, p = 0.0001) and NOx levels increased (280 (177-707) vs 1373 (981-1517) mmol/l, p = 0.0001) after CPAP. Conclusions: OSAS is associated with an increase in oxidative stress and a decrease in NOx that is normalised

Statistical Reviewers Improve Reporting in Biomedical Articles: a Randomized Trial.

Background. Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. Methodology and Principal Findings. Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with"no statistical expert" and"no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 262 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6- 24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: 20.3+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality. Conclusions and Significance. This prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

Frequent users of the emergency department in a universal health coverage system : a randomized controlled trial of a case-management intervention

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department users represent a small number of patients but account for a large number of emergency department visits. They should be a focus because they are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). Case management interventions have resulted in a significant decrease in emergency department visits, but association with QoL has not been assessed. One aim of our study was to examine to what extent an interdisciplinary case management intervention, compared to standard emergency care, improved frequent emergency department users' QoL. METHODS: Data are part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent emergency department users' QoL and use of health-care resources at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. In total, 250 frequent emergency department users (≥5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013. Following an assessment focused on social characteristics; social, mental, and somatic determinants of health; risk behaviors; health care use; and QoL, participants were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group (n=125 in each group). The final sample included 194 participants (20 deaths, 36 dropouts, n=96 in the intervention group, n=99 in the control group). Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention by an interdisciplinary, mobile team in addition to standard emergency care. The case management intervention involved four nurses and a physician who provided counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system. The participants' QoL was evaluated by a study nurse using the WHOQOL-BREF five times during the study (at baseline, and at 2, 5.5, 9, and 12 months). Four of the six WHOQOL dimensions of QoL were retained here: physical health, psychological health, social relationship, and environment, with scores ranging from 0 (low QoL) to 100 (high QoL). A linear, mixed-effects model with participants as a random effect was run to analyze the change in QoL over time. The effects of time, participants' group, and the interaction between time and group were tested. These effects were controlled for sociodemographic characteristics and health-related variables (i.e., age, gender, education, citizenship, marital status, type of financial resources, proficiency in French, somatic and mental health problems, and behaviors at risk).

Impact of case management on frequent users quality of life : a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Frequent emergency department users represent a small number of patients but account for a large number of emergency department visits. They should be a focus because they are often vulnerable patients with many risk factors affecting their quality of life (QoL). Case management interventions have resulted in a significant decrease in emergency department visits, but association with QoL has not been assessed. One aim of our study was to examine to what extent an interdisciplinary case management intervention, compared to standard emergency care, improved frequent emergency department users' QoL. METHODS: Data are part of a randomized, controlled trial designed to improve frequent emergency department users' QoL and use of health-care resources at the Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. In total, 250 frequent emergency department users (≥5 attendances during the previous 12 months; ≥ 18 years of age) were interviewed between May 2012 and July 2013. Following an assessment focused on social characteristics; social, mental, and somatic determinants of health; risk behaviors; health care use; and QoL, participants were randomly assigned to the control or the intervention group (n=125 in each group). The final sample included 194 participants (20 deaths, 36 dropouts, n=96 in the intervention group, n=99 in the control group). Participants in the intervention group received a case management intervention by an interdisciplinary, mobile team in addition to standard emergency care. The case management intervention involved four nurses and a physician who provided counseling and assistance concerning social determinants of health, substance-use disorders, and access to the health-care system.

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.