Reproducibility and validity of video screen measurements of gait in children with spastic cerebral palsy

PURPOSE: To determine the reproducibility and validity of video screen measurement (VSM) of sagittal plane joint angles during gait. METHODS: 17 children with spastic cerebral palsy walked on a 10m walkway. Videos were recorded and 3d-instrumented gait analysis was performed. Two investigators measured six sagittal joint/segment angles (shank, ankle, knee, hip, pelvis, and trunk) using a custom-made software package. The intra- and interrater reproducibility were expressed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurements (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). The agreement between VSM and 3d joint angles was illustrated by Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement (LoA). RESULTS: Regarding the intrarater reproducibility of VSM, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.58 (trunk), the SEM from 0.81 degrees (shank) to 5.97 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.80 degrees (shank) to 16.55 degrees (trunk). Regarding the interrater reproducibility, the ICC ranged from 0.99 (shank) to 0.48 (trunk), the SEM from 0.70 degrees (shank) to 6.78 degrees (trunk) and the SDD from 1.95 degrees (shank) to 18.8 degrees (trunk). The LoA between VSM and 3d data ranged from 0.4+/-13.4 degrees (knee extension stance) to 12.0+/-14.6 degrees (ankle dorsiflexion swing). CONCLUSION: When performed by the same observer, VSM mostly allows the detection of relevant changes after an intervention. However, VSM angles differ from 3d-IGA and do not reflect the real sagittal joint position, probably due to the additional movements in the other planes.

Test-retest reliability of the nociceptive withdrawal reflex and electrical pain thresholds after single and repeated stimulation in patients with chronic low back pain

Recent studies have shown that the nociceptive withdrawal reflex threshold (NWR-T) and the electrical pain threshold (EP-T) are reliable measures in pain-free populations. However, it is necessary to investigate the reliability of these measures in patients with chronic pain in order to translate these techniques from laboratory to clinic. The aims of this study were to determine the test-retest reliability of the NWR-T and EP-T after single and repeated (temporal summation) electrical stimulation in a group of patients with chronic low back pain, and to investigate the association between the NWR-T and the EP-T. To this end, 25 patients with chronic pain participated in three identical sessions, separated by 1 week in average, in which the NWR-T and the EP-T to single and repeated stimulation were measured. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and Bland-Altman analysis. The association between the thresholds was assessed using the coefficient of determination (r (2)). The results showed good-to-excellent reliability for both NWR-T and EP-T in all cases, with average ICC values ranging 0.76-0.90 and average CV values ranging 12.0-17.7%. The association between thresholds was better after repeated stimulation than after single stimulation, with average r (2) values of 0.83 and 0.56, respectively. In conclusion, the NWR-T and the EP-T are reliable assessment tools for assessing the sensitivity of spinal nociceptive pathways in patients with chronic pain.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients’ reported pain as an outcome. Methods We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. Results On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes −0.21, 95% confidence interval −0.34 to −0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates. Conclusions Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Distinguishing case series from cohort studies

Case series are a commonly reported study design, but the label "case series" is used inconsistently and sometimes incorrectly. Mislabeling impairs the appropriate indexing and sorting of evidence. This article tries to clarify the concept of case series and proposes a way to distinguish them from cohort studies. In a cohort study, patients are sampled on the basis of exposure and are followed over time, and the occurrence of outcomes is assessed. A cohort study may include a comparison group, although this is not a necessary feature. A case series may be a study that samples patients with both a specific outcome and a specific exposure, or one that samples patients with a specific outcome and includes patients regardless of whether they have specific exposures. Whereas a cohort study, in principle, enables the calculation of an absolute risk or a rate for the outcome, such a calculation is not possible in a case series.

CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

Objectives Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. Design The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. Results The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. Conclusions The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials

Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies

The design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should incorporate characteristics (such as concealment of randomised allocation and blinding of participants and personnel) that avoid biases resulting from lack of comparability of the intervention and control groups. Empirical evidence suggests that the absence of such characteristics leads to biased intervention effect estimates, but the findings of different studies are not consistent.

Anthracyclines during induction therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy of different anthracyclines and anthracycline dosing schedules for induction therapy in acute myeloid leukaemia in children and adults younger than 60 years of age. Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion in the review. Idarubicin (IDA), in comparison to daunorubicin (DNR), reduced remission failure rates (risk ratio (RR) 0·81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0·66-0·99; P = 0·04), but did not alter rates of early death or overall mortality. Superiority of IDA for remission induction was limited to studies with a DNR/IDA dose ratio <5 (ratio <5: RR 0·65; 95% CI, 0·51-0·81; P < 0·001; ratio ≥5: RR 1·03; 95% CI, 0·91-1·16; P = 0·63). Higher-dose DNR, compared to lower-dose DNR, was associated with reduced rates for remission failure (RR 0·75; 95% CI, 0·60-0·94; P = 0·003) and overall mortality (RR 0·83; 95% CI, 0·75-0·93; P < 0·001), but not for early death. Comparisons of several other anthracycline derivates did not reveal significant differences in outcomes. Survival estimates in adults suggest that both high-dose DNR (90 mg/m(2) daily × 3 or 50 mg/m(2) daily × 5) and IDA (12 mg/m(2) daily × 3) can achieve 5-year survival rates of between 40 and 50 percent.