Social media attention and citations of published outputs from re-use of clinical trial data: a matched comparison with articles published in the same journals.

BACKGROUND: Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case-control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates. METHODS: Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: 89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3-22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3-12.3) for controls (p = 0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1-8) for reuses and 4 (1 - 11.5) for controls (p = 0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source. CONCLUSIONS: Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration: osf.io/fp62e.

[Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide]. / Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung - ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation.

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting. The resultant 12-item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who intervened, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actually carried out)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with a detailed explanation of each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure the accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user friendly manner. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines efforts into one current, useful reporting guidance.The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. A list of possible items based on a systematic review was created. A two round, modified Delphi panel consisting of representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, government, and the editorial community was conducted. Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed. The recommendations are contained in a user friendly, 24 item checklist. A copy of the statement, accompanying checklist, and this report can be found on the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluations Publication Guidelines Task Force website (www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). We hope CHEERS will lead to better reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the CHEERS statement is being co-published across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups, to endorse CHEERS. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.

Skeletal findings in children recently initiating glucocorticoids for the treatment of nephrotic syndrome.

SUMMARY: Eighty children with nephrotic syndrome underwent lumbar spine densitometry and vertebral morphometry soon after glucocorticoid initiation. We found an inverse relationship between glucocorticoid exposure and spine areal bone mineral density (BMD) Z-score and a low rate of vertebral deformities (8%). INTRODUCTION: Vertebral fractures are an under-recognized complication of childhood glucocorticoid-treated illnesses. Our goal was to study the relationships among glucocorticoid exposure, lumbar spine areal BMD (LS BMD), and vertebral shape in glucocorticoid-treated children with new-onset nephrotic syndrome. METHODS: Lateral thoracolumbar spine radiography and LS BMD were performed in 80 children with nephrotic syndrome (median age 4.4 years; 46 boys) within the first 37 days of glucocorticoid therapy. Genant semiquantitative grading was used as the primary method for vertebral morphometry; the algorithm-based qualitative (ABQ) method was used for secondary vertebral deformity analysis. RESULTS: Six of the 78 children with usable radiographs (8%; 95% confidence interval 4 to 16%) manifested a single Genant grade 1 deformity each. All deformities were mild anterior wedging (two at each of T6, T7, and T8). Four of the 78 children (5%; 95% confidence interval 2 to 13%) showed one ABQ sign of fracture each (loss of endplate parallelism; two children at T6 and two at T8). Two of the children with ABQ signs also had a Genant grade 1 deformity in the same vertebral body. None of the children with a Genant or ABQ deformity reported back pain. An inverse relationship was identified between LS BMD Z-score and glucocorticoid exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Although we identified an inverse relationship between steroid exposure and LS BMD soon after glucocorticoid initiation for childhood nephrotic syndrome, there was only a low rate of vertebral deformities. The clinical significance of these findings requires further study.

Is staging beneficial for Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Fowler and Stephens showed that by dividing the spermatic vessels a high intra-abdominal testis could be placed in the scrotum. Testicular atrophy is a potential complication of this technique. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether single or 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy results in better testicular viability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched electronic databases, clinical trial registries and gray literature. We included reports describing boys younger than 18 years with a primary outcome of "testicular viability and position." We performed a meta-analysis using random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using forest plot and I(2) statistic. RESULTS: We identified 1,807 citations and included 61 articles. Single stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy was discussed in 9 articles, a 2-stage procedure in 36 and both approaches in 16. There were no randomized controlled trials, and most studies were cohort or case series. The pooled estimate of success rates was 80% for single stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy (95% CI 75 to 86) and 85% for 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy (95% CI 81 to 90). The pooled odds ratio of single stage vs 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy was 2.0 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.9) favoring the 2-stage procedure. There was no difference in the success rate between laparoscopic and open techniques in either single or 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy. There was no evidence of asymmetry on the funnel plot. There were no complications reported with single stage, while ileus, hematoma and infection were the most common complications with 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques have a fairly high success rate but 2-stage Fowler-Stephens orchiopexy appears to carry a higher rate of success than the single stage approach (85% vs 80%, OR 2 in favor of 2-stage). Laparoscopic and open techniques had the same success rate. However, the level of evidence of the studies was low, and a study of a more robust design, such as a randomized controlled trial, should be performed.

A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research.

Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website (http://www.equator-network.org) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting.

Heparin versus placebo for acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina (UA) and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, UA/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although emerging evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of ACS. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of heparins (UFH and LMWH) compared with placebo for the treatment of patients with ACS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on The Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2002), EMBASE (1980 to May 2002) and CINAHL (1982 to May 2002). Authors of included studies and pharmaceutical industry representatives were contacted to determine if unpublished studies which met the inclusion criteria were available. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials of parenteral UFH or LMWH versus placebo in people with ACS (UA or NSTEMI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed quality of studies. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study authors were contacted to verify and clarify missing data. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies (3118 participants) were included in this review. We found no evidence for difference in overall mortality between the groups treated with heparin and placebo (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.98). Heparins reduced the occurrence of MI (RR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63, NNT = 33). An increase in the incidence of minor bleeds (RR = 6.80, 95% CI 1.23 to 37.49, NNH = 17). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, patients treated with heparins had similar risk of mortality, revascularization, recurrent angina, major bleeding and thrombocytopenia. However, those treated with heparins had decreased risk of MI and a higher incidence of minor bleeding.

When and how to update systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are most helpful if they are up-to-date. We did a systematic review of strategies and methods describing when and how to update systematic reviews. OBJECTIVES: To identify, describe and assess strategies and methods addressing: 1) when to update systematic reviews and 2) how to update systematic reviews. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 1, 2006), and hand searched the 2005 Cochrane Colloquium proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included methodology reports, updated systematic reviews, commentaries, editorials, or other short reports describing the development, use, or comparison of strategies and methods for determining the need for updating or updating systematic reviews in healthcare. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We abstracted information from each included report using a 15-item questionnaire. The strategies and methods for updating systematic reviews were assessed and compared descriptively with respect to their usefulness, comprehensiveness, advantages, and disadvantages. MAIN RESULTS: Four updating strategies, one technique, and two statistical methods were identified. Three strategies addressed steps for updating and one strategy presented a model for assessing the need to update. One technique discussed the use of the "entry date" field in bibliographic searching. Statistical methods were cumulative meta-analysis and predicting when meta-analyses are outdated. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Little research has been conducted on when and how to update systematic reviews and the feasibility and efficiency of the identified approaches is uncertain. These shortcomings should be addressed in future research.

A comparison of direct vs. self-report measures for assessing height, weight and body mass index: a systematic review.

Obesity is a rapidly increasing public health problem, with surveillance most often based on self-reported values of height and weight. We conducted a systematic review to determine what empirical evidence exists regarding the agreement between objective (measured) and subjective (reported) measures in assessing height, weight and body mass index (BMI). Five electronic databases were searched to identify observational and experimental studies on adult populations over the age of 18. Searching identified 64 citations that met the eligibility criteria and examined the relationship between self-reported and directly measured height or weight. Overall, the data show trends of under-reporting for weight and BMI and over-reporting for height, although the degree of the trend varies for men and women and the characteristics of the population being examined. Standard deviations were large indicating that there is a great deal of individual variability in reporting of results. Combining the results quantitatively was not possible because of the poor reporting of outcomes of interest. Accurate estimation of these variables is important as data from population studies such as those included in this review are often used to generate regional and national estimates of overweight and obesity and are in turn used by decision makers to allocate resources and set priorities in health.

Bisphosphonate therapy for children and adolescents with secondary osteoporosis.

BACKGROUND: Children with chronic illnesses are at increased risk for reductions in bone strength and subsequent fractures (osteoporosis), either due to the impact of the underlying condition on skeletal development or due to the osteotoxic effect of medications (e.g., glucocorticoids) used to treat the chronic illness. Bisphosphonates are being administered with increasing frequency to children with secondary osteoporosis; however, the efficacy and harm of these agents remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy and harm of bisphosphonate therapy in the treatment and prevention of secondary osteoporosis in children and adolescents. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and ISI Web of Science (inception-December 2006). Further literature was identified through expert contact, key author searches, scanning reference lists of included studies, and contacting bisphosphonate manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, quasi-randomized, controlled clinical trials, cohort, and case controls of bisphosphonate(s) in children 0-18 years of age with at least one low-trauma fracture event or reductions in bone mineral density in the context of secondary osteoporosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Case series were used for supplemental harms-related data. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs, two CCTs, and one prospective cohort (n=281 children) were included and classified into osteoporosis due to: 1) neuromuscular conditions (one RCT) and 2) chronic illness (five RCTs, two CCTs, one cohort). Bisphosphonates examined were oral alendronate, clodronate, and intravenous (IV) pamidronate. Study quality varied. Harms data from 23 case series (n=241 children) were used. Heterogeneity precluded statistically combining the results. Percent change or Z-score change in lumbar spine areal BMD from baseline were consistently reported. Two studies carried out between-group analyses; one showed no significant difference (using oral alendronate in anorexia nervosa) while the other demonstrated a treatment effect on lumbar spine with IV pamidronate in burn patients. Frequently reported harms included the acute phase reaction, followed by gastrointestinal complaints, and bone/muscle pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results justify further evaluation of bisphosphonates among children with secondary osteoporosis. However, the evidence does not support bisphosphonates as standard therapy. Short-term (3 years or less) bisphosphonate use appears to be well-tolerated. An accepted criterion for osteoporosis in children, a standardized approach to BMD reporting, and examining functional bone health outcomes (e.g., fracture rates) will allow for appropriate comparisons across studies.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

BACKGROUND: While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. OBJECTIVE: To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. METHODS: The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. CONCLUSIONS: GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Comparison of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is characterized by acute changes in mental status including inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness, and is highly prevalent in critically ill adults. Delirium has adverse consequences for both patients and the healthcare system; however, at this time, no effective treatment exists. The identification of effective prevention strategies is therefore a clinical and research imperative. An important limitation of previous reviews of delirium prevention is that interventions were considered in isolation and only direct evidence was used. Our systematic review will synthesize all existing data using network meta-analysis, a powerful statistical approach that enables synthesis of both direct and indirect evidence. METHODS: We will search Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from 1980 to March 2016. We will search the PROSPERO registry for protocols and the Cochrane Library for published systematic reviews. We will examine reference lists of pertinent reviews and search grey literature and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We will include randomized and quasi-randomized trials of critically ill adults evaluating any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or multi-component intervention for delirium prevention, administered in or prior to (i.e., peri-operatively) transfer to the ICU. Two authors will independently screen search results and extract data from eligible studies. Risk of bias assessments will be completed on all included studies. To inform our network meta-analysis, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses for primary and secondary outcomes using random-effects models. We will generate our network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework, assuming a common heterogeneity parameter across all comparisons, and accounting for correlations in multi-arm studies. We will perform analyses using WinBUGS software. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will address the existing knowledge gap regarding best practices for delirium prevention in critically ill adults by synthesizing evidence from trials of pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions administered in or prior to transfer to the ICU. Use of network meta-analysis will clarify which delirium prevention strategies are most effective in improving clinical outcomes while causing least harm. The network meta-analysis is a novel approach and will provide knowledge users and decision makers with comparisons of multiple interventions of delirium prevention strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016036313.

Decreased coronary sinus oxygen content: a predictor of adverse prognosis in patients with severe congestive heart failure.

Patients with congestive heart failure have abnormal coronary hemodynamics, characterized by decreased coronary sinus oxygen content, increased coronary sinus blood flow and increased myocardial oxygen consumption. To evaluate their prognostic importance, the clinical characteristics and systemic and coronary hemodynamics were related to survival in 91 patients with severe congestive heart failure and decreased ejection fraction (25.5 +/- 10% [mean +/- SD]). In 69 patients congestive heart failure was due to or secondary to coronary artery disease (group 1) and in 22 it was due to idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (group 2). Five patients were in functional class II, 48 in class III and 38 in class IV. The median survival time was 20.7 months. As assessed with the Cox proportional hazards model, coronary sinus oxygen content was most strongly associated with a poor prognosis. On the basis of a comparison between the lowest (coronary sinus oxygen content less than or equal to 4.44 vol%) and highest quintile (coronary sinus oxygen content greater than 4.44 vol%), a low coronary sinus oxygen content was associated with a 2.34-fold increased risk of dying (95% confidence interval, 1.31 to 4.08). A low systolic blood pressure and a high diastolic pulmonary artery pressure were also significantly associated with increased mortality. Patients in the subgroup with a low coronary sinus oxygen content had values for functional class, ejection fraction and systemic hemodynamics similar to those of patients in the subgroup with high coronary sinus oxygen content. It is concluded that a low coronary sinus oxygen content indicative of noncompensated metabolic demand suggests a poor prognosis in patients with severe congestive heart failure.

Metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is an anti-hyperglycaemic agent used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Type 2 diabetes may present long-term complications: micro- (retinopathy, nephropathy and neuropathy) and macrovascular (stroke, myocardial infarction and peripheral vascular disease). Two meta-analyses have been published before, although only secondary outcomes were assessed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of metformin monotherapy on mortality, morbidity, quality of life, glycaemic control, body weight, lipid levels, blood pressure, insulinaemia, and albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH STRATEGY: Studies were obtained from computerised searches of multiple electronic databases and hand searches of reference lists of relevant trials identified. Date of last search: September 2003. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: Diabetes mellitus type 2, metformin versus any other oral intervention, assessment of relevant clinical outcome measures, use of random allocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted data, using a standard data extraction form. Data were summarised under a random effects model. Dichotomous data were expressed as relative risk. We calculated the risk difference (RD), and the Number Needed to Treat, when it was possible. We collected data of mean and standard deviation from changes to baseline. However many trials reported end point data. This limitation lead to the expression of the results as standardised mean differences (SMD) and an overall SMD was calculated. Heterogeneity was tested for using the Z score and the I-squared statistic. Subgroup, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were used to explore heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included for analysis 29 trials with 37 arms (5259 participants), comparing metformin (37 arms and 2007 participants) with sulphonylureas (13 and 1167), placebo (12 and 702), diet (three and 493), thiazolidinediones (three and 132), insulin (two and 439), meglitinides (two and 208), and glucosidase inhibitors (two and 111). Nine studies reported data on primary outcomes. Obese patients allocated to intensive blood glucose control with metformin showed a greater benefit than chlorpropamide, glibenclamide, or insulin for any diabetes-related outcomes (P = 0.009), and for all-cause mortality (P = 0.03). Obese participants assigned to intensive blood glucose control with metformin showed a greater benefit than overweight patients on conventional treatment for any diabetes-related outcomes (P = 0.004), diabetes-related death (P = 0.03), all-cause mortality (P = 0.01), and myocardial infarction (P = 0.02). Patients assigned to metformin monotherapy showed a significant benefit for glycaemia control, weight, dyslipidaemia, and diastolic blood pressure. Metformin presents a strong benefit for HbA1c when compared with placebo and diet; and a moderated benefit for: glycaemia control, LDL cholesterol, and BMI or weight when compared with sulphonylureas. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Metformin may be the first therapeutic option in the diabetes mellitus type 2 with overweight or obesity, as it may prevent some vascular complications, and mortality. Metformin produces beneficial changes in glycaemia control, and moderated in weight, lipids, insulinaemia and diastolic blood pressure. Sulphonylureas, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, thiazolidinediones, meglitinides, insulin, and diet fail to show more benefit for glycaemia control, body weight, or lipids, than metformin.

Protocol for the development of a CONSORT-equity guideline to improve reporting of health equity in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Health equity concerns the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can provide evidence about the impact of an intervention on health equity for specific disadvantaged populations or in general populations; this is important for equity-focused decision-making. Previous work has identified a lack of adequate reporting guidelines for assessing health equity in RCTs. The objective of this study is to develop guidelines to improve the reporting of health equity considerations in RCTs, as an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). METHODS/DESIGN: A six-phase study using integrated knowledge translation governed by a study executive and advisory board will assemble empirical evidence to inform the CONSORT-equity extension. To create the guideline, the following steps are proposed: (1) develop a conceptual framework for identifying "equity-relevant trials," (2) assess empirical evidence regarding reporting of equity-relevant trials, (3) consult with global methods and content experts on how to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (4) collect broad feedback and prioritize items needed to improve reporting of health equity in RCTs, (5) establish consensus on the CONSORT-equity extension: the guideline for equity-relevant trials, and (6) broadly disseminate and implement the CONSORT-equity extension. DISCUSSION: This work will be relevant to a broad range of RCTs addressing questions of effectiveness for strategies to improve practice and policy in the areas of social determinants of health, clinical care, health systems, public health, and international development, where health and/or access to health care is a primary outcome. The outcomes include a reporting guideline (CONSORT-equity extension) for equity-relevant RCTs and a knowledge translation strategy to broadly encourage its uptake and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies.

Cross-antigenicity between the scabies mite, Sarcoptes scabiei, and the house dust mite, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus.

This study demonstrated that antigens of the parasitic mite Sarcoptes scabiei (SS) cross-react with antigens of the house dust mite Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus (DP). Crossed immunoelectrophoresis (CIE) reaction of SS extract with rabbit anti-DP serum resulted in multiple immunoprecipitates. Reciprocal CIE reactions gave similar results. Immunoprecipitates from both reactions bound IgE in the sera of dust-mite-sensitive patients who had no history of scabies. Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis resolved protein/peptide bands of both SS and DP also bound serum IgE from dust-mite-allergic patients following immunoblotting. Non-allergic control sera gave no IgE binding to either SS or DP antigens. These results indicate that patients with atopy to dust mites exhibit circulating antibodies built to DP but that recognize determinants on SS antigens. It is highly probable that scabietic patients build antibodies to SS antigens that also recognize DP antigens. These results raise questions concerning the reported isotypic antibody responses to SS because the sensitivity of scabietic patients to house dust mites has not been previously evaluated. This cross-reactivity may play an important role in the susceptibility to scabies and its clinical manifestations.

The prevalence and impact of pain after day-care tubal ligation surgery.

Empirical data from controlled studies using standardized, reliable measures on the amount and quality of pain after laparoscopic tubal ligation and the consequences of this pain on the activities of daily living are extremely scarce. In a study of 54 women admitted to a day-care unit for this procedure, validated measures were utilized to assess the incidence, intensity and duration of pain after tubal ligation (McGill Pain Questionnaire) and the impact of pain on the activities of daily living (Modified Functional Assessment Inventory). Psychological measures (Brief Symptom Inventory, Kranz Health Opinion Survey, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) were employed to test their use as possible predictors for pain, analgesic usage and the time taken to resume a normal activity level after tubal ligation surgery. The results showed that pain is a significant problem after tubal ligation although pain rating scores over the 7-day study period were lower than those reported after major abdominal surgery. Eighty-five percent of our sample reported that pain and/or fatigue impacted on their recovery and contributed to an average delay of return to normal activity level of 4.4 days, not including the day of surgery. The psychological measures did not prove to be strong predictors of postoperative pain, time of return to normal activity level or analgesic usage. The most powerful predictor of return to normal activity was the total amount of pain experienced, as measured by the McGill Pain Questionnaire, during the 7 day post-operative period.