Comparative effectiveness of heel-specific medical devices for the prevention of heel pressure ulcers: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) impact on patient's quality of life and are costly for healthcare providers. Heels are a particular concern due to specific risk factors. Relative effectiveness of medical devices, e.g., dressings, off-loading devices, heel cushioning devices, to reduce PU development is unknown. METHODS: Systematic review of the effectiveness of heel-specific medical devices for the prevention of heel PU (HPU)s. Database searches were performed from inception to June 2021 for RCTs. The primary outcome was incidence of new HPUs. Trials were assessed for risk of bias and data analysed with risk ratios, mean difference or hazard ratios as appropriate. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (4724 participants) were identified. Dressings, as constant low pressure (CLP) devices vs standard care: eight trials (very low quality) showed no-significant difference in effectiveness (RR 0.31, 95%CI 0.10 to 1.01). Off-loading devices vs standard care: three trials (low quality), showed significant reduction in development of Category≥1 HPUs (RR 0.20, 95%CI 0.05 to 0.80) two trials (medium quality), showed significant reduction in development of Category≥2 HPUs (RR 0.08, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.67). Comparisons between off-loading devices: two trials (low quality) showed no clear difference in HPU incidence. In a paediatric post-surgical population, one trial of off-loading device and one of a dressing (CLP device), both versus standard care, showed no clear difference in HPU incidence (RR 0.19 95%CI 0.02 to 1.55 and RR 0.89 95%CI 0.56 to 1.42 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Off-loading devices may reduce HPU incidence, from low-quality evidence. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that dressings reduce HPU incidence.

Swab-yourself Trial With Economic Monitoring and Testing for Infections Collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 1. A Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness Study Comparing Clinician-taken vs Self-taken Rectal and Pharyngeal Samples for the Diagnosis of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia.

BACKGROUND: Urogenital testing misses extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). Extragenital self-sampling is frequently undertaken despite no robust randomized, controlled trial evidence of efficacy. We compared clinician-taken rectal and pharyngeal samples with self-taken samples for diagnostic accuracy and cost in men who have sex with men (MSM) and in females. METHODS: This was a prospective convenience sample from a UK sexual health clinic. We randomized the order of clinician- and self-taken samples from the pharynx and rectum, plus first catch urine (MSM) and vulvovaginal swabs (females), for NG/CT detection. RESULTS: Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 9.4% infected females and 67.3% MSM were urogenital-negative. A total of 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx); 13.1% infected females and 71.8% MSM were urogenital-negative. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy between clinician- and self-taken samples from the rectum or pharynx. Clinicians took swabs more quickly than participants, so costs were lower. However, in asymptomatic people, nonqualified clinicians would oversee self-swabbing making these costs lower. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the diagnostic accuracy of clinician-taken compared with self-taken extragenital samples. Sexual history did not identify those with rectal infections, so individuals should have extragenital clinician- or self-taken samples. Clinician-taken swabs cost less than self-taken swabs; however, in asymptomatic people or those who perform home testing, the costs would be lower than for clinician-taken swabs. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02371109.

Swab-Yourself Trial With Economic Monitoring and Testing for Infections Collectively (SYSTEMATIC): Part 2. A Diagnostic Accuracy and Cost-effectiveness Study Comparing Rectal, Pharyngeal, and Urogenital Samples Analyzed Individually, Versus as a Pooled Specimen, for the Diagnosis of Gonorrhea and Chlamydia.

BACKGROUND: Sexual history does not accurately identify those with extragenital Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), so universal extragenital sampling is recommended. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are expensive. If urogenital, plus rectal and pharyngeal, samples are analyzed, the diagnostic cost is trebled. Pooling samples into 1 NAAT container would cost the same as urogenital samples alone. We compared clinician triple samples analyzed individually with self-taken pooled samples for diagnostic accuracy, and cost, in men who have sex with men (MSM) and females. METHODS: This was a prospective, convenience sample in United Kingdom sexual health clinic. Randomized order of clinician and self-samples from pharynx, rectum, plus first-catch urine (FCU) in MSM and vulvovaginal swabs (VVS) in females, for NG and CT detection. RESULTS: Of 1793 participants (1284 females, 509 MSM), 116 had NG detected (75 urogenital, 83 rectum, 72 pharynx); 276 had CT detected (217 urogenital, 249 rectum, 63 pharynx). There was no difference in sensitivities between clinician triple samples and self-pooled specimens for NG (99.1% and 98.3%), but clinician samples analyzed individually identified 3% more chlamydia infections than pooled (99.3% and 96.0%; P = .027). However, pooled specimens identified more infections than VVS/FCU alone. Pooled specimens missed 2 NG and 11 CT infections, whereas VVS/FCU missed 41 NG and 58 CT infections. Self-taken pooled specimens were the most cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: FCU/VVS testing alone missed many infections. Self-taken pooled samples were as sensitive as clinician triple samples for identifying NG, but clinician samples analyzed individually identified 3% more CT infections than pooled. The extragenital sampling was achievable at no additional diagnostic cost to the FCU/VVS. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02371109.

An adaptable implementation package targeting evidence-based indicators in primary care: A pragmatic cluster-randomised evaluation.

BACKGROUND: In primary care, multiple priorities and system pressures make closing the gap between evidence and practice challenging. Most implementation studies focus on single conditions, limiting generalisability. We compared an adaptable implementation package against an implementation control and assessed effects on adherence to four different evidence-based quality indicators. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook two parallel, pragmatic cluster-randomised trials using balanced incomplete block designs in general practices in West Yorkshire, England. We used 'opt-out' recruitment, and we randomly assigned practices that did not opt out to an implementation package targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (Trial 1); or blood pressure (BP) control or anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation (AF) (Trial 2). Within trials, each arm acted as the implementation control comparison for the other targeted indicator. For example, practices assigned to the diabetes control package acted as the comparison for practices assigned to the risky prescribing package. The implementation package embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach, and computerised support, with content tailored to each indicator. Respective patient-level primary endpoints at 11 months comprised the following: achievement of all recommended levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), BP, and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended BP; and anticoagulation prescribing. Between February and March 2015, we recruited 144 general practices collectively serving over 1 million patients. We stratified computer-generated randomisation by area, list size, and pre-intervention outcome achievement. In April 2015, we randomised 80 practices to Trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to Trial 2 (32 per arm). Practices and trial personnel were not blind to allocation. Two practices were lost to follow-up but provided some outcome data. We analysed the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, adjusted for potential confounders at patient level (sex, age) and practice level (list size, locality, pre-intervention achievement against primary outcomes, total quality scores, and levels of patient co-morbidity), and analysed cost-effectiveness. The implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio [OR] 0.82; 97.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.99, p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1,359 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but there was insufficient evidence of effect on other primary endpoints (diabetes control OR 1.03, 97.5% CI 0.89-1.18, p = 0.693; BP control OR 1.05, 97.5% CI 0.96-1.16, p = 0.215; anticoagulation prescribing OR 0.90, 97.5% CI 0.75-1.09, p = 0.214). No statistically significant effects were observed in any secondary outcome except for reduced co-prescription of aspirin and clopidogrel without gastro-protection in patients aged 65 and over (adjusted OR 0.62; 97.5% CI 0.39-0.99; p = 0.021). Main study limitations concern our inability to make any inferences about the relative effects of individual intervention components, given the multifaceted nature of the implementation package, and that the composite endpoint for diabetes control may have been too challenging to achieve. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a multifaceted implementation package was clinically and cost-effective for targeting prescribing behaviours within the control of clinicians but not for more complex behaviours that also required patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN91989345).

Value of Information Analysis of Multiparameter Tests for Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: The OPTIMA Prelim Trial.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine is heralded as offering more effective treatments to smaller targeted patient populations. In breast cancer, adjuvant chemotherapy is standard for patients considered as high-risk after surgery. Molecular tests may identify patients who can safely avoid chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To use economic analysis before a large-scale clinical trial of molecular testing to confirm the value of the trial and help prioritize between candidate tests as randomized comparators. METHODS: Women with surgically treated breast cancer (estrogen receptor-positive and lymph node-positive or tumor size ≥30 mm) were randomized to standard care (chemotherapy for all) or test-directed care using Oncotype DX™. Additional testing was undertaken using alternative tests: MammaPrintTM, PAM-50 (ProsignaTM), MammaTyperTM, IHC4, and IHC4-AQUA™ (NexCourse Breast™). A probabilistic decision model assessed the cost-effectiveness of all tests from a UK perspective. Value of information analysis determined the most efficient publicly funded ongoing trial design in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: There was an 86% probability of molecular testing being cost-effective, with most tests producing cost savings (range -£1892 to £195) and quality-adjusted life-year gains (range 0.17-0.20). There were only small differences in costs and quality-adjusted life-years between tests. Uncertainty was driven by long-term outcomes. Value of information demonstrated value of further research into all tests, with Prosigna currently being the highest priority for further research. CONCLUSIONS: Molecular tests are likely to be cost-effective, but an optimal test is yet to be identified. Health economics modeling to inform the design of a randomized controlled trial looking at diagnostic technology has been demonstrated to be feasible as a method for improving research efficiency.

Systematic Review of Retraction Devices for Laparoscopic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Retraction plays a vital role in optimizing the field of vision in minimal-access surgery. As such, a number of devices have been marketed to aid the surgeon in laparoscopic retraction. This systematic review explores the advantages and disadvantages of the different instruments in order to aid surgeons and their institutions in selecting the appropriate device. Primary outcome measures include operation time, length of stay, use of staff, patient morbidity, ease of use, conversion rates to open surgery, and cost. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The search strategy focused on studies testing a retraction device. The selection process was based on a predefined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data were then extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 1360 papers initially retrieved, 12 articles were selected for data extraction and analysis. A total of 10 instruments or techniques were tested. Devices included the Nathanson's liver retractor, liver suspension tape, the V-List technique, a silicone disk with or without a snake retractor, the Endoloop, the Endograb, a magnetic retractor, the VaroLift, a laparoscope holder, and a retraction sponge. None of the instruments reported were associated with increased morbidity. No studies found increased rates of conversion to open surgery. All articles reported that the tested instruments might spare the use of an assistant during the procedure. It was not possible to determine the impact on length of stay or operation time. CONCLUSIONS: Each analyzed device facilitates retraction, providing a good field of view while allowing reduced staff numbers and minimal patient morbidity. Due to economic and environmental advantages, reusable devices may be preferable to disposable instruments, although the choice must be primarily based on clinical judgement.

Alitretinoin versus phototherapy as the first-line treatment in adults with severe chronic hand eczema: the ALPHA RCT.

Background: Hand eczema is common and a cause of morbidity and occupational disability. When education, irritant/contact allergen avoidance, moisturisation and topical corticosteroids are insufficient to control chronic hand eczema, ultraviolet therapy or systemic immune-modifying drugs are used. There is no treatment pathway generally accepted by UK dermatologists. Primary objective: Compare alitretinoin and ultraviolet therapy as first-line therapy in terms of disease activity at 12 weeks post planned start of treatment. Design: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, two-arm parallel group, adaptive randomised controlled trial with one planned interim analysis, and an economic evaluation. Setting: UK secondary care dermatology outpatient clinics. Participants: Patients with severe chronic hand eczema unresponsive to at least 4 weeks of treatment with potent topical corticosteroids. Primary end point: Natural logarithm of the Hand Eczema Severity Index + 1, 12 weeks post planned start of treatment. Randomisation: Participants randomised 1 : 1 by minimisation to alitretinoin or ultraviolet therapy for 12 to 24 weeks. Blinding: Blinded primary end-point assessor. Results: Intention-to-treat population: 441 (100.0%) participants; 220 (49.9%) alitretinoin and 221 (50.1%) ultraviolet therapy. At least one dose was received by 212 (96.4%) alitretinoin and 196 (88.7%) ultraviolet therapy participants. Primary outcome: The unadjusted median (interquartile range) relative change in hand eczema severity index at 12 weeks was 30% (10-70%) of that at baseline for alitretinoin compared with 50% (20-100%) for ultraviolet therapy. There was a statistically significant benefit of alitretinoin compared with ultraviolet therapy at 12 weeks, with an estimated fold change or relative difference (95% confidence interval) = 0.66 (0.52 to 0.82), p = 0.0003 at 12 weeks. There was no evidence of a difference at 24 or 52 weeks, with the estimated fold change (95% confidence interval) equal to 0.92 (0.798 to 1.08) and 1.27 (0.97 to 1.67), respectively. Primary analysis results were consistent for secondary end points: Fifty-nine per cent allocated to alitretinoin and 61% allocated to ultraviolet therapy achieved a clear/almost clear assessment during the trial period. Differential treatment compliance observed: 145 (65.9%) alitretinoin and 53 (24.0%) ultraviolet therapy participants confirmed compliance (≥ 80% received, no treatment breaks > 7 days during first 12 weeks). High levels of missing data were observed. Safety: One hundred and thirty-five reportable adverse events across 79 participants, 55 (25.0%) alitretinoin and 24 (10.9%) ultraviolet therapy. Four serious adverse events (two alitretinoin, two ultraviolet therapy). Four pregnancies reported (three alitretinoin, one ultraviolet therapy). No new safety signals were detected. Conclusion: As a first-line therapy, alitretinoin showed more rapid improvement and superiority to ultraviolet therapy at week 12. This difference was not observed at later time points. Alitretinoin is cost-effective at weeks 12 and 52. Ultraviolet therapy is cost-effective after 10 years, with a high degree of uncertainty. Hand eczema severity index may be a useful primary outcome measure for hand eczema trials; ALPHA results will inform future trials. Limitations: Treatment compliance was poor for ultraviolet therapy. Regular twice weekly treatment was not received by most patients. Assessment of long-term effects of randomised treatments was complicated by use of second-line treatments post treatment phase. Further work: Further analysis of substudies and pilot data will provide valuable information for future studies. A clear need for better therapeutic approaches for severe chronic hand eczema remains. Future studies will need to further address long-term benefits of treatments given. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN80206075. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/186/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 59. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The main question was which treatment was better at easing symptoms of severe hand eczema after 12 weeks. The two treatments compared were ones used most often by UK dermatologists. The first is a tablet called alitretinoin, which is taken once a day. The second is called ultraviolet therapy, where hands are soaked in a special liquid and placed under ultraviolet light twice a week at a hospital. We treated 220 patients with alitretinoin and 221 patients with ultraviolet therapy. Patients received treatment for 12 to 24 weeks depending on how well their hand eczema responded. Patients could have different treatments afterwards, and we collected information on their hand eczema symptoms for up to 1 year. After 12 weeks, severe hand eczema symptoms improved for both groups of patients but improved most for patients who took alitretinoin. However, 1 year after joining the trial, there was no evidence of a difference between alitretinoin and ultraviolet therapy as a first-line treatment. More patients stopped ultraviolet therapy early compared with patients who received alitretinoin. Different treatments may have been prescribed after the first treatment. Alitretinoin provides a convenient, instant relief or a 'quick fix' for patients with severe hand eczema. Alitretinoin is more convenient for lots of people, but it is important to have other options available for people who would prefer not to, or are unable to, take alitretinoin. For example, people who take alitretinoin can experience unwanted side effects, and people who are able to become pregnant must also use contraception. Long-term control of severe hand eczema is important. Individual discussions on the pros and cons of each treatment for hand eczema symptoms is needed. Providing flexible options to attend ultraviolet therapy appointments could be helpful (e.g. weekend/evenings).

Cost-effectiveness requirements for implementing artificial intelligence technology in the Women's UK Breast Cancer Screening service.

The UK NHS Women's National Breast Screening programme aims to detect breast cancer early. The reference standard approach requires mammograms to be independently double-read by qualified radiology staff. If two readers disagree, arbitration by an independent reader is undertaken. Whilst this process maximises accuracy and minimises recall rates, the procedure is labour-intensive, adding pressure to a system currently facing a workforce crisis. Artificial intelligence technology offers an alternative to human readers. While artificial intelligence has been shown to be non-inferior versus human second readers, the minimum requirements needed (effectiveness, set-up costs, maintenance, etc) for such technology to be cost-effective in the NHS have not been evaluated. We developed a simulation model replicating NHS screening services to evaluate the potential value of the technology. Our results indicate that if non-inferiority is maintained, the use of artificial intelligence technology as a second reader is a viable and potentially cost-effective use of NHS resources.

Multicenter Randomized Trial of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Recent-Onset Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results of the LIBERATES Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of modern glucose-monitoring strategies on glycemic and patient-related outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and recent myocardial infarction (MI) and assess cost effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: LIBERATES was a multicenter two-arm randomized trial comparing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), also known as flash CGM, in individuals with T2D and recent MI, treated with insulin and/or a sulphonylurea before hospital admission. The primary outcome measure was time in range (TIR) (glucose 3.9-10 mmol/L/day) on days 76-90 post-randomization. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), clinical outcome, quality of life (QOL), and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 141 participants randomly assigned (median age 63 years; interquartile range 53, 70), 73% of whom were men, isCGM was associated with increased TIR by 17 min/day (95% credible interval -105 to +153 min/day), with 59% probability of benefit. Users of isCGM showed lower hypoglycemic exposure (<3.9 mmol/L) at days 76-90 (-80 min/day; 95% CI -118, -43), also evident at days 16-30 (-28 min/day; 95% CI -92, 2). Compared with baseline, HbA1c showed similar reductions of 7 mmol/mol at 3 months in both study arms. Combined glycemic emergencies and mortality occurred in four isCGM and seven SMBG study participants. QOL measures marginally favored isCGM, and the intervention proved to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SMBG, isCGM in T2D individuals with MI marginally increases TIR and significantly reduces hypoglycemic exposure while equally improving HbA1c, explaining its cost effectiveness. Studies are required to understand whether these glycemic differences translate into longer-term clinical benefit.

Posterior cervical foraminotomy versus anterior cervical discectomy for Cervical Brachialgia: the FORVAD RCT.

Background: Posterior cervical foraminotomy and anterior cervical discectomy are routinely used operations to treat cervical brachialgia, although definitive evidence supporting superiority of either is lacking. Objective: The primary objective was to investigate whether or not posterior cervical foraminotomy is superior to anterior cervical discectomy in improving clinical outcome. Design: This was a Phase III, unblinded, prospective, United Kingdom multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled superiority trial comparing posterior cervical foraminotomy with anterior cervical discectomy. A rapid qualitative study was conducted during the close-down phase, involving remote semistructured interviews with trial participants and health-care professionals. Setting: National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients with symptomatic unilateral cervical brachialgia for at least 6 weeks. Interventions: Participants were randomised to receive posterior cervical foraminotomy or anterior cervical discectomy. Allocation was not blinded to participants, medical staff or trial staff. Health-care use from providing the initial surgical intervention to hospital discharge was measured and valued using national cost data. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was clinical outcome, as measured by patient-reported Neck Disability Index score 52 weeks post operation. Secondary outcome measures included complications, reoperations and restricted American Spinal Injury Association score over 6 weeks post operation, and patient-reported Eating Assessment Tool-10 items, Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 items, PainDETECT and Numerical Rating Scales for neck and upper-limb pain over 52 weeks post operation. Results: The target recruitment was 252 participants. Owing to slow accrual, the trial closed after randomising 23 participants from 11 hospitals. The qualitative substudy found that there was support and enthusiasm for the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial and randomised clinical trials in this area. However, clinical equipoise appears to have been an issue for sites and individual surgeons. Randomisation on the day of surgery and processes for screening and approaching participants were also crucial factors in some centres. The median Neck Disability Index scores at baseline (pre surgery) and at 52 weeks was 44.0 (interquartile range 36.0-62.0 weeks) and 25.3 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-42.0 weeks), respectively, in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group (n = 14), and 35.6 weeks (interquartile range 34.0-44.0 weeks) and 45.0 weeks (interquartile range 20.0-57.0 weeks), respectively, in the anterior cervical discectomy group (n = 9). Scores appeared to reduce (i.e. improve) in the posterior cervical foraminotomy group, but not in the anterior cervical discectomy group. The median Eating Assessment Tool-10 items score for swallowing was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (13.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (0) on day 1, but not at other time points, whereas the median Glasgow-Edinburgh Throat Scale score for globus was higher (worse) after anterior cervical discectomy (15, 7, 6, 6, 2, 2.5) than after posterior cervical foraminotomy (3, 0, 0, 0.5, 0, 0) at all postoperative time points. Five postoperative complications occurred within 6 weeks of surgery, all after anterior cervical discectomy. Neck pain was more severe on day 1 following posterior cervical foraminotomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 8.5) than at the same time point after anterior cervical discectomy (Numerical Rating Scale - Neck Pain score 7.0). The median health-care costs of providing initial surgical intervention were £2610 for posterior cervical foraminotomy and £4411 for anterior cervical discectomy. Conclusions: The data suggest that posterior cervical foraminotomy is associated with better outcomes, fewer complications and lower costs, but the trial recruited slowly and closed early. Consequently, the trial is underpowered and definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Recruitment was impaired by lack of individual equipoise and by concern about randomising on the day of surgery. A large prospective multicentre trial comparing anterior cervical discectomy and posterior cervical foraminotomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia is still required. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN10133661. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cervical brachialgia is pain that starts in the neck and passes down into the arm. Although most people with cervical brachialgia recover quickly, in some patients pain persists, and in 15% of patients pain is so severe that they are unable to work. In the posterior cervical FORaminotomy Versus Anterior cervical Discectomy in the treatment of cervical brachialgia trial, we investigated two neck surgeries used to treat this problem: posterior cervical foraminotomy (surgery from the back of the neck) and anterior cervical discectomy (surgery from the front of the neck). This trial aimed to find out if one of them is better than the other at relieving pain and more cost-effective for the National Health Service. We assessed patients' quality of life 1 year after their surgery and how their pain changed over the course of the year. We also measured the number of complications patients had in the first 6 weeks after their operation. Recruitment was slow and so the trial was stopped early, after only 23 patients from 11 hospitals had been randomly allocated to the two surgery groups. We had planned to recruit 252 participants to the trial; the number of participants we were able to recruit in practice was too small to enable us to determine which surgery is better at relieving pain. To find out why the trial had struggled to recruit, we asked hospital staff and participants about their experiences. We found that hospital staff sometimes struggled to organise everything needed to randomise patients on the day of surgery. Some staff also found it difficult to randomise patients as they had an opinion on which surgery they thought the patient should receive. The data collected in the trial will still be useful to help design future research. Finding out which surgery is better at relieving pain remains important, and the data we have collected will support answering this question in future.

Comparison of ALitretinoin with PUVA as the first-line treatment in patients with severe chronic HAnd eczema (ALPHA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hand eczema (HE) is one of the most common skin disorders and an important cause for morbidity and occupational disability. The 1-year prevalence of HE is estimated to be up to 10% and it is estimated that 5%-7% of those develop severe chronic HE. However, current clinical evidence is not compelling enough to guide clinical practice. In a survey among 194 UK dermatologists the most frequent first choice approaches were psoralen combined with ultraviolet A (UVA) treatment (PUVA), oral steroids and alitretinoin (AL). When asked which strategy was most efficient for long-term outcome 20% of clinicians indicated they did not know; 43% of clinicians reported AL and 30% reported PUVA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: ALPHA is a multicentre, open, prospective, two-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial comparing PUVA and AL with a planned sample size re-estimation. Between 500 and 780 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis. The physician's global assessment (PGA) will direct treatment after randomisation, non-responders will be treated according to usual clinical practice; providing valuable pilot data on second line therapeutic approaches to inform future trials.Assessments will be conducted up to 52 weeks post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is the Hand Eczema Severity Index at 12 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include modified Total Lesion Symptom Score, PGA, time to relapse, patient reported outcome measures and DNA extraction and assessment of genetic variants. A substudy on molecular inflammatory mediators will provide information on subgroup specific treatment responses. Photographs will be taken and HE severity assessed by a central review panel. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (14/YH/1259).Trial results will be disseminated at relevant clinical conferences and societies, published in peer-reviewed journals and through relevant patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN80206075.

The CABI Trial: an Unblinded Parallel Group Randomised Controlled Feasibility Trial of Long-Course Antibiotic Therapy (28 Days) Compared with Short Course (≤ 10 Days) in the Prevention of Relapse in Adults Treated for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infection.

PURPOSE: Relapse after complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI) remains common after treatment. The optimal antibiotic treatment duration for cIAIs is uncertain, especially in cases where source control is not achieved. We hypothesised that in patients with cIAIs, regardless of source control intervention, there would be a lower relapse rate with long-course antibiotics (28 days) compared with short course (≤ 10 days). We piloted a trial comparing ≤ 10-day with 28-day antibiotic treatment for cIAI. METHODS: A randomised controlled unblinded feasibility trial was conducted. Eligible participants were adult patients with a cIAI that were diagnosed ≤ 6 days prior to screening. Randomisation was to long-course (28 days) or short-course (≤10 days) antibiotic therapy. Choice of antibiotics was determined by the clinical team. Participants were followed up for 90 days. Primary outcomes were willingness of participants to be randomised and feasibility of trial procedures. RESULTS: In total, 172 patients were screened, 84/172 (48.8%) were eligible, and 31/84 (36.9%) were randomised. Patients were assigned to either the short-course arm (18/31, 58.0%) or the long-course arm (13/31, 41.9%). One patient in the short-course arm withdrew after randomisation. In the short-course arm, 4/17 (23.5%) were treated for a cIAI relapse vs 0/13 (0.0%) relapses in the long-course arm. Protocol violations included deviations from protocol-assigned antibiotic duration and interruptions to antibiotic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study identified opportunities to increase recruitment in a full trial. This study demonstrates completion of a randomised controlled trial to further evaluate if the optimum antibiotic duration for cIAIs is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03265834.

Sacral nerve stimulation versus the magnetic sphincter augmentation device for adult faecal incontinence: the SaFaRI RCT.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary studies using the FENIX™ (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA) magnetic sphincter augmentation device suggest that it is safe to use for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence, but efficacy data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation for the treatment of adult faecal incontinence in terms of safety, efficacy, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicentre, parallel-group, unblinded, randomised trial comparing FENIX with sacral nerve stimulation in participants suffering moderate to severe faecal incontinence. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised on an equal basis to either sacral nerve stimulation or FENIX. Follow-up occurred 2 weeks postoperatively and at 6, 12 and 18 months post randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary outcome was success, defined as device in use and ≥ 50% improvement in Cleveland Clinic Incontinence Score at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Between 30 October 2014 and 23 March 2017, 99 participants were randomised across 18 NHS sites (50 participants to FENIX vs. 49 participants to sacral nerve stimulation). The median time from randomisation to FENIX implantation was 57.0 days (range 4.0-416.0 days), and the median time from randomisation to permanent sacral nerve stimulation was 371.0 days (range 86.0-918.0 days). A total of 45 out of 50 participants underwent FENIX implantation and 29 out of 49 participants continued to permanent sacral nerve stimulation. The following results are reported, excluding participants for whom the corresponding outcome was not evaluable. Overall, there was success for 10 out of 80 (12.5%) participants, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups [FENIX 6/41 (14.6%) participants vs. sacral nerve stimulation 4/39 (10.3%) participants]. At least one postoperative complication was experienced by 33 out of 45 (73.3%) participants in the FENIX group and 9 out of 40 (22.5%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group. A total of 15 out of 50 (30%) participants in the FENIX group ultimately had to have their device explanted. Slightly higher costs and quality-adjusted life-years (incremental = £305.50 and 0.005, respectively) were observed in the FENIX group than in the sacral nerve stimulation group. This was reversed over the lifetime horizon (incremental = -£1306 and -0.23 for costs and quality-adjusted life-years, respectively), when sacral nerve stimulation was the optimal option (net monetary benefit = -£3283), with only a 45% chance of FENIX being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SaFaRI study was terminated in 2017, having recruited 99 participants of the target sample size of 350 participants. The study is, therefore, substantially underpowered to detect differences between the treatment groups, with significant uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The SaFaRI study revealed inefficiencies in the treatment pathways for faecal incontinence, particularly for sacral nerve stimulation. The success of both FENIX and sacral nerve stimulation was much lower than previously reported, with high postoperative morbidity in the FENIX group. FUTURE WORK: Further research is needed to clarify the treatment pathways for sacral nerve stimulation and to determine its true clinical and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16077538. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Faecal incontinence is a distressing condition for patients, and surgery is recommended if symptoms are having an effect on quality of life. One of the treatments recommended for faecal incontinence by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is sacral nerve stimulation, which aims to improve continence by stimulating the nerves to the back passage. A newer treatment involves surgery to implant a string of magnetic beads around the anal canal using the FENIX™ device (Torax Medical, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The aim of this study was to assess the benefits and risks of the FENIX device compared with sacral nerve stimulation. The SaFaRI study aimed to recruit 350 participants with faecal incontinence, but was stopped early because of the manufacturer withdrawing the FENIX device for strategic reasons. In total, we recruited 99 participants. Fifty participants were allocated to receive the FENIX device and 49 participants were allocated to receive sacral nerve stimulation. The observed success rates with both devices were low: at 18 months following their entry into the study, 6 out of 41 (14.6%) participants in the FENIX group and 4 out of 39 (10.3%) participants in the sacral nerve stimulation group had the device both in use and producing a benefit. A total of 5 out of 50 (10.0%) participants allocated to receive the FENIX device did not have a device implanted, and 15 out of 45 (33.3%) participants who did have the FENIX device implanted needed to have it removed because of complications during the 18-month follow-up period. A total of 21 out of 49 (42.9%) participants allocated to receive sacral nerve stimulation did not have a permanent sacral nerve stimulation device implanted, and 0 of the 28 who did have a permanent sacral nerve stimulation device implanted needed to have it removed during the 18-month follow-up period. The costs associated with the FENIX device were higher because of a greater number of participants experiencing complications, meaning that the FENIX device is unlikely to be cost-effective in the treatment of faecal incontinence compared with sacral nerve stimulation.

Cost evaluation of point-of-care testing for community-acquired influenza in adults presenting to the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Rapid molecular point-of-care tests (POCTs) for influenza have potential to produce cost savings in emergency departments (EDs) and acute care settings. To date, published projected savings have been based on estimated costs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the cost implications of a rapid influenza POCT using accurate real-world patient level costing data. 204 adult patients receiving point-of-care (POC) influenza testing in the ED as part of a routine clinical service were identified retrospectively, alongside a control cohort of 104 patients from the same influenza season. Costs for all were calculated at the individual patient level. Cost comparison was performed using an instrumental variable (IV) regression to overcome potential bias within the observational dataset. RESULTS: Patients who had a POCT on average cost 67 % less than those who did not (average cost reduction: £2066: 95 % CI: £624 and £2665). Moderate to high NEWS score at arrival, presence of ≥1 comorbidity, and age ≥70 years increased overall costs across both groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Savings from POC testing can be attributed to more targeted treatments, fewer admissions and reduced lengths of stay. The IV regression results are supported by a second method (ordinary least square against baseline characteristics). They are also in line with existing work that use estimated costs but indicate greater savings than predicted previously. In conclusion, POC influenza testing in the emergency department produces significant cost savings, this is demonstrated here through an analysis using individual real-world patient level costing data.

Cluster randomized controlled trial of volitional and motivational interventions to improve bowel cancer screening uptake: A population-level study.

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although effective uptake of bowel cancer screening is below 60% in England. This trial investigated the influence of volitional and motivational interventions and their combination on increasing guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) screening uptake. METHOD: In total, 34,633 participants were recruited (via North-East of England bowel cancer screening hub) into a 2×2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. Social norm-based motivational intervention (SNA); Implementation intention-based Volitional Help Sheet (VHS); Combined intervention (SNA+VHS); Treatment as usual control. Screening rate (gFOBT kit return rate within 8 weeks of invitation) was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Screening kits were returned by 60% of participants (N=20,847/34,633). A substantial imbalance was observed in participant characteristics, participants in the combined intervention group were younger and more likely to be first time invitees. Adjusted analyses found insufficient evidence that any of the interventions were different to control (Combined: OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.97-1.44; SNA alone: OR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.15; VHS alone OR= 0.88; 95% CI: 0.75-1.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant beneficial effect of the combined intervention in the youngest age group compared to control (OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.05-1.54). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not support any benefit of either VHS or SNA interventions alone on bowel cancer screening uptake. The combined SNA+VHS intervention was significantly different from control only in the youngest age group in adjusted analyses. However, the magnitude of effect in the youngest age group suggests that further testing of VHS plus SNA interventions in carefully targeted populations may be warranted.

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces for Pressure Ulcer Prevention (PRESSURE 2): Clinical and Health Economic Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are complications of serious acute/chronic illness. Specialist mattresses used for prevention lack high quality effectiveness evidence. We aimed to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of 2 mattress types. METHODS: Multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, parallel group, randomised controlled trial in 42 UK secondary/community in-patient facilities.2029 high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast and/or Category 1 PU/pain at PU site) adult in-patients were randomised (1:1, allocation concealment, minimisation with random element) factors including: centre, PU status, facility and consent type. Interventions were alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) or high specification foam (HSF) for maximum treatment phase 60 days. Primary outcome was time to development of new PU Category ≥ 2 from randomisation to 30 day post-treatment follow-up in intention-to treat population. Trial registration: ISRCTN 01151335. FINDINGS: Between August 2013 and November 2016, we randomised 2029 patients (1016 APMs: 1013 HSF) who developed 160(7.9%) PUs. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU Category ≥ 2 Fine and Gray Model Hazard Ratio HR = 0.76, 95%CI0.56-1.04); exact P = 0.0890; absolute difference 2%). There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time to event sensitivity analysis, Fine and Gray model HR = 0.66, 95%CI, 0.46-0.93; exact P = 0.0176); 2.6% absolute difference). Economic analyses indicate that APM are cost-effective.There were no safety concerns. INTERPRETATION: In high risk (acutely ill, bedfast/chairfast/Category 1 PU/ pain on a PU site) in-patients, we found insufficient evidence of a difference in time to PU development at 30-day final follow-up, which may be related to a low event rate affecting trial power. APMs conferred a small treatment phase benefit. Patient preference, low PU incidence and small group differences suggests the need for improved targeting of APMs with decision making informed by patient preference/comfort/rehabilitation needs and the presence of potentially modifiable risk factors such as being completely immobile, nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or altered skin/Category1 PU.

Comparing alternating pressure mattresses and high-specification foam mattresses to prevent pressure ulcers in high-risk patients: the PRESSURE 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a burden to patients, carers and health-care providers. Specialist mattresses minimise the intensity and duration of pressure on vulnerable skin sites in at-risk patients. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: Time to developing a new PU of category ≥ 2 in patients using an alternating pressure mattress (APM) compared with a high-specification foam mattress (HSFM). DESIGN: A multicentre, Phase III, open, prospective, planned as an adaptive double-triangular group sequential, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with an a priori sample size of 2954 participants. Randomisation used minimisation (incorporating a random element). SETTING: The trial was set in 42 secondary and community inpatient facilities in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult inpatients with evidence of acute illness and at a high risk of PU development. INTERVENTIONS AND FOLLOW-UP: APM or HSFM - the treatment phase lasted a maximum of 60 days; the final 30 days were post-treatment follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to event. RESULTS: From August 2013 to November 2016, 2029 participants were randomised to receive either APM (n = 1016) or HSFM (n = 1013). Primary end point - 30-day final follow-up: of the 2029 participants in the intention-to-treat population, 160 (7.9%) developed a new PU of category ≥ 2. There was insufficient evidence of a difference between groups for time to new PU of category ≥ 2 [Fine and Gray model HR 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 1.04; exact p-value of 0.0890 and 2% absolute difference]. Treatment phase sensitivity analysis: 132 (6.5%) participants developed a new PU of category ≥ 2 between randomisation and end of treatment phase. There was a statistically significant difference in the treatment phase time-to-event sensitivity analysis (Fine and Gray model HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.93; p = 0.0176 and 2.6% absolute difference). Secondary end points - 30-day final follow-up: new PUs of category ≥ 1 developed in 350 (17.2%) participants, with no evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development, (Fine and Gray model HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.02; p-value = 0.0733 and absolute difference 3.1%). New PUs of category ≥ 3 developed in 32 (1.6%) participants with insufficient evidence of a difference between mattress groups in time to PU development (Fine and Gray model HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.62; p = 0.5530 and absolute difference 0.4%). Of the 145 pre-existing PUs of category 2, 89 (61.4%) healed - there was insufficient evidence of a difference in time to healing (Fine and Gray model HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.68; p = 0.6122 and absolute difference 2.9%). Health economics - the within-trial and long-term analysis showed APM to be cost-effective compared with HSFM; however, the difference in costs models are small and the quality-adjusted life-year gains are very small. There were no safety concerns. Blinded photography substudy - the reliability of central blinded review compared with clinical assessment for PUs of category ≥ 2 was 'very good' (kappa statistic 0.82, prevalence- and bias-adjusted kappa 0.82). Quality-of-life substudy - the Pressure Ulcer Quality of Life - Prevention (PU-QoL-P) instrument meets the established criteria for reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. LIMITATIONS: A lower than anticipated event rate. CONCLUSIONS: In acutely ill inpatients who are bedfast/chairfast and/or have a category 1 PU and/or localised skin pain, APMs confer a small treatment phase benefit that is diminished over time. Overall, the APM patient compliance, very low PU incidence rate observed and small differences between mattresses indicate the need for improved indicators for targeting of APMs and individualised decision-making. Decisions should take into account skin status, patient preferences (movement ability and rehabilitation needs) and the presence of factors that may be potentially modifiable through APM allocation, including being completely immobile, having nutritional deficits, lacking capacity and/or having altered skin/category 1 PU. FUTURE WORK: Explore the relationship between mental capacity, levels of independent movement, repositioning and PU development. Explore 'what works for whom and in what circumstances'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01151335. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are patches of damaged skin, mainly caused by sitting/lying in one position. PUs are graded based on how serious they are, ranging from red patches (category 1) through small skin breaks/blisters (category 2) to serious wounds (category 4). Special mattresses are used to help prevent PUs. This study compared alternating pressure mattresses (APMs) with high-specification foam mattresses (HSFMs), to see which is better at preventing PUs. The study included adults admitted to hospital for acute illness who were at a high risk of developing PUs. Patients were randomly allocated to HSFM or APM. Nurses checked patients' skin and recorded changes. A total of 132 patients developed at least one new PU of category ≥ 2 before the end of treatment (60 days maximum). Of these, 53 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 79 to the HSFM arm, a difference of 2.6%. This is a small but significant difference. Nurses looked at patients' skin again 30 days after the patient had stopped using a trial mattress. At this point, 160 patients had at least one new PU (of category ≥ 2). Of these, 70 patients were allocated to the APM arm and 90 to the HSFM arm, a very small difference of 2.0%. Some patients asked to change mattresses; this happened more in the APM group. This study focused on high-risk patients; however, only a small number of people developed PUs, suggesting that prevention is possible with either mattress. Results also suggest that certain groups of patients may benefit more from APMs, for example people who cannot give consent or who have skin redness. When planning prevention and choosing mattresses, professionals and patients need to consider a number of factors, such as comfort, existing PUs and people's ability to self-care. Further research is recommended to understand what sort of prevention works, for whom and in what circumstances.

Household expenditure in dental health care: national estimations in Mexico for 2000, 2002, and 2004.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the expenditure on dental care of Mexican households, analyze their trends, and determine the factors associated with the decision to spend and the amount of money spent in 2000, 2002, and 2004. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the National Survey of Household Income and Expenditure for 2000, 2002, and 2004, the national dental health care expenditure was calculated. To facilitate comparability across years, all expenditure was converted to pesos of 2004, using the National Consumer Price Index (11.201 pesos per USD). Proportion of households incurring catastrophic expenditures was also estimated. To evaluate the association between environmental, household, and individual characteristics with the amount of dental health care expenditure, the Heckman regression model was used to control for self-selection bias. RESULTS: More than 6,467 million pesos (MP) were spent in 2000 (8.5 percent of all households had some expenditure), over 3,925 MP in 2002 (4 percent households), and above 5,136 MP in 2004 (5 percent households), with an average expenditure of $806, $1,000, and $987 pesos, respectively. Prevalence of catastrophic expenditure because of dental health care was 0.8 percent in 2000 compared to 0.01 and 1.8 percent in 2002 and 2004, respectively. The Heckman model showed that municipal development, stratum, and age of the head of household significantly influenced the amount spent on dental care in all 3 years. Household capacity to pay and wealth index had a positive and statistically significant association in the 3 years with the preceding decision to spend. CONCLUSIONS: Variables associated with the amount of expenditure and the decision of spending support the existence of inequities in health care financing in the Mexican population.

Factors associated with dental health care coverage in Mexico: Findings from the National Performance Evaluation Survey 2002-2003.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of dental health care coverage in people aged > or =18 years across the country, and to identify the factors associated with coverage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using the instruments and sampling strategies developed by the World Health Organization for the World Health Survey, a cross-sectional national survey was carried out at the household and individual (adult) levels. Dental data were collected in 20 of Mexico's 32 states. The relationship between coverage and environmental and individual characteristics was examined through logistic regression models. RESULTS: Only 6098 of 24 159 individual respondents reported having oral problems during the preceding 12 months (accounting for 14 284 621 inhabitants of the country if weighted). Only 48% of respondents reporting problems were covered, although details of the appropriateness, timeliness and effectiveness of the intervention(s) were not assessed. The multivariate regression model showed that higher level of education, better socioeconomic status, having at least one chronic disease and having medical insurance were positively associated with better dental care coverage. Age and sex were also associated. CONCLUSIONS: Overall dental health care coverage could be improved, assuming that ideal coverage is 100%. Some equality of access issues are apparent because there are differences in coverage across populations in terms of wealth and social status. Identifying the factors associated with sparse coverage is a step in the right direction allowing policymakers to establish strategies aimed at increasing this coverage, focusing on more vulnerable groups and on individuals in greater need of preventive and rehabilitative interventions.

[Health status identification and their relationship with socieconomics and geographic characteristics: a population survey analysis in México]. / Identificación de estados de salud y su relación con características socioeconómicas y geográficas: análisis de una encuesta poblacional en México.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of using standardized health vignettes to adjust self-reported health taking into account household and community variables to correct for systematic bias. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The national health survey "Evaluación del Desempeño 2002" (Mexican component of the World Health Survey) was used. This survey analyzed subject's health perception based on their responses to hypothetical questions referring to third parties in the vignettes within eight domains. Variations in responses were attributed to socio-demographic, socioeconomic, community, differences of the subjects. To assess those variations, an index for each domain was constructed and used as a variable in a series of linear regression models to estimate the relation between health perceptions, self-reported health, socioeconomic and socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The health perception index derived from the vignettes showed a positive, logarithmic correlation with household expenditure for each health domain, after controlling for socio-demographic, health and community characteristics. No relationship was found between the health status described in the vignettes and self-reported health status. In no case was the explanatory power above 10%. CONCLUSION: The low explanatory power of the models, and the lack of correlation between self reported health status and the health perception index, suggest that the variability in the vignettes responses cannot be explained by differences in self-reported health status or socioeconomic and socio-demographic characteristics. These results from Mexico suggest that vignette-based methods to correct for systematic variability in perception of own health status are of limited efficacy and reinforce the importance of collecting objective measures of health status in health surveys.