No indications for altered EEG oscillatory activity in patients with chronic post-burn itch compared to healthy controls.

A large proportion of patients with burn injuries develop chronic itch, which impacts quality of life. The underlying pathophysiological mechanisms are poorly understood. This cross-sectional pilot study investigates whether altered cortical oscillatory processes are involved in chronic post-burn itch. Continuous electroencephalography (EEG) data were recorded during rest and stimulation of non-injured skin, inducing itch (histamine and electrical) and cold-pressor task pain for 15 adults with chronic post-burn itch and 15 matched healthy controls. Quantitative metrics comprised oscillatory power and peak frequencies in theta, alpha, and beta bands. No statistical differences between patients and healthy controls were found in oscillatory activity during rest or stimulation, with Bayesian analysis suggesting equivocal evidence. However, post-traumatic stress symptoms and duration of chronic itch may be associated with changes in oscillatory activity. A lack of differences in cortical oscillatory processing and itch levels at non-injured sites, suggests that itch symptoms have a localised character in this sample of patients with post-burn itch. For future studies, a biopsychological approach with integration of peripheral and central nervous system techniques, linear and non-linear EEG analysis, injured and non-injured stimulation sites, and incorporation of individual characteristics is recommended. Insight into pathophysiological mechanisms underlying chronic post-burn itch could improve diagnostics and treatments.

TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls.

BACKGROUND: Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Inadequate description of placebo and sham controls in a systematic review of recent trials.

BACKGROUND: Poorly described placebo/sham controls make it difficult to appraise active intervention benefits and harms. The 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to improve the reporting of active interventions. The extent to which TIDieR has been used to improve description of placebo or sham control is not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically identified and examined all placebo/sham-controlled randomised trials published in 2018 in the top six general medical journals. We reported how many of the TIDieR checklist items were used to describe the placebo/sham control(s). We supplemented this with a sample of 100 placebo/sham-controlled trials from any journal and searched Google Scholar to identify placebo/sham-controlled trials citing TIDieR. RESULTS: We identified 94 placebo/sham-controlled trials published in the top journals in 2018. None reported using TIDieR, and none reported placebo or sham components completely. On average eight TIDieR items were addressed, with placebo/sham control name (100%) and when and how much was administered (97.9%) most commonly reported. Some items (rationale, 8.5%, whether there were modifications, 25.5%) were less often reported. In our sample of less well-cited journals, reporting was poorer (average of six items) and followed a similar pattern. Since TIDieR's first publication, six placebo-controlled trials have cited it according to Google Scholar. Two of these used the checklist to describe placebo controls; neither one completely desribed the placebo intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Placebo and sham controls are poorly described within randomised trials, and TIDieR is rarely used to guide these descriptions. We recommend developing guidelines to promote better descriptions of placebo/sham control components within clinical trials.