Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study.

AIM: To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid. SETTING: A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids. PARTICIPANTS: People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms. CONCLUSION: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.

How do people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease? A content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how people perceive different advice for rotator cuff disease in terms of words/feelings evoked by the advice and treatment needs. SETTING: We performed a content analysis of qualitative data collected in a randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: 2028 people with shoulder pain read a vignette describing someone with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to: bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation emphasised that treatment is needed for recovery. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Participants answered questions about: (1) words/feelings evoked by the advice; (2) treatments they feel are needed. Two researchers developed coding frameworks to analyse responses. RESULTS: 1981 (97% of 2039 randomised) responses for each question were analysed. Guideline-based advice (vs treatment recommendation) more often elicited words/feelings of reassurance, having a minor issue, trust in expertise and feeling dismissed, and treatment needs of rest, activity modification, medication, wait and see, exercise and normal movements. Treatment recommendation (vs guideline-based advice) more often elicited words/feelings of needing treatment/investigation, psychological distress and having a serious issue, and treatment needs of injections, surgery, investigations, and to see a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Words/feelings evoked by advice for rotator cuff disease and perceived treatment needs may explain why guideline-based advice reduces perceived need for unnecessary care compared to a treatment recommendation.

Diagnostic labels and advice for rotator cuff disease influence perceived need for shoulder surgery: an online randomised experiment.

QUESTION: What are the effects of diagnostic labels and advice, and interactions between labels and advice, on perceived need for shoulder surgery for rotator cuff disease? DESIGN: 2×2 factorial online randomised experiment. PARTICIPANTS: People with shoulder pain. INTERVENTION: Participants read a scenario describing a patient with rotator cuff disease and were randomised to bursitis label plus guideline-based advice, bursitis label plus treatment recommendation, rotator cuff tear label plus guideline-based advice, and rotator cuff tear label plus treatment recommendation. Guideline-based advice included encouragement to stay active and positive prognostic information. Treatment recommendation stressed that treatment is needed for recovery. OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived need for surgery (primary outcome), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist; and perceived seriousness of the condition, recovery expectations, impact on work performance and need to avoid work. RESULTS: A total of 2,024 responses (99.8% of 2,028 randomised) were analysed. Labelling as bursitis (versus rotator cuff tear) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -0.5 on a 0-to-10 scale, 98.3% CI -0.7 to -0.2), imaging and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and need to avoid work. Guideline-based advice (versus treatment recommendation) decreased perceived need for surgery (mean effect -1.0, 98.3% CI -1.3 to -0.7), imaging, an injection, a second opinion and to see a specialist, and perceived seriousness of the condition and recovery expectations. There was little to no evidence of an advice label interaction for any outcome. CONCLUSION: Labels and advice influenced perceived need for surgery and other secondary outcomes in people with rotator cuff disease, with larger effects for advice. There was evidence of little or no interaction between labels and advice for any outcome, but the additive effect of labels and advice appeared large for some outcomes (eg, perceived need for imaging and perceived seriousness of the condition). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12621001370897.

Reporting characteristics of journal infographics: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Infographics have become an increasingly popular method to present research findings and increase the attention research receives. As many scientific journals now use infographics to boost the visibility and uptake of the research they publish, infographics have become an important tool for medical education. It is unknown whether such infographics convey the key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of the data such as an adequate description of the study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes; methodological limitations; and numerical estimates of benefits and harms. This study described whether infographics published in peer-reviewed health and medical research journals contain key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of clinical research. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified peer-reviewed journals listed in the top quintile of 35 unique fields of medicine and health research listed in the Journal Citation Reports database. Two researchers screened journals for the presence of infographics. We defined an infographic as a graphical visual representation of research findings. We extracted data from a sample of two of the most recent infographics from each journal. Outcomes were the proportion of infographics that reported key characteristics such as study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes, benefits, harms, effect estimates with measures of precision, between-group differences and conflicts of interest; acknowledged risk of bias, certainty of evidence and study limitations; and based their conclusions on the study's primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 129 infographics from 69 journals. Most infographics described the population (81%), intervention (96%), comparator (91%) and outcomes (94%), but fewer contained enough information on the population (26%), intervention (45%), comparator (20%) and outcomes (55%) for those components of the study to be understood without referring to the main paper. Risk of bias was acknowledged in only 2% of infographics, and none of the 69 studies that had declared a conflict of interest disclosed it in the infographics. CONCLUSIONS: Most infographics do not report sufficient information to allow readers to interpret study findings, including the study characteristics, results, and sources of bias. Our results can inform initiatives to improve the quality of the information presented in infographics.

Online information about the management of anterior cruciate ligament ruptures in Australia: A content analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most people who suffer an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury search for information online. OBJECTIVES: Summarise the proportion of webpages on ACL rupture management that present evidence-based information. DESIGN: Content analysis. METHODS: We examined webpage information on ACL ruptures identified through (1) Google searches using terms synonymous with 'anterior cruciate ligament rupture' and searching 'knee surgeon' linked to each Australian capital city, and (2) websites of professional associations. The primary outcome was the proportion of webpages that suggest people can return to at least some form of sport with non-surgical management. Secondary outcomes included webpage information on return to sport with ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and non-surgical management, benefits, harms, and risk of osteoarthritis related to these options, and activity modification. RESULTS: Out of 115 webpages analysed, 48% suggested people can return to at least some form of sport with non-surgical management. Almost half of webpages suggested most people will return to some form of sport following ACLR (41%) and mentioned benefits of ACLR (43%). Fewer webpages mentioned benefits of non-surgical management (14%), approximately two in three people return to pre-injury level of sport following ACLR (4%), risk of re-injury following ACLR (23%), most people return to sport within 9 months of ACLR (27%), activity modification as a management approach (20%), and ACLR will reduce the risk of osteoarthritis (23%). CONCLUSION: Most online information on ACL rupture management isn't aligned with the best available evidence. Inaccurate information could mislead patients' treatment choices and create unrealistic expectations for return to sport.

Intensive supervised rehabilitation versus less supervised rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether intensive supervised rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction leads to superior self-reported function and sports participation compared to less supervised rehabilitation. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing supervised rehabilitation to rehabilitation with a similar protocol that used less supervised sessions for athletes following ACL reconstruction. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale was used to evaluate methodological quality and GRADE to evaluate overall quality of evidence. Self-reported function and sports participation were the primary outcomes. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 4075 articles. Seven articles reporting on six RCTs were included (n=353). Very-low to low-certainty evidence suggests intensive supervised rehabilitation is not superior to less supervised rehabilitation following ACL reconstruction for improving self-reported function, sports participation, knee flexor and extensor strength, range of motion, sagittal plane knee laxity, single leg hop performance, or quality of life. CONCLUSION: Based on uncertain evidence, intensive supervised rehabilitation is not superior to less supervised rehabilitation for athletes following ACL reconstruction. Although high-quality RCTs are needed to provide more certain evidence, clinicians should engage athletes in shared decision making to ensure athletes' rehabilitation decisions align with current evidence on supervised rehabilitation as well as their preferences and values.