Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool-Systematic Reviews-2 and Participation-To-Prevalence Ratio assessed to whom the evidence applies in sepsis reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To revise a sex and gender appraisal tool for systematic reviews (SGAT-SR) and apply it to Cochrane sepsis reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The revision process was informed by existing literature on sex, gender, intersectionality, and feedback from an expert advisory board. We revised the items to consider additional factors associated with health inequities and appraised sex and gender considerations using the SGAT-SR-2 and female Participation-to-Prevalence Ratio (PPR) in Cochrane sepsis reviews. RESULTS: SGAT-SR-2 consists of 19 questions appraising the review's sections and use of the terms sex and gender. amongst 71 SRs assessed, 50.7% included at least one tool item, the most frequent being the number of participants by sex or gender at included study-level (24/71 reviews). Only four reviews provided disaggregated data for the full set of included trials, while two considered other equity-related factors. Reviews rarely appraised possible similarities and differences across sex and gender. In half of a subset of reviews, female participants were under-represented relative to their share of the sepsis population (PPR<0.8). CONCLUSION: The SGAT-SR-2 tool and the PPR can support the design and appraisal of systematic reviews to assess sex and gender considerations, address to whom evidence applies, and determine future research needs.

Moving Towards Common Data Elements and Core Outcome Measures in Frailty Research.

With aging populations around the world, frailty is becoming more prevalent increasing the need for health systems and social systems to deliver optimal evidence based care. However, in spite of the growing number of frailty publications, high-quality evidence for decision making is often lacking. Inadequate descriptions of the populations enrolled including frailty severity and frailty conceptualization, lack of use of validated frailty assessment tools, utilization of different frailty instruments between studies, and variation in reported outcomes impairs the ability to interpret, generalize and implement the research findings. The utilization of common data elements (CDEs) and core outcome measures (COMs) in clinical trials is increasingly being adopted to address such concerns. To catalyze the development and use of CDEs and COMs for future frailty studies, the Canadian Frailty Network (www.cfn-nce.ca; CFN), a not-for-profit pan-Canadian nationally-funded research network, convened an international group of experts to examine the issue and plan the path forward. The meeting was structured to allow for an examination of current frailty evidence, ability to learn from other COMs and CDEs initiatives, discussions about specific considerations for frailty COMs and CDEs and finally the identification of the necessary steps for a COMs and CDEs consensus initiative going forward. It was agreed at the onset of the meeting that a statement based on the meeting would be published and herein we report the statement.

When is a randomised controlled trial health equity relevant? Development and validation of a conceptual framework.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials. METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials. RESULTS: A randomised trial can usefully be classified as 'health equity relevant' if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as 'health equity relevant' may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies. CONCLUSION: The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

Decision aids for patients considering total joint replacement: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key priority to improve patient-centred care, and can play an important role in helping patients decide whether to undergo total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Patient decision aids can support SDM; however, they may incur an upfront cost. We aimed to estimate the health and economic effects of patient decision aids for TJA. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with 2-year follow-up. 343 patients were recruited from two orthopedic screening clinics in Ottawa, Canada. Patients were randomized to either a patient decision aid plus surgeon preference report (decision aid) or usual care. Primary outcomes were costs (in 2014 CAD$), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs were calculated by multiplying self-reported resource use by unit costs. QALYs were calculated by mapping the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) health utilities. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 5%. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data, and bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty. RESULTS: The sample comprised 167 intervention and 167 control group patients. The decision aid arm had fewer surgeries over the 2-year period thereby incurring a negative incremental cost of -$560 (95% CI: -$1358 to $426) per patient while providing 0.05 (95% CI: -0.04 to 0.13) additional QALYs per patient. Consequently, the decision aid arm was dominant. CONCLUSION: The use of a patient decision aid was associated with fewer health care costs, while producing similar health outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CT00911638 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Clinicians' perspective on key domains in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a Delphi exercise.

OBJECTIVES: The existing set of outcomes for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) needs to incorporate views of outcome measure stakeholders to meet the current standards of outcome measurement proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative. This study identifies domains that clinical experts (one group of stakeholders) consider to be important to determining the impact of AAV using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), a framework that describes health along four components: body functions, body structures, activities and participation, and contextual factors. METHOD: An international group of clinicians with expertise in the clinical care of patients with vasculitis were identified through consultation with three major vasculitis societies. The relevant domains were determined using a three-round e-mail-based Delphi questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinicians were invited to participate in this study and 41 responded. Nineteen domains were identified as important by > 80% of participants: six body functions (energy, seeing, hearing, pain, respiratory, and renal function), seven body structures (peripheral nerves, eye, ear, nose, sinuses, lungs (and airways), and kidneys), three activities and participation (carrying out daily routine, remunerative employment, and recreation and leisure), and three environmental factors (medications, support and relationships, and health services, systems, and policies). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experts focus on the physiological effects of AAV with less importance given to the effect of AAV on patients' activities and participation in life situations and the role of contextual factors. This study represents a step towards incorporating views of a range of stakeholders into disease assessment in AAV.

Adaptation of the 2015 American College of Rheumatology treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis for the Eastern Mediterranean Region: an exemplar of the GRADE Adolopment

BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that adaptation of health practice guidelines to the local setting is expected to improve their uptake and implementation while cutting on required resources. We recently adapted the published American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) treatment guideline to the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). The objective of this paper is to describe the process used for the adaptation of the 2015 ACR guideline on the treatment of RA for the EMR. METHODS: We used the GRADE-Adolopment methodology for the guideline adaptation process. We describe in detail how adolopment enhanced the efficiency of the following steps of the guideline adaptation process: (1) groups and roles, (2) selecting guideline topics, (3) identifying and training guideline panelists, (4) prioritizing questions and outcomes, (5) identifying, updating or conducting systematic reviews, (6) preparing GRADE evidence tables and EtD frameworks, (7) formulating and grading strength of recommendations, (8) using the GRADEpro-GDT software. RESULTS: The adolopment process took 6 months from January to June 2016 with a project coordinator dedicating 40% of her time, and the two co-chairs dedicating 5% and 10% of their times respectively. In addition, a research assistant worked 60% of her time over the last 3 months of the project. We held our face-to-face panel meeting in Qatar. Our literature update included five newly published trials. The certainty of the evidence of three of the eight recommendations changed: one from moderate to very low and two from low to very low. The factors that justified a very low certainty of the evidence in the three recommendations were: serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision. The strength of five of the recommendations changed from strong to conditional. The factors that justified the conditional strength of these 5 recommendations were: cost (n = 5 [100%]), impact on health equities (n = 4 [80%]), the balance of benefits and harms (n = 1 [20%]) and acceptability (n = 1 [20%]). CONCLUSION: This project confirmed the feasibility of GRADE-Adolopment. It also highlighted the value of collaboration with the organization that had originally developed the treatment guideline. We discuss the implications for both guideline adaptation and future research to advance the field.(AU)

Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain

Guideline for opioid therapy and chronic noncancer pain: the objective is to inform the prescribing of opioids for adults with chronic noncancer pain.

Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: an overview of reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Social media use has been increasing in public health and health promotion because it can remove geographic and physical access barriers. However, these interventions also have the potential to increase health inequities for people who do not have access to or do not use social media. In this paper, we aim to assess the effects of interactive social media interventions on health outcomes, behaviour change and health equity. METHODS: We conducted a rapid response overview of systematic reviews. We used a sensitive search strategy to identify systematic reviews and included those that focussed on interventions allowing two-way interaction such as discussion forums, social networks (e.g. Facebook and Twitter), blogging, applications linked to online communities and media sharing. RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. Most interventions addressed by the reviews included online discussion boards or similar strategies, either as stand-alone interventions or in combination with other interventions. Seven reviews reported mixed effects on health outcomes and healthy behaviours. We did not find disaggregated analyses across characteristics associated with disadvantage, such as lower socioeconomic status or age. However, some targeted studies reported that social media interventions were effective in specific populations in terms of age, socioeconomic status, ethnicities and place of residence. Four reviews reported qualitative benefits such as satisfaction, finding information and improved social support. CONCLUSION: Social media interventions were effective in certain populations at risk for disadvantage (youth, older adults, low socioeconomic status, rural), which indicates that these interventions may be effective for promoting health equity. However, confirmation of effectiveness would require further study. Several reviews raised the issue of acceptability of social media interventions. Only four studies reported on the level of intervention use and all of these reported low use. More research on established social media platforms with existing social networks is needed, particularly in populations at risk for disadvantage, to assess effects on health outcomes and health equity.

TITRE: Interventions interactives dans les médias sociaux visant à promouvoir l'équité en matière de santé : vue d'ensemble des examens. INTRODUCTION: L'utilisation des médias sociaux en matière de santé publique et de promotion de la santé est en croissance, car ces outils permettent d'éliminer les barrières géographiques et physiques à l'accès aux services et aux soins de santé. Cependant, ils sont une source potentielle d'inégalité en matière de santé car une partie de la population n'y a pas accès ou ne les utilise pas. Cet article a comme objectif d'évaluer les effets des interventions interactives dans les médias sociaux sur les résultats sanitaires, les changements de comportement et l'équité en matière de santé. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons réalisé une synthèse rapide d'examens systématiques axés sur des interventions favorables aux interactions réciproques, que ce soit les forums de discussion, les réseaux sociaux (comme Facebook et Twitter), les blogues, les applications liées aux communautés électroniques ou le partage de contenu multimédia. Nous avons eu recours à une stratégie de recherche fine pour sélectionner les examens systématiques. RÉSULTATS: Onze examens systématiques ont répondu à nos critères d'inclusion. La plupart des interventions visées par ces examens visaient des groupes de discussion en ligne ou des outils similaires. Ces interventions étaient isolées ou conjointes à d'autres. Sept examens ont fait état d'effets mixtes sur les résultats sanitaires et les comportements sains. On n'a constaté aucune analyse détaillée des caractéristiques liées aux inconvénients, notamment un statut socioéconomique plus faible ou l'âge. Par contre, certaines études ciblées ont montré que les interventions dans les médias sociaux étaient efficaces pour certaines populations précises sur le plan de l'âge, du statut socioéconomique, de l'ethnicité et du lieu de résidence. Quatre examens ont fait état d'avantages qualitatifs, comme la satisfaction, le recueil d'information et l'amélioration du soutien social. CONCLUSION : Les interventions dans les médias sociaux se sont avérées efficaces pour certaines populations susceptibles d'être désavantagées (jeunes, aînés, personnes à faible statut socioéconomique et population rurale), ce qui prouve leur efficacité potentielle pour l'avancement de l'équité en matière de santé. La confirmation de cette efficacité nécessiterait toutefois une étude approfondie. Plusieurs examens ont soulevé la question de l'acceptabilité des interventions dans les médias sociaux. Seulement quatre études se sont penchées sur le niveau d'utilisation de l'intervention et elles ont toutes dévoilé un faible niveau d'utilisation. Il faudra réaliser d'autres travaux de recherche sur les plateformes des principaux médias sociaux actuels, particulièrement auprès des populations risquant d'être désavantagées, afin d'évaluer leurs effets sur les résultats sanitaires et l'équité en matière de santé.

Impact of patient decision aids on appropriate and timely access to hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDA) compared to usual education on appropriate and timely access to total joint arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. METHOD: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with patients undergoing orthopedic screening. Control and intervention arms received usual education; intervention arm also received a PtDA and a surgeon preference report. Wait times (primary outcome) were described using stratified Kaplan-Meier survival curves with patients censored at the time of death or loss to follow-up, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Secondary outcomes were compared using stratified Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared tests. RESULTS: 343 patients were randomized to intervention (n = 174) or control (n = 169). The typical patient was 66 years old, retired, living with someone, and 51% had high school education or less. The intervention was associated with a trend towards reduction in wait time (hazard ratio (HR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.60, P = 0.0653). Median wait times were 3 weeks shorter in intervention than in control at the community site with no difference at the academic site. Good decision quality was reached by 56.1% intervention and 44.5% control (Relative risk (RR) 1.25; 95% CI 1.00-1.56, P = 0.050). Surgery rates were 73.2% intervention and 80.5% controls (RR 0.91: 95% CI 0.81-1.03) with 12 intervention (7.3%) and eight control participants (4.9%) returning to have surgery within 2 years (P = 0.791). CONCLUSION: Compared to controls, decision aid recipients had shorter wait times at one site, fewer surgeries, and were more likely to reach good decision quality, but overall effect was not statistically significant. TRIALS REGISTRATION: The full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT00911638).

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.

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.

Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials. METHODS: We undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124,513 participants, 68,342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229,296 participants, 165,456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed). FINDINGS: Major vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14-1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12-1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31-2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19-2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10-4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89-2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69-1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00-2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95-2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56-6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48-2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17-2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16-3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22-7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71-6·56, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

Tuberculosis surveillance in Cape Town, South Africa: an evaluation.

SETTING: Cape Town, South Africa. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current system of tuberculosis surveillance in the Cape Metro region. DESIGN: This evaluation was based on the 'Updated Guidelines for Evaluating Public Health Surveillance Systems' of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, modified to render the framework applicable to the context of tuberculosis (TB) surveillance. The evaluation incorporated qualitative exploration of perceptions and experiences of system users. RESULTS: System users were very accepting of the system and were committed to seeing it achieve its purpose within public health. Some individuals expressed concerns about the rigidity of the Electronic TB Register software and its analysis capabilities. Dissemination of TB data and evidence-based action within the Cape Metro region are strong attributes of Cape Town's TB surveillance system. At the time of the evaluation, integration of TB and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) data was weak, as was multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) surveillance; the South African Tuberculosis Control Programme is developing initiatives to improve these areas. CONCLUSIONS: Cape Metro's TB surveillance is strong, although it would be strengthened by increasing availability of data reflecting TB-HIV co-infection and MDR-TB. Systems operations could be improved by increasing software flexibility, and increased integration of electronic data across health regions would enhance the capacity and assessment of control efforts.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: part III: Changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009.

OBJECTIVE: To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence. RESULTS: Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36] in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo. CONCLUSION: Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.

Validation of a simple activity participation measure for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity, reliability and sensitivity to change of the Activity Participation Questionnaire (APaQ), a simple measure of activity participation for patients with RA. METHODS: The questionnaire contained two items: (i) number of days in the past month of being unable to perform one's usual activities because of RA; and (ii) a score measuring how often one's usual activities could be completed. The APaQ was administered to 1043 RA patients in two clinical trials of abatacept. Construct validity was evaluated by examining changes from baseline in activity scores by clinical response measured by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and ACR criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) state and by correlations with patient-reported outcome measures of physical function, disease activity, pain and fatigue at study end-point. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change were assessed. RESULTS: Both activity participation items were significantly associated with levels of EULAR and ACR response and the achievement of MDA state (P < 0.0005 for all comparisons). Moderate correlations with patient-reported outcomes were consistently found (correlations 0.5-0.6). Cronbach's alpha was 0.7 indicating good internal consistency, the intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.6 suggesting acceptable test-retest reliability. Sensitivity to change was demonstrated by the treatment differences and the standardized response mean (0.39 and 0.30) for the two activity items. CONCLUSION: The APaQ is a simple, reliable and valid measure of patient activity, which is sensitive to change, suggesting its suitability for use in clinical trials.

Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: The project followed the EULAR standardized operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: 1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); 2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and 3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature, the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: 1) disease activity response and disease activity states; 2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; 3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); 4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; 5) time to onset of the primary outcome; 6) sustainability of the primary outcome; 7) fatigue. CONCLUSION: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonize the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

Reporting disease activity in clinical trials of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: EULAR/ACR collaborative recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations on how to report disease activity in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). METHODS: The project followed the EULAR standardised operating procedures, which use a three-step approach: (1) expert-based definition of relevant research questions (November 2006); (2) systematic literature search (November 2006 to May 2007); and (3) expert consensus on recommendations based on the literature search results (May 2007). In addition, since this is the first joint EULAR/ACR publication on recommendations, an extra step included a meeting with an ACR panel to approve the recommendations elaborated by the expert group (August 2007). RESULTS: Eleven relevant questions were identified for the literature search. Based on the evidence from the literature the expert panel recommended that each trial should report the following items: (1) disease activity response and disease activity states; (2) appropriate descriptive statistics of the baseline, the endpoints and change of the single variables included in the core set; (3) baseline disease activity levels (in general); (4) the percentage of patients achieving a low disease activity state and remission; (5) time to onset of the primary outcome; (6) sustainability of the primary outcome; (7) fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations endorsed by EULAR and ACR will help harmonise the presentations of results from clinical trials. Adherence to these recommendations will provide the readership of clinical trials with more details of important outcomes, while the higher level of homogeneity may facilitate the comparison of outcomes across different trials and pooling of trial results, such as in meta-analyses.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines.

PURPOSE: To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world. METHODS: Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided. CONCLUSION: Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.

Alendronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration leading to increased fracture risk. Alendronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs, which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of alendronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant randomized controlled trials published between 1966 to 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Women receiving at least one year of alendronate, for postmenopausal osteoporosis, were compared to those receiving placebo and/or concurrent calcium/vitamin D. The outcome was fracture incidence. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We undertook study selection and data abstraction in duplicate. We performed meta-analysis of fracture outcomes using relative risks and a > 15% relative change was considered clinically important. We assessed study quality through reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials representing 12,068 women were included in the review. Relative (RRR) and absolute (ARR) risk reductions for the 10 mg dose were as follows. For vertebral fractures, a significant 45% RRR was found (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.67). This was significant for both primary prevention, with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80) and 2% ARR, and secondary prevention with 45% RRR (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.69) and 6% ARR. For non-vertebral fractures, a significant 16% RRR was found (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94). This was significant for secondary prevention, with 23% RRR (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92) and 2% ARR, but not for primary prevention (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). There was a significant 40% RRR in hip fractures (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.92), but only secondary prevention was significant with 53% RRR (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.85) and 1% ARR. The only significance found for wrist was in secondary prevention, with a 50% RRR (RR 0.50 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73) and 2% ARR. For adverse events, we found no statistically significant differences in any included study. However, observational data raise concerns regarding potential risk for upper gastrointestinal injury and, less commonly, osteonecrosis of the jaw. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At 10 mg per day, both clinically important and statistically significant reductions in vertebral, non-vertebral, hip and wrist fractures were observed for secondary prevention ('gold' level evidence, www.cochranemsk.org). We found no statistically significant results for primary prevention, with the exception of vertebral fractures, for which the reduction was clinically important ('gold' level evidence).