Factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trials in health care are prospective human research studies designed to test the effectiveness and safety of health care interventions, such as medications, surgeries, medical devices and other treatment or prevention interventions. Statistics is an important and powerful tool in trials. Inappropriately designed trials and/or inappropriate statistical analysis produce unreliable results and a lack of transparency when reported, with limited clinical use. AIM: This systematic literature review aimed to identify, describe and synthesise factors contributing to or influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials. METHODS: Information sources were retrieved from the following electronic citation databases: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and CINAHL and the grey literature repository: OpenGrey. 90 articles and guidelines were included in this review. A narrative, thematic synthesis identified the key factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials in health care. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: We identified three analytical themes within which factors are grouped. These are: "what makes a statistician?", "the need for dynamic statistical involvement and collaboration throughout a trial - it's not just about the numbers", "and the "accountability of statisticians in ensuring the safety of trial participants and the integrity of trial data". While important insights emerged about the qualifications, training, roles, and responsibilities of statisticians and their collaboration with other team members in a trial, further empirical research is warranted to elicit the perceptions of trial team members at the centre of statistics in trials.

A protocol for a systematic review investigating the factors influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials.

Trials can be defined as prospective human research studies to test the effectiveness and safety of interventions, such as medications, surgeries, medical devices and other interventions for the management of patient care. Statistics is an important and powerful tool in trials. Inappropriately designed trials and/or inappropriate statistical analysis produce unreliable results, with limited clinical use. The aim of this systematic literature review is to identify, describe and synthesise factors contributing to or influencing the statistical planning, design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials. This protocol will describe the methodological approach taken for the following: conducting a systematic and comprehensive search for relevant articles, applying eligibility criteria for the inclusion of such articles, extracting data and information, appraising the quality of the articles, and thematically synthesizing the data to illuminate the key factors influencing statistical aspects of trials.

Battling the COVID-19 infodemic in an Irish context: the role of iHealthFacts.

On the 11 th of March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a global pandemic due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This was one month after Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the WHO declared that we are also fighting an 'infodemic'. The WHO has described an infodemic as an "over-abundance of information - some accurate and some not - that makes it hard for people to find trustworthy sources and reliable guidance when they need it". iHealthFacts.ie is an Irish resource where the public can quickly and easily check the credibility and reliability of health claims circulating on social media. Unreliable claims can lead to poorly informed health choices. iHealthFacts is an initiative that supports the public to think critically about health claims and make well-informed choices. Here, we describe the role iHealthFacts plays in providing reliable information to the public and offer reflections from those involved in launching this initiative during a pandemic.

A review of international medical device regulations: Contact lenses and lens care solutions.

Medical devices are under strict regulatory oversight worldwide and such regulations prioritise patient safety and efficacy over anything else. Contact lenses fall under the medical device category - a result of direct contact with the eye. Equally regulated are the contact lens care product solutions, which include cleaning and maintenance solutions and lubricating and rewetting drops. In the USA, it is the FDA Centre for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) overseeing the regulations of medical devices, since 1976. In the European Union, it is the EU Commission responsible for regulating devices in Member States. The categorisation of contact lenses into medical devices is based on their inherent risk to the wearer. Contact lenses are subject to crucial regulatory oversight from concept to clinical evaluation, clinical investigations through to the finished lens product, and finally, strict conditions associated with their marketing approval including post-marketing surveillance. The physiochemical and manufacturing testing, such as biocompatibility testing alongside pre-clinical stability, sterility and microbiological testing are just some of the essential testing lenses must endure. Only through understanding the inherent risks and potential complications that can arise from contact lens wear, can one truly appreciate the need to adhere to strict regulations. The challenge however, lies in the need for more standardised regulations and flexible approaches, ensuring innovative device technologies reach patients in a timely manner without compromising public health and safety. This review highlights some key requirement, differences and similarities between the FDA and EU administrations in the approval of contact lenses.

Clinical handover practices among healthcare practitioners in acute care services: A qualitative study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To examine clinical handover practices in acute care services in Ireland. Objectives were to examine clinical handover practices between and within teams and between shifts, to identify resources and supports to enhance handover effectiveness and to identify barriers and facilitators of effective handover. BACKGROUND: Clinical handover is a high-risk activity, and ineffective handover practice constitutes a risk to patient safety. Evidence suggests that handover effectiveness is achieved through staff training and standardised handover protocols. DESIGN: The study design was qualitative-descriptive using inductive analysis. METHODS: The study involved a series of focus group discussions and interviews among a sample of healthcare practitioners recruited from 12 urban and regional acute hospitals in Ireland. A total of 116 healthcare professionals took part in 28 interviews and 13 focus group discussions. We analysed the data using the directed content analysis method. RESULTS: Data collection generated rich qualitative data, yielding five categories from which two broad themes emerged: "policy and practice" and "handover effectiveness." The themes and their associated categories indicate that there is limited organisational-level policy and limited explicit training in clinical handover, that medical and nursing handovers are separate activities with somewhat different purposes and different modes of execution, and that several factors in the acute care setting, including location, timing and documentation, act as either barriers or enablers to handover effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The evidence in the current study suggests that clinical handover merits increased level of prominence in hospital policies or operating procedures. Medical and nursing handover practices represent distinct activities in their content and execution that may be related to cultural and organisational factors. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Achieving multidisciplinary team handover requires a change in embedded traditional practices. Several aspects of the clinical handover activities of nursing and medical staff appear to diverge from best-practice evidence.

Lipopolysaccharides, but not Angiotensin ll, lnduces Direct Pro-lnflammatory Effects in Cultured Mouse Arteries and Human Endothelial and Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells.

Angiotensin II (Ang II) might induce pro-inflammatory effects directly in the vascular wall independently of its haemodynamic effects. The aim of our study was to investigate the putative direct pro-inflammatory and vasomotor effects of Ang II and compare to those of lipopolysaccharides (LPS) in mouse isolated mesenteric resistance-sized arteries (MRA) supported by experiments in cultured human primary endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells. Results showed that 24-hr organ culture of mouse MRA with 10 nM Ang II had, unlike 100 ng/mL LPS, no effects on IL-6 or MCP-1 secretion, VCAM1 mRNA expression or endothelial function, while Ang II significantly decreased maximal vasomotor responses to phenylephrine. In support, 24-hr organ culture of mouse MRA significantly suppressed Agtr1a mRNA and augmented Tlr4 mRNA along with attenuated vasomotor responses to Ang II. Moreover, contrary to LPS and TNF-α, Ang II and [Sar1]-Ang II had no concentration- or time-dependent effects on IL-6 and MCP-1 secretion in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) and human aortic smooth muscle cells (HASMC). AGTR1 or AGTR2 mRNA expression was undetectable in HUVEC, whereas HASMC expressed only AGTR1 mRNA. In summary, contrary to previous studies and the observed effects of LPS, we could not demonstrate direct vascular pro-inflammatory effects of Ang II ex vivo or in vitro. As indicated by our results, down-regulation or desensitization of AT1 R during culture may explain our findings.

Translational value of mechanical and vasomotor properties of mouse isolated mesenteric resistance-sized arteries.

Mice are increasingly used in vascular research for studying perturbations and responses to vasoactive agents in small artery preparations. Historically, small artery function has preferably been studied in rat isolated mesenteric resistance-sized arteries (MRA) using the wire myograph technique. Although different mouse arteries have been studied using the wire myograph no establishment of optimal settings has yet been performed. Therefore, the purposes of this study were firstly to establish the optimal settings for wire myograph studies of mouse MRA and compare them to those of rat MRA. Second, by surveying the literature, we aimed to evaluate the overall translatability of observed pharmacological vasomotor responses of mouse MRA to those obtained in rat MRA as well as corresponding and different arteries in terms of vessel size and species origin. Our results showed that the optimal conditions for maximal active force development in mouse MRA were not significantly different to those determined in rat MRA. Furthermore, we found that the observed concentration-dependent vasomotor responses of mouse MRA to noradrenaline, phenylephrine, angiotensin II, sarafotoxin 6c, 5-hydroxytryptamine, carbachol, sodium nitroprusside, and retigabine were generally similar to those described in rat MRA as well as arteries of different sizes and species origin. In summary, the results of this study provide a framework for evidence-based optimization of the isometric wire myograph setup to mouse MRA. Additionally, in terms of translational value, our study suggests that mouse MRA can be applied as a useful model for studying vascular reactivity.