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.

Preoperative respiratory muscle training reduces the risk of pulmonary complications and the length of hospital stay after cardiac surgery: a systematic review.

QUESTIONS: What is the effect of preoperative respiratory muscle training (RMT) on the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) after open cardiac surgery? What is the effect of RMT on the duration of mechanical ventilation, postoperative length of stay and respiratory muscle strength? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults undergoing elective open cardiac surgery. INTERVENTION: The experimental groups received preoperative RMT and the comparison groups received no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were PPCs, length of hospital stay, respiratory muscle strength, oxygenation and duration of mechanical ventilation. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the PEDro scale and the overall certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight trials involving 696 participants were included. Compared with the control group, the respiratory training group had fewer PPCs (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70), less pneumonia (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.78), shorter hospital stay (MD -1.7 days, 95% CI -2.4 to -1.1) and higher maximal inspiratory pressure values at the end of the training protocol (MD 12 cmH2O, 95% CI 8 to 16). The mechanical ventilation time was similar in both groups. The quality of evidence was high for pneumonia, length of hospital stay and maximal inspiratory pressure. CONCLUSION: Preoperative RMT reduced the risk of PPCs and pneumonia after cardiac surgery. The training also improved the maximal inspiratory pressure and reduced hospital stay. The effects on PPCs were large enough to warrant use of RMT in this population. REGISTRATION: CRD42021227779.

Research from Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries will Benefit Global Health and the Physiotherapy Profession, but it Requires Support.

Disparities in research publications are common in the physiotherapy and rehabilitation fields.1 A small proportion of published research arises from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs),1,2 home to 85% of the world's population. Systems-level, institutional-level, and individual-level factors contribute to these disparities. With urgent and unified actions, global health and the standard of physiotherapy research in LMICs can be improved and strengthened. In this editorial, we will discuss the challenges encountered by researchers from LMICs in conducting and publishing high-quality research and propose potential strategies to address these challenges.

Clinical trial registration has become more prevalent in physical therapy but it is still inadequate: A meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: A study using data from 2009 showed low prevalence and inadequate trial registration in physiotherapy. In 2013, a joint editorial recommended prospective registration in physiotherapy journals. Ten years later it is unclear whether the joint editorial achieved its intended benefit. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proportion of randomized trials adequately registered and the extent of selective reporting of outcomes in trials of physiotherapy interventions published in 2019 and to compare these data with equivalent published data from 2009. DESIGN: Meta-research study. METHOD: A random sample of 200 trials published in 2019 was used. Evidence of registration was sought on trial registers and by contacting authors. Data from the article was compared with data from the trial registration. Data from this sample of trial published in 2019 were compared with equivalent published data from 2009. RESULTS: In 2019, the proportion of trials that were registered was 63% versus 34% in 2009 (absolute difference 29%). In 2019, 18% of the trials were prospectively registered compared to 6% in 2009 (absolute difference 12%). Unambiguous primary outcomes (i.e., method and timepoints of measurement clearly defined in the trial registry entry) were registered for 30% in 2019. Registration was adequate (i.e., prospective with unambiguous primary outcomes) for 8%, compared with 3% in 2009 (absolute difference 5%). Selective outcome reporting occurred in 73% of the trials in which it was assessable; in 2009 this proportion was 47% (absolute difference 26%). CONCLUSIONS: Registration of randomized trials in physiotherapy increased in the past decade, but it is still inadequate. More effort is still required to implement and enforce adequate registration.

Online Education Improves Confidence in Mechanical Insufflation-Exsufflation.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is a cough augmentation technique used to support people with an ineffective cough. MI-E can be complex due to the number of different pressure, flow, and temporal setting adjustments needed to optimize cough efficacy. Many clinicians identify inadequate training, limited experience, and low confidence as barriers to MI-E use. The purpose of this study was to determine if an online education course could improve confidence and competence in the delivery of MI-E. METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate was disseminated to physiotherapists with a caseload that involved airway clearance for adults. The exclusion criteria were self-reported confidence and clinical expertise in MI-E. The education was created by physiotherapists with extensive experience in the provision of MI-E. The education material reviewed theoretical and practical components and was designed to take 6 h to complete. Physiotherapists were randomized to either the intervention group, who had 3 weeks of access to the education or the control group who received no intervention. Respondents in both groups completed a baseline and a post-intervention questionnaire by using visual analog scales, 0 to 10, with the primary outcomes being confidence in the prescription and confidence in the application of MI-E. Ten multiple-choice questions that covered key components of MI-E fundamentals were also completed at baseline and post-intervention. RESULTS: The intervention group had a significant improvement in the visual analog scale after the education period with a between-group difference of mean 3.6 (95% CI 4.5 to 2.7) for prescription confidence and mean 2.9 (95% CI 3.9 to 1.9) for application confidence. There was also an improvement in the multiple-choice questions with a between-group difference of mean 3.2 (95% CI 4.3 to 2). CONCLUSIONS: Access to an evidence-based online education course improved confidence in the prescription and application of MI-E, and may be a valuable tool for training clinicians in the application of MI-E.

Saline at lower tonicity in cystic fibrosis (SALTI-CF) trial comparing 0.9% versus 3% versus 6% nebulised saline.

BACKGROUND: In people with cystic fibrosis (CF), regular nebulisation of 6% or 7% saline improves lung function; however, these concentrations are not always tolerable. Clinically, some CF patients report using lower concentrations of saline to improve tolerability, yet the effects of lower concentrations are unknown. This study therefore aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness and tolerability of 0.9% versus 3% versus 6% saline nebulised twice daily with an eFlow rapid nebuliser. METHODS: This was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre study where subjects inhaled 4 mL of 0.9%, 3% or 6% saline twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary outcome was forced expiratory volume in 1 s. The secondary outcomes were: forced vital capacity (FVC) and forced expiratory flow at 25-75% of FVC; quality of life; exercise capacity; acquisition or loss of bacterial organisms in expectorated sputum; tolerability of nebulised saline; pulmonary exacerbations; and adverse events. RESULTS: 140 participants were randomised to 0.9% (n=47), 3% (n=48) or 6% (n=45) saline. 134 participants (96%) contributed to the intention-to-treat analysis. 3% saline significantly improved lung function and increased the time to first pulmonary exacerbation compared with 0.9% saline but did not improve quality of life. 6% saline had similar benefits to 3% saline but also significantly improved quality of life compared with 3% saline. Only 6% saline delayed the time to intravenous antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbation. Tolerability and adherence were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Dilution of 6% saline to 3% maintains the benefits for lung function and exacerbation prevention; however, the positive impacts of 6% saline on quality of life and time to i.v. antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are lost.