Saline irrigation for allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition affecting both adults and children. Patients experience symptoms of nasal obstruction, rhinorrhoea, sneezing and nasal itching, which may affect their quality of life.Nasal irrigation with saline (salty water), also known as nasal douching, washing or lavage, is a procedure that rinses the nasal cavity with isotonic or hypertonic saline solutions. It can be performed with low positive pressure from a spray, pump or squirt bottle, with a nebuliser or with gravity-based pressure in which the person instils saline into one nostril and allows it to drain out of the other. Saline solutions are available over the counter and can be used alone or as an adjunct to other therapies. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of nasal saline irrigation in people with allergic rhinitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; CENTRAL; Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nasal saline irrigation, delivered by any means and with any volume, tonicity and alkalinity, with (a) no nasal saline irrigation or (b) other pharmacological treatments in adults and children with allergic rhinitis. We included studies comparing nasal saline versus no saline, where all participants also received pharmacological treatment (intranasal corticosteroids or oral antihistamines). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were patient-reported disease severity and a common adverse effect - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), individual symptom scores, general HRQL, the adverse effects of local irritation or discomfort, ear symptoms (pain or pressure) and nasal endoscopy scores. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies (747 participants). The studies included children (seven studies, 499 participants) and adults (seven studies, 248 participants). No studies reported outcomes beyond three months follow-up. Saline volumes ranged from 'very low' to 'high' volume. Where stated, studies used either hypertonic or isotonic saline solution.Nasal saline versus no saline treatmentAll seven studies (112 adults; 332 children) evaluating this comparison used different scoring systems for patient-reported disease severity, so we pooled the data using the standardised mean difference (SMD). Saline irrigation may improve patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline at up to four weeks (SMD -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.84 to -0.81; 407 participants; 6 studies; low quality) and between four weeks and three months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.39 to -0.48; 167 participants; 5 studies; low quality). Although the evidence was low quality the SMD values at both time points are considered large effect sizes. Subgroup analysis showed the improvement in both adults and children. Subgroup analyses for volume and tonicity were inconclusive due to heterogeneity.Two studies reported methods for recording adverse effects and five studies mentioned them. Two studies (240 children) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group and three only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.One study (48 children) reported disease-specific HRQL using a modified RCQ-36 scale. It was uncertain whether there was a difference between the groups at any of the specified time points (very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus no saline with adjuvant use of intranasal steroids or oral antihistamines Three studies (40 adults; 79 children) compared saline with intranasal steroids versus intranasal steroids alone; one study (14 adults) compared saline with oral antihistamines versus oral antihistamines alone. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient-reported disease severity at up to four weeks (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.15; 32 participants; 2 studies; very low quality) or from four weeks to three months (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.21; 58 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). Although none of the studies reported methods for recording adverse effects, three mentioned them: one study (40 adults; adjuvant intranasal steroids) reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) in either group; the other two only reported no adverse effects in the saline group.It is uncertain if saline irrigation in addition to pharmacological treatment improved disease-specific HRQL at four weeks to three months, compared with pharmacological treatment alone (SMD -1.26, 95% CI -2.47 to -0.05; 54 participants; 2 studies; very low quality). No other secondary outcomes were reported.Nasal saline versus intranasal steroidsIt is uncertain if there was a difference in patient-reported disease severity between nasal saline and intranasal steroids at up to four weeks (MD 1.06, 95% CI -1.65 to 3.77; 14 participants; 1 study), or between four weeks and three months (SMD 1.26, 95% CI -0.92 to 3.43; 97 participants; 3 studies), or indisease-specific HRQL between four weeks and three months (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.75; 83 participants; 2 studies). Only one study reported methods for recording adverse effects although three studies mentioned them. One (21 participants) reported two withdrawals due to adverse effects but did not describe these or state which group. Three studies reported no adverse effects (epistaxis or local discomfort) with saline, although one study reported that 27% of participants experienced local discomfort with steroid use. No other secondary outcomes were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Saline irrigation may reduce patient-reported disease severity compared with no saline irrigation at up to three months in both adults and children with allergic rhinitis, with no reported adverse effects. No data were available for any outcomes beyond three months. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low. The included studies were generally small and used a range of different outcome measures to report disease severity scores, with unclear validation. This review did not include direct comparisons of saline types (e.g. different volume, tonicity).Since saline irrigation could provide a cheap, safe and acceptable alternative to intranasal steroids and antihistamines further high-quality, adequately powered research in this area is warranted.

Filmed Monologue Vignettes: a novel method for investigating how clinicians document consultations in electronic health records.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The accuracy of conclusions from research based on Electronic Healthcare Records (EHRs) is highly dependent on the correct selection of descriptors (codes) by users, but few methods exist for examining quality and drivers of documentation. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of filmed vignette monologues as a resource-light method of assessing and comparing how different EHR users record the same clinical scenario. METHODS: Six short monologues portraying simulated patients presenting allergic conditions to their General Practitioners were filmed head-on then electronically distributed for the study; no researcher was present during data collection. The method was assessed by participant uptake, reported ease of completion by participants, compliance with instructions, the receipt of interpretable data by researchers, and participant perceptions of vignette quality, realism and information content. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants completed the study, reporting only minor difficulties. 132 screenshots were returned electronically, enabling analysis of codes, free text and EHR features. Participants assigned a quality rating of 7.7/10 (range 2-10) to the vignettes and rated the extent to which vignettes reflected real-life at 93% (range 86-100%). Between 1 and 2 hours were required to complete the task. Full compliance with instructions varied between participants, but was largely successful. CONCLUSIONS: Filmed monologues are a reproducible, standardized method, which require relatively few resources, yet allow clear assessment of clinicians' and EHRs systems' impact on documentation. The novel nature of this method necessitates clear instructions, so participants can fully complete the study without face-to-face researcher supervision.

Quality of recording of diabetes in the UK: how does the GP's method of coding clinical data affect incidence estimates? Cross-sectional study using the CPRD database.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of coding quality on estimates of the incidence of diabetes in the UK between 1995 and 2014. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis examining diabetes coding from 1995 to 2014 and how the choice of codes (diagnosis codes vs codes which suggest diagnosis) and quality of coding affect estimated incidence. SETTING: Routine primary care data from 684 practices contributing to the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (data contributed from Vision (INPS) practices). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence rates of diabetes and how they are affected by (1) GP coding and (2) excluding 'poor' quality practices with at least 10% incident patients inaccurately coded between 2004 and 2014. RESULTS: Incidence rates and accuracy of coding varied widely between practices and the trends differed according to selected category of code. If diagnosis codes were used, the incidence of type 2 increased sharply until 2004 (when the UK Quality Outcomes Framework was introduced), and then flattened off, until 2009, after which they decreased. If non-diagnosis codes were included, the numbers continued to increase until 2012. Although coding quality improved over time, 15% of the 666 practices that contributed data between 2004 and 2014 were labelled 'poor' quality. When these practices were dropped from the analyses, the downward trend in the incidence of type 2 after 2009 became less marked and incidence rates were higher. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to some previous reports, diabetes incidence (based on diagnostic codes) appears not to have increased since 2004 in the UK. Choice of codes can make a significant difference to incidence estimates, as can quality of recording. Codes and data quality should be checked when assessing incidence rates using GP data.

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual care One trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroids One trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment.

Exploring practical approaches to maximising data quality in electronic healthcare records in the primary care setting and associated benefits. Report of panel-led discussion held at SAPC in July 2014.

BACKGROUND: Electronic healthcare records provide information about patient care over time which not only affords the opportunity to improve patient care directly through effective monitoring and identification of care requirements but also offers a unique platform for both clinical and service-model research essential to the longer-term development of the health service. The quality of the recorded data can, however, be variable and can compromise the validity of data use both for primary and secondary purposes. OBJECTIVES: In order to explore the challenges and benefits of and approaches to recording high quality primary care electronic records, a Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) sponsored workshop was held at the Society of Academic Primary Care (SAPC) conference in 2014 with the aim of engaging GPs and other data users. METHODS: The workshop was held as a structured discussion, led by an expert panel and focused around three questions: (1) What are the data quality priorities for clinicians and researchers? How do these priorities differ or overlap? (2) What challenges might GPs face in provision of good data quality both for treating their patients and for research? Do these aims conflict? (3) What tools (such as data metrics and visualisations or software components) could assist the GP in improving data quality and patient management and could this tie in with analytical processes occurring at the research stage? RESULTS: The discussion highlighted both overlap and differences in the perceived data quality priorities and challenges for different user groups. Five key areas of focus were agreed upon and recommendations determined for moving forward in improving quality. CONCLUSIONS: The importance of good high quality electronic healthcare records has been set forth along with the need for a practical user-considered and collaborative approach to its improvement.

Public attitudes towards opt-out testing for HIV in primary care: a qualitative study.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND; The rate of new HIV infections in the UK continues to rise, with one-quarter of cases undiagnosed. Opt-out HIV testing - in which tests are routinely offered to all patients, with the offer to decline - have proved effective in antenatal care. Pilot studies of HIV opt-out testing at GP registration and acute medical admission to hospital have described service-level issues and the clinician's perspective, but not the views of the general public. AIM: To further understand the public's perspective on opt-out testing for HIV in England. DESIGN AND SETTING: Focus groups (n = 9) with a total of 54 participants in Brighton, England, where HIV prevalence is high. METHOD: Quota sampling on sexual orientation, age, sex, and testing experience was applied to groups with high and low HIV prevalences, and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Opt-out testing for HIV was acceptable. Testing on GP registration was regarded as a more appropriate setting than acute medical admission. Participants from groups in which HIV has a higher prevalence felt HIV testing required consideration that may not be possible during acute hospital admission. However, there was concern that screening would still be targeted at groups in which HIV prevalence is higher, based on clinicians' judgement of patients' behaviours, sexuality, or ethnicity. CONCLUSION: The opt-out method of testing for HIV must be routinely offered to all who are eligible, to increase test uptake and to prevent communities feeling targeted. Any pressure to test is likely to be poorly received. Inaccurate concerns about medical records being shared with financial services are a disincentive to test. Primary care should be an active setting for opt-out HIV testing.