Prevention of Orthopaedic Implant Infection in Patients Undergoing Dental Procedures.

The Prevention of Orthopaedic Implant Infection in Patients Undergoing Dental Procedures evidence-based clinical practice guideline was codeveloped by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Dental Association. This guideline replaces the previous AAOS Information Statement, "Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Bacteremia in Patients With Joint Replacement," published in 2009. Based on the best current evidence and a systematic review of published studies, three recommendations have been created to guide clinical practice in the prevention of orthopaedic implant infections in patients undergoing dental procedures. The first recommendation is graded as Limited; this recommendation proposes that the practitioner consider changing the long-standing practice of routinely prescribing prophylactic antibiotic for patients with orthopaedic implants who undergo dental procedures. The second, graded as Inconclusive, addresses the use of oral topical antimicrobials in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections. The third recommendation, a Consensus statement, addresses the maintenance of good oral hygiene.

Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Nonsurgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms. METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time. RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function. DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.

Viscosupplementation for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the clinical significance of injectable hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, and to assess which trial-level factors influence the overall treatment effect of HA on pain (as measured by a VAS [visual analog scale] or the WOMAC [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index]) and the WOMAC function and WOMAC stiffness subscales. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was done to locate randomized controlled trials that compared HA with control treatment and had a minimum of thirty patients per subgroup. To be considered for inclusion, each article had to include VAS or WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, and/or WOMAC stiffness as outcomes because the minimal important difference (MID) has been established for these instruments. A "best-evidence" systematic review and meta-analysis of nineteen trials was performed; because of high heterogeneity among the trials, meta-regression analyses were conducted to determine the influence of trial characteristics on overall HA treatment effects for pain, function, and stiffness. RESULTS: The most consistent finding was that double-blinded, sham-controlled trials had much smaller treatment effects than trials that were not sufficiently blinded (p < 0.05). For double-blinded trials, the overall treatment effect was less than half of the MID for pain, function, and stiffness. Other significant associations were found for cross-linked HAs and follow-up duration. However, the effect sizes among double-blinded trials of cross-linked HAs were still less than half of the MIDs for pain and stiffness. The statistically significant effect of follow-up duration disappeared when the open-label trials were removed from the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of only the double-blinded, sham-controlled trials with at least sixty patients did not show clinically important differences of HA treatment over placebo. When all literature was added to the analysis, the overall effect was greater but was biased toward stronger treatment effects because of the influence of nonblinded or improperly blinded trials.

Do physicians not offer useful services because of coverage restrictions?

Ethically, physicians should discuss all medically appropriate services with patients, but coverage restrictions can make these discussions difficult. In a national survey of physicians, we asked how often physicians elected not to offer their patients useful services because of health plan coverage rules. During the course of a year, 31 percent reported having sometimes not offered their patients useful services because of perceived coverage restrictions. Among these, 35 percent reported doing so more often in the most recent year than they did five years ago. It can be frustrating for doctors to discuss uncovered services with their patients, but open communication is necessary for shared decision making and to improve coverage decisions.

Measuring deception: test-retest reliability of physicians' self-reported manipulation of reimbursement rules for patients.

This study examined the test-retest reliability of physicians' self-reported manipulation of reimbursement rules for patients. The test-retest reliability of self-report of three specific tactics were examined: (1) exaggerating the severity of patients' conditions, (2) changing a patient's official (billing) diagnosis, and (3) reporting signs or symptoms that patients did not have. The reliability of a scaled summary measure of physicians' manipulation of reimbursement rules was also assessed. Overall, the authors found high levels of test-retest agreement across all three items and the summary measure. These findings suggest that self-report can be used to produce reliable data on this controversial issue. Specifically, the three items reported here can be used to produce a reliable summary measure of physicians' manipulation of reimbursement rules to help patients obtain care that physicians perceive as necessary.

Funding source and research report quality in nutrition practice-related research.

BACKGROUND: The source of funding is one of many possible causes of bias in scientific research. One method of detecting potential for bias is to evaluate the quality of research reports. Research exploring the relationship between funding source and nutrition-related research report quality is limited and in other disciplines the findings are mixed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether types of funding sources of nutrition research are associated with differences in research report quality. DESIGN: A retrospective study of research reporting quality, research design and funding source was conducted on 2539 peer reviewed research articles from the American Dietetic Association's Evidence Analysis Library® database. RESULTS: Quality rating frequency distributions indicate 43.3% of research reports were rated as positive, 50.1% neutral, and 6.6% as negative. Multinomial logistic regression results showed that while both funding source and type of research design are significant predictors of quality ratings (χ2 = 118.99, p≤0.001), the model's usefulness in predicting overall research report quality is little better than chance. Compared to research reports with government funding, those not acknowledging any funding sources, followed by studies with University/hospital funding were more likely to receive neutral vs positive quality ratings, OR = 1.85, P <0.001 and OR = 1.54, P<0.001, respectively and those that did not report funding were more likely to receive negative quality ratings (OR = 4.97, P<0.001). After controlling for research design, industry funded research reports were no more likely to receive a neutral or negative quality rating than those funded by government sources. CONCLUSION: Research report quality cannot be accurately predicted from the funding source after controlling for research design. Continued vigilance to evaluate the quality of all research regardless of the funding source and to further understand other factors that affect quality ratings are warranted.