Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective: To evaluate whether preoperative inspiratory muscle training is effective in preventing postoperative pulmonary complications and reducing length of hospital stay in people undergoing cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery. Data sources: Medline, CINAHL, AMED, PsychINFO, Scopus, PEDro, and the Cochrane Library. Review methods: A systematic review and meta analysis of randomized controlled trials (or quasi-randomized controlled trials) investigating a form of preoperative inspiratory muscle training, compared with sham or no inspiratory muscle training. Participants were adults (16 years and over) awaiting elective open cardiac, thoracic, or upper abdominal surgery. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: Eight studies involving 295 participants were eligible for inclusion. The trained group had significantly higher maximal inspiratory pressure at the end of the preoperative training period (mean difference: 15 cm H2O, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9 to 21). This benefit was maintained through the early postoperative period, when lung function also recovered significantly more quickly in the trained group. Inspiratory muscle training also substantially reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (relative risk 0.48, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.89). Although not statistically significant, length of hospital stay also tended to favour the trained group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the remaining outcomes. Participant satisfaction with inspiratory muscle training was high. Conclusion: Preoperative inspiratory muscle training significantly improves respiratory (muscle) function in the early postoperative period, halving the risk of pulmonary complications. The training does not increase length of stay, but more data are required to confirm whether it reduces length of stay.

2 Various medications are used to treat insomnia, but side effects are common. 3 Non-pharmacological interventions with some efficacy include sleep hygiene advice (eg, set a regular bedtime, limit alcohol and caffeine, and increase daylight exposure), cognitive-behavioural therapy and exercise. 2 Recent randomised trials have added to the evidence about the effects of exercise on sleep since previous systematic reviews were conducted. A well-documented feature of insomnia is 'sleep misperception', 9 whereby poor sleepers may provide subjective estimates of sleep parameters (eg, total sleep time) that are wildly different from objective measurements. 10 This implies that objective assessment of sleep quality is less critical when evaluating an intervention aimed at improving quality of life and psychological well-being.

Background Infographics have become an increasingly popular method to present research findings and increase the attention research receives. As many scientific journals now use infographics to boost the visibility and uptake of the research they publish, infographics have become an important tool for medical education. It is unknown whether such infographics convey the key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of the data such as an adequate description of the study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes; methodological limitations; and numerical estimates of benefits and harms. This study described whether infographics published in peer-reviewed health and medical research journals contain key characteristics that are needed to make useful interpretations of clinical research. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we identified peer-reviewed journals listed in the top quintile of 35 unique fields of medicine and health research listed in the Journal Citation Reports database. Two researchers screened journals for the presence of infographics. We defined an infographic as a graphical visual representation of research findings. We extracted data from a sample of two of the most recent infographics from each journal. Outcomes were the proportion of infographics that reported key characteristics such as study population, interventions, comparators and outcomes, benefits, harms, effect estimates with measures of precision, between-group differences and conflicts of interest; acknowledged risk of bias, certainty of evidence and study limitations; and based their conclusions on the study’s primary outcome. Results We included 129 infographics from 69 journals. Most infographics described the population (81%), intervention (96%), comparator (91%) and outcomes (94%), but fewer contained enough information on the population (26%), intervention (45%), comparator (20%) and outcomes (55%) for those components of the study to be understood without referring to the main paper. Risk of bias was acknowledged in only 2% of infographics, and none of the 69 studies that had declared a conflict of interest disclosed it in the infographics. Conclusions Most infographics do not report sufficient information to allow readers to interpret study findings, including the study characteristics, results, and sources of bias. Our results can inform initiatives to improve the quality of the information presented in infographics.

Background Understanding how people use infographics and their opinion on them has important implications for the design of infographics but has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to describe people’s use of and opinions about infographics summarising health and medical research, preferences for information to include in infographics, and barriers to reading full-text articles. Methods We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of consumers of infographics that summarise health or medical research. Demographic and outcome data were collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. A sensitivity analysis explored whether being a researcher/academic influenced the findings. Results Two hundred fifty-four participants completed the survey (88% completion rate). Participants included health professionals (66%), researchers (34%), academics (24%), and patients/the public (13%). Most used Twitter (67%) and smartphones (89%) to access and view infographics, and thought infographics were useful tools to communicate research (92%) and increase the attention research receives (95%). Although most participants were somewhat/extremely likely (76%) to read the full-text article after viewing an infographic, some used infographics as a substitute for the full text at least half of the time (41%), thought infographics should be detailed enough so they do not have to read the full text (55%), and viewed infographics as tools to reduce the time burden of reading the full text (64%). Researchers/academics were less likely to report behaviours/beliefs suggesting infographics can reduce the need to read the full-text article. Conclusions Given many people use infographics as a substitute for reading the full-text article and want infographics to be detailed enough so they don’t have to read the full text, a checklist to facilitate clear, transparent, and sufficiently detailed infographics summarising some types of health and medical research may be useful.

To measure patient-reported change of mood, communication-related quality of life, and general health status with return of voice among mechanically ventilated tracheostomy patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). A prospective observational study in a tertiary ICU was conducted. Communication-related quality of life was measured daily using the Visual Analogue Self-Esteem Scale. General health status was measured weekly using the EuroQol-5D. Aspects of communication self-esteem that significantly improved with the return of voice were ability to be understood by others (P = .006) and cheerfulness (P = .04), both with a median difference from before to after return of voice of 1 on the 5-point scale. Return of voice was not associated with a significant improvement in confidence, sense of outgoingness, anger, sense of being trapped, optimism, or frustration. Reported general health status did not significantly improve. Return of voice was associated with significant improvement in patient reported self-esteem, particularly in being understood by others and in cheerfulness. Improved self-esteem may also improve quality of life; however, further research is needed to confirm this relationship. Early restoration of voice should be investigated as a way to improve the experience of ICU for tracheostomy patients.

This perspective provides an overview of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in physical therapy. Data from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) are used to describe key events in the history of physical therapy research and the growth of evidence of effects of interventions used in the various subdisciplines of physical therapy. The 11,494 records that were identified reveal a rich history of physical therapy research dating back to the first trial in 1929. Most of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in physical therapy have been published since the year 2000. This rapid growth presents a challenge for physical therapists who want to keep up to date in clinical practice.

Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro. The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases. This study was an audit of bibliographic databases. Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated. The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed). The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions. The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.

Clinical trial registration has several putative benefits: prevention of selective reporting, avoidance of duplication, encouragement of participation, and facilitation of reviews. Previous surveys suggest that most trials are registered. However, these surveys examined only trials in journals with high impact factors, which may bias the results. This study examined the completeness of clinical trial registration and the extent of selective reporting of outcomes in a random sample of published randomized trials in physical therapy. This was a retrospective cohort study in which 200 randomized trials of physical therapy interventions were randomly selected from those published in 2009 and indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), regardless of the publishing journal. Evidence of registration was sought for each trial in the study, on clinical trial registers, and by contacting authors. The proportion of randomized trials that were registered was 67/200 (34%). This proportion was significantly lower than among the trials in journals with high impact factors, where the proportion was 75% (odds ratio=7.4, 95% confidence interval=2.6-21.4). Unambiguous primary outcomes (ie, method and time points of measurement clearly defined in the trial registry entry) were registered for 32 trials, and registration was adequate (ie, prospective with unambiguous primary outcomes) for 5/200 (2.5%) trials. Selective outcome reporting occurred in 23 (47%) of the 49 trials in which selective reporting was assessable. The inclusion of only English-language trials prevents generalization of the results to non-English-language trials. Registration of randomized trials of physical therapy interventions is rarely adequate. Consequently, the putative benefits of registration are not being fully realized.