Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Meta-analyses are used to summarise the results of several studies on a specific research question. Standard methods for meta-analyses, namely inverse variance random effects models, have unfavourable properties if only very few (2 – 4) studies are available. Therefore, alternative meta-analytic methods are needed. In the case of binary data, the “common-rho” beta-binomial model has shown good results in situations with sparse data or few studies. The major concern of this model is that it ignores the fact that each treatment arm is paired with a respective control arm from the same study. Thus, the randomisation to a study arm of a specific study is disrespected, which may lead to compromised estimates of the treatment effect. The aim of this simulation study was to compare the “common-rho” beta-binomial model and several other beta-binomial models with standard meta-analyses models, including generalised linear mixed models and several inverse variance random effects models. Methods We conducted a simulation study comparing beta-binomial models and various standard meta-analysis methods. The design of the simulation aimed to consider meta-analytic situations occurring in practice. Results No method performed well in scenarios with only 2 studies in the random effects scenario. In this situation, a fixed effect model or a qualitative summary of the study results may be preferable. In scenarios with 3 or 4 studies, most methods satisfied the nominal coverage probability. The “common-rho” beta-binomial model showed the highest power under the alternative hypothesis. Conclusion The “common-rho” beta-binomial appears to be a good option for meta-analyses of very few studies. As residual concerns about the consequences of disrespecting randomisation may still exist, we recommend a sensitivity analysis with a standard meta-analysis method that respects randomisation.

Background Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is a widely used method of wound treatment. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the patient-relevant benefits and harms of NPWT with standard wound therapy (SWT) in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. Methods We searched for RCTs in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and study registries (last search: July 2018) and screened reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and health technology assessments. Manufacturers and investigators were asked to provide unpublished data. Eligible studies investigated at least one patient-relevant outcome (e.g. wound closure). We assessed publication bias and, if feasible, performed meta-analyses, grading the results into different categories (hint, indication or proof of a greater benefit or harm). Results We identified 48 eligible studies of generally low quality with evaluable data for 4315 patients and 30 eligible studies with missing data for at least 1386 patients. Due to potential publication bias (proportion of inaccessible data, 24%), we downgraded our conclusions. A meta-analysis of all wound healing data showed a significant effect in favour of NPWT (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.13, p = 0.008). As further analyses of different definitions of wound closure did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. A meta-analysis of hospital stay (in days) showed a significant difference in favour of NPWT (MD − 4.78, 95% CI − 7.79 to − 1.76, p = 0.005). As further analyses of different definitions of hospital stay/readmission did not contradict that analysis, we inferred an indication of a greater benefit of NPWT. There was neither proof (nor indication nor hint) of greater benefit or harm of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes such as mortality and adverse events. Conclusions In summary, low-quality data indicate a greater benefit of NPWT versus SWT for wound closure in patients with wounds healing by secondary intention. The length of hospital stay is also shortened. The data show no advantages or disadvantages of NPWT for other patient-relevant outcomes. Publication bias is an important problem in studies on NPWT, underlining that all clinical studies need to be fully reported.

Medication reviews are recognized services to increase quality of therapy and reduce medication risks. The selection of eligible patients with potential to receive a major benefit is based on assumptions rather than on factual data. Acceptance of interprofessional collaboration is crucial to increase the quality of medication therapy. The research question was to identify and prioritize eligible patients for a medication review and to provide evidence-based criteria for patient selection. Acceptance of the prescribing general practitioner to implement pharmaceutical recommendations was measured and factors influencing physicians' acceptance were explored to obtain an impression on the extent of collaboration in medication review in an ambulatory care setting. Based on data of a cluster-randomized controlled study (WestGem-study), the correlation between patient parameters and the individual performance in a medication review was calculated in a multiple logistic regression model. Physician's acceptance of the suggested intervention was assessed using feedback forms. Influential factors were analyzed. The number of drugs in use (p = 0.001), discrepancies between prescribed and used medicines (p = 0.014), the baseline Medication Appropriateness Index score (p<0.001) and the duration of the intervention (p = 0.006) could be identified as influential factors for a major benefit from a medication review, whereas morbidity (p>0.05) and a low kidney function (p>0.05) do not predetermine the outcome. Longitudinal patient care with repeated reviews showed higher interprofessional acceptance and superior patient benefit. A total of 54.9% of the recommendations in a medication review on drug therapy were accepted for implementation. The number of drugs in use and medication reconciliation could be a first rational step in patient selection for a medication review. Most elderly, multimorbid patients with polymedication experience a similar chance of receiving a benefit from a medication review. Longitudinal patient care should be preferred over confined medication reviews. The acceptance of medication reviews by physicians supports further implementation into health care systems. ISRCTN ISRCTN41595373.

Background Proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) is the major cause for postoperative failure after vitreo-retinal surgery for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). Adjunct pharmaceutical therapy was found to be ineffective once PVR is established. Preliminary data suggest that prevention of PVR yields better functional outcome. So far, there is no standard therapy to prevent PVR. Methods/design This is a randomized, double-blind, controlled, multicenter, interventional trial with one interim analysis. High-risk patients for PVR with primary RRD will be allocated equally to the following treatment arms: (a) verum: intraoperative adjuvant application of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) via intraocular infusion during routine pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and (b) placebo: routinely used intraocular infusion with balanced salt solution during routine PPV. PVR risk is assessed by non-invasive aqueous flare measurement by using laser flare photometry. The primary endpoint of the trial is the occurrence of PVR grade CP (C: full-thickness retinal folds or subretinal strands in clock hours; P: located posterior to equator) 1 or higher within 12 weeks after treatment. Secondary endpoints include PVR grade CA (A: located anterior to equator), best corrected visual acuity, number and extent of surgical procedures to achieve retinal re-attachment, and occurrence of drug-related adverse events within 12 weeks. It is assumed, on the basis of previously published results, that the incidence of PVR grade CP 1 is 35% in the control group and that a reduction by one third would be clinically relevant. Given the sequential design and adjustment for a dropout rate of 5%, a total sample size of 560 patients (280 per group) was calculated to ensure a power of 80% for the confirmatory analysis. Discussion The present trial uses intraoperative intravitreal 5-FU and LMWH as a prophylactic therapy in high-risk patients with primary RRD, aiming to reduce the incidence of PVR in the group that receives the trial drug. Using laser flare photometry to identify high-risk patients for PVR, this trial will test the effectiveness of a simple treatment to prevent PVR. Trial registration EudraCT no.: 2015-004731-12, registered October 21, 2015; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02834559 , registered July 12, 2016. Protocol version: Version 02. Date: September 18, 2016.

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common disease causing visual impairment and blindness. Various gene variants are strongly associated with late stage AMD, but little is known about the genetics of early forms of the disease. This study evaluated associations of genetic factors and different AMD stages depending on unilateral and bilateral disease severity. In this case-control study, participants were assigned to nine AMD severity stages based on the characteristics of each eye. 18 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were genotyped and attempted to correlate with AMD severity stages by uni- and multivariate logistic regression analyses and trend analyses. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) were calculated. Of 3444 individuals 1673 were controls, 379 had early AMD, 333 had intermediate AMD and 989 showed late AMD stages. With increasing severity of disease and bilateralism more SNPs with significant associations were found. Odds ratios, especially for the main risk polymorphisms in ARMS2 (rs10490924) and CFH (rs1061170), gained with increasing disease severity and bilateralism (exemplarily: rs1061170: unilateral early AMD: OR = 1.18; bilateral early AMD: OR = 1.20; unilateral intermediate AMD: OR = 1.28; bilateral intermediate AMD: OR = 1.39, unilateral geographic atrophy (GA): OR = 1.50; bilateral GA: OR = 1.71). Trend analyses showed p<0.0001 for ARMS2 (rs10490924) and for CFH (rs1061170), respectively. AUC of risk models for various AMD severity stages was lowest for unilateral early AMD (AUC = 0.629) and showed higher values in more severely and bilaterally affected individuals being highest for late AMD with GA in one eye and neovascular AMD in the other eye (AUC = 0.957). The association of known genetic risk factors with AMD became stronger with increasing disease severity, which also led to an increasing discriminative ability of AMD cases and controls. Genetic predisposition was also associated with the disease severity of the fellow-eye, highlighting the importance of both eyes in AMD patients.

Background Pharmaceutical practice worldwide is developing towards patient care. Medication Review (MR) and Medication Therapy Management (MTM) are evolving as the most prominent services in pharmaceutical care and have a strong potential to provide a large benefit for patients and society. MTMs can only be performed in an interprofessional, collaborative setting. Several international studies have explored the effects of a MTM on the quality of therapy and costs. For Germany the data is still deficient. This study aims to provide data on the effects of an interprofessional MTM regarding quality of therapy, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. Method/Design The study is designed as a cluster-randomized controlled trial in primary care, involving 12 outpatient clinics (clusters) and 165 patients. Primary care units are allocated to interventions using a Stepped Wedge Design. All units are initially assigned to the control group. After a 6 month observation period, general practitioners (GP) are randomly allocated to one of three groups and the interprofessional medication therapy management approach is implemented sequentially per each group with a lag of 3 months between. The primary outcome is the change in the quality of therapy measured by the MAI (Medication Appropriateness Index). Secondary outcomes include changes in the number of drug related problems, medication complexity, changes in drug-adherence, changes in health-status and function, quality of life, direct costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The acceptance of the interprofessional Medication Therapy Management approach is assessed by qualitative methods. Discussion The patient interview and brown bag review are activities, typically provided by the pharmacist. In this trial the patient is blinded to the pharmacist. The strength of having the patient blinded to the pharmacists is to exclude skepticism of the patient toward unknown pharmacies, which might be a major confounder in a regional and community setting. A weakness is that some patient related data might reach the pharmacists in a way, which might differ from self-acquired data.