Explore the vast range of titles available.

Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions. We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator. We encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Background Delirium affects > 15% of hospitalised patients but is grossly underdetected, contributing to poor care. The 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT, www.the4AT.com ) is a short delirium assessment tool designed for routine use without special training. The primary objective was to assess the accuracy of the 4AT for delirium detection. The secondary objective was to compare the 4AT with another commonly used delirium assessment tool, the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM). Methods This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy study set in emergency departments or acute medical wards involving acute medical patients aged ≥ 70. All those without acutely life-threatening illness or coma were eligible. Patients underwent (1) reference standard delirium assessment based on DSM-IV criteria and (2) were randomised to either the index test (4AT, scores 0–12; prespecified score of > 3 considered positive) or the comparator (CAM; scored positive or negative), in a random order, using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. Reference standard and 4AT or CAM assessments were performed by pairs of independent raters blinded to the results of the other assessment. Results Eight hundred forty-three individuals were randomised: 21 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome, and 785 were included in the analysis. Mean age was 81.4 (SD 6.4) years. 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI 0.84–0.96). The 4AT had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 61–87%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 92–97%). The CAM had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI 26–57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI 98–100%). Conclusions The 4AT is a short, pragmatic tool which can help improving detection rates of delirium in routine clinical care. Trial registration International standard randomised controlled trial number (ISRCTN) 53388093 . Date applied 30/05/2014; date assigned 02/06/2014.

Background Complex interventions such as self-management courses are difficult to evaluate due to the many interacting components. The way complex interventions are delivered can influence the effect they have for patients, and can impact the interpretation of outcomes of clinical trials. Implementation fidelity evaluates whether complex interventions are delivered according to protocol. Such assessments have been used for one-to-one psychological interventions; however, the science is still developing for group interventions. Methods We developed and tested an instrument to measure implementation fidelity of a two-day self-management course for people with epilepsy, SMILE(UK). Using audio recordings, we looked at adherence and competence of course facilitators. Adherence was assessed by checklists. Competence was measured by scoring group interaction, an overall impression score and facilitator “didacticism”. To measure “didacticism”, we developed a novel way to calculate facilitator speech using computer software. Using this new instrument, implementation fidelity of SMILE(UK) was assessed on three modules of the course, for 28% of all courses delivered. Results Using the instrument for adherence, scores from two independent raters showed substantial agreement with weighted Kappa of 0.67 and high percent agreement of 81.2%. For didacticism, the results from both raters were highly correlated with an intraclass coefficient of 0.97 ( p  < 0.0001). We found that the courses were delivered with a good level of adherence (> 50% of scored items received the maximum of 2 points) and high competence. Groups were interactive (mean score: 1.9–2.0 out of 2) and the overall impression was on average assessed as “good”. Didacticism varied from 42% to 93% of total module time and was not associated with the other competence scores. Conclusion The instrument devised to measure implementation fidelity was reproducible and easy to use. The courses for the SMILE(UK) study were delivered with a good level of adherence to protocol while not compromising facilitator competence. Trial registration ISRCTN57937389 .

Introduction This study assessed the utility of a checklist in troubleshooting endoscopic equipment. Prior studies have demonstrated that performance in simulated tasks translates into completion of similar tasks in the operating room. Checklists have been shown to decrease error and improve patient safety. There is currently limited experience with the use of simulation and checklists to improve troubleshooting of endoscopic equipment. We propose the use of a checklist during a simulated colonoscopy to improve performance during endoscopic troubleshooting. Methods This study randomized 20 surgical residents (PGY1–3) who were blinded to the purpose of the simulation. Participants were asked to complete two consecutive colonoscopies in a mock endoscopy suite. Prior to each trial, a standard set of equipment malfunctions were created; the equipment was returned to working order if the subjects were unable to successfully troubleshoot the equipment within the first 3 min of the simulation. Between trials, the intervention group was provided a troubleshooting checklist, which they were permitted to utilize during the second trial. The control group had no intervention. Scores were calculated for each task by subtracting time to completion from total time allowed (180 s), with 0 indicating the task was not completed. Groups were compared utilizing unpaired Student’s t -test with p  < 0.05 threshold for significance. Results Average scores were compared for 5 tasks in the first trial and 6 tasks in the second trial. During the first trial, there were no significant differences. However, during the second trial, there was a significant improvement with the checklist for 5/6 tasks. Conclusion Use of a checklist, with no further intervention, significantly improves the ability of novice endoscopists to identify and remedy common equipment malfunctions. Introduction of a troubleshooting checklist may represent a simple and low-cost way to improve both efficiency and safety in the endoscopy suite.

Background The quality of clinical care of brain-dead potential organ donors may help reduce donor losses caused by irreversible or unreversed cardiac arrest and increase the number of organs donated. We sought to determine whether an evidence-based, goal-directed checklist for donor management in intensive care units (ICUs) can reduce donor losses to cardiac arrest. Methods/design The DONORS study is a multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio designed to compare an intervention group (goal-directed checklist for brain-dead potential organ donor management) with a control group (standard ICU care). The primary outcome is loss of potential donors due to cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes are the number of actual organ donors and the number of solid organs recovered per actual donor. Exploratory outcomes include the achievement of relevant clinical goals during the management of brain-dead potential organ donors. The present statistical analysis plan (SAP) describes all primary statistical procedures that will be used to evaluate the results and perform exploratory and sensitivity analyses of the trial. Discussion The SAP of the DONORS study aims to describe its analytic procedures, enhancing the transparency of the study. At the moment of SAP subsmission, 63 institutions have been randomised and were enrolling study participants. Thus, the analyses reported herein have been defined before the end of the study recruitment and database locking. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03179020 . Registered on 7 June 2017.

Background Recently we developed and validated generic quality indicators that define ‘appropriate antibiotic use’ in hospitalized adults treated for a (suspected) bacterial infection. Previous studies have shown that with appropriate antibiotic use a reduction of 13% of length of hospital stay can be achieved. Our main objective in this project is to provide hospitals with an antibiotic checklist based on these quality indicators, and to evaluate the introduction of this checklist in terms of (cost-) effectiveness. Methods/Design The checklist applies to hospitalized adults with a suspected bacterial infection for whom antibiotic therapy is initiated, at first via the intravenous route. A stepped wedge study design will be used, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of the checklist in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. At least 810 patients will be included in both the control and the intervention group. The primary endpoint is length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints are appropriate antibiotic use measured by the quality indicators, admission to and duration of intensive care unit stay, readmission within 30 days, mortality, total antibiotic use, and costs associated with implementation and hospital stay. Differences in numerical endpoints between the two periods will be evaluated with mixed linear models; for dichotomous outcomes generalized estimating equation models will be used. A process evaluation will be performed to evaluate the professionals’ compliance with use of the checklist. The key question for the economic evaluation is whether the benefits of the checklist, which include reduced antibiotic use, reduced length of stay and associated costs, justify the costs associated with implementation activities as well as daily use of the checklist. Discussion If (cost-) effective, the AB-checklist will provide physicians with a tool to support appropriate antibiotic use in adult hospitalized patients who start with intravenous antibiotics. Trial registration Dutch trial registry: NTR4872

GRIPP2 (short form and long form) is the first international guidance for reporting of patient and public involvement in health and social care research. This paper describes the development of the GRIPP2 reporting checklists, which aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base, to ensure that PPI practice is based on the best evidence

The importance of infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction research is underscored by decades of communicable disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Unlike other fields of medical research, such as clinical trials and systematic reviews, no reporting guidelines exist for reporting epidemic forecasting and prediction research despite their utility. We therefore developed the EPIFORGE checklist, a guideline for standardized reporting of epidemic forecasting research. We developed this checklist using a best-practice process for development of reporting guidelines, involving a Delphi process and broad consultation with an international panel of infectious disease modelers and model end users. The objectives of these guidelines are to improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. The guidelines are not designed to advise scientists on how to perform epidemic forecasting and prediction research, but rather to serve as a standard for reporting critical methodological details of such studies. These guidelines have been submitted to the EQUATOR network, in addition to hosting by other dedicated webpages to facilitate feedback and journal endorsement.

Purpose The original COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was developed to assess the methodological quality of single studies on measurement properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Now it is our aim to adapt the COSMIN checklist and its four-point rating system into a version exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs, aiming to assess risk of bias of studies on measurement properties. Methods For each standard (i.e., a design requirement or preferred statistical method), it was discussed within the COSMIN steering committee if and how it should be adapted. The adapted checklist was pilot-tested to strengthen content validity in a systematic review on the quality of PROMs for patients with hand osteoarthritis. Results Most important changes were the reordering of the measurement properties to be assessed in a systematic review of PROMs; the deletion of standards that concerned reporting issues and standards that not necessarily lead to biased results; the integration of standards on general requirements for studies on item response theory with standards for specific measurement properties; the recommendation to the review team to specify hypotheses for construct validity and responsiveness in advance, and subsequently the removal of the standards about formulating hypotheses; and the change in the labels of the four-point rating system. Conclusions The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was developed exclusively for use in systematic reviews of PROMs to distinguish this application from other purposes of assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties, such as guidance for designing or reporting a study on the measurement properties.

Background The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide was developed by an international team of experts to promote full and accurate description of trial interventions. It is now widely used in health research. The aim of this paper is to describe the experience of using TIDieR outside of trials, in a range of applied health research contexts, and make recommendations on its usefulness in such settings. Main body We used the TIDieR template for intervention description in six applied health research projects. The six cases comprise a diverse sample in terms of clinical problems, population, settings, stage of intervention development and whether the intervention was led by researchers or the service deliverers. There was also variation in how the TIDieR description was produced in terms of contributors and time point in the project. Researchers involved in the six cases met in two workshops to identify issues and themes arising from their experience of using TIDieR. We identified four themes which capture the difficulties or complexities of using TIDieR in applied health research: (i) fidelity and adaptation: all aspects of an intervention can change over time; (ii) voice: the importance of clarity on whose voice the TIDieR description represents; (iii) communication beyond the immediate context: the usefulness of TIDieR for wider dissemination and sharing; (iv) the use of TIDieR as a research tool. Conclusion We found TIDieR to be a useful tool for applied research outside the context of clinical trials and we suggest four revisions or additions to the original TIDieR which would enable it to better capture these complexities in applied health research: An additional item, ‘voice’ conveys who was involved in preparing the TIDieR template, such as researchers, service users or service deliverers. An additional item, ‘stage of implementation’ conveys what stage the intervention has reached, using a continuum of implementation research suggested by the World Health Organisation. A new column, ‘modification’ reminds authors to describe modifications to any item in the checklist. An extension of the ‘how well’ item encourages researchers to describe how contextual factors affected intervention delivery.