Explore the vast range of titles available.

Endometriosis is a common gynaecological condition of unknown aetiology that primarily affects women of reproductive age. The accepted first-line imaging modality is pelvic ultrasound. However, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly performed as an additional investigation in complex cases and for surgical planning. There is currently no international consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI protocols or reporting criteria. Our aim was to develop clinical guidelines for MRI evaluation of pelvic endometriosis based on literature evidence and consensus expert opinion. This work was performed by a group of radiologists from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR), experts in gynaecological imaging and a gynaecologist expert in methodology. The group discussed indications for MRI, technical requirements, patient preparation, MRI protocols and criteria for the diagnosis of pelvic endometriosis on MRI. The expert panel proposed a final recommendation for each criterion using Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 levels of evidence. Key Points • This report provides guidelines for MRI in endometriosis . • Minimal and optimal MRI acquisition protocols are provided . • Recommendations are proposed for patient preparation , best MRI sequences and reporting criteria .

Background In 2008, the Cochrane Collaboration introduced a tool for assessing the risk of bias in clinical trials included in Cochrane reviews. The risk of bias (RoB) tool is based on narrative descriptions of evidence-based methodological features known to increase the risk of bias in trials. Methods To assess the usability of this tool, we conducted an evaluation by means of focus groups, online surveys and a face-to-face meeting. We obtained feedback from a range of stakeholders within The Cochrane Collaboration regarding their experiences with, and perceptions of, the RoB tool and associated guidance materials. We then assessed this feedback in a face-to-face meeting of experts and stakeholders and made recommendations for improvements and further developments of the RoB tool. Results The survey attracted 380 responses. Respondents reported taking an average of between 10 and 60 minutes per study to complete their RoB assessments, which 83% deemed acceptable. Most respondents (87% of authors and 95% of editorial staff) thought RoB assessments were an improvement over past approaches to trial quality assessment. Most authors liked the standardized approach (81%) and the ability to provide quotes to support judgements (74%). A third of participants disliked the increased workload and found the wording describing RoB judgements confusing. The RoB domains reported to be the most difficult to assess were incomplete outcome data and selective reporting of outcomes. Authors expressed the need for more guidance on how to incorporate RoB assessments into meta-analyses and review conclusions. Based on this evaluation, recommendations were made for improvements to the RoB tool and the associated guidance. The implementation of these recommendations is currently underway. Conclusions Overall, respondents identified positive experiences and perceptions of the RoB tool. Revisions of the tool and associated guidance made in response to this evaluation, and improved provision of training, may improve implementation.

Randomized clinical trials provide reassurances that confounding factors are balanced at baseline whereas blinding is essential to assure the balance of extraneous factors thereafter. This article provides a three-part taxonomy of pitfalls that can arise because of inadequate blinding in clinical trials. We introduce a cautionary framework for readers interpreting a blinded randomized trial for evidence-based medicine. Each pitfall is illustrated with a relevant example of a potential bias resulting from knowledge of group assignment. Several pitfalls occur during the conduct of the study including inadequate blinding of the intervention group, control group, or responsible clinicians. Additional pitfalls relate to data analysis including unsubstantiated assertions of blinding and subverted tests for blinding. Further pitfalls arise due to surrounding oversight including unblinding of research ethics boards and scientific reviewers. These caveats are sources of misunderstanding when observing the apparent connection between a clinical intervention and patient outcomes. An awareness of specific pitfalls might help advance the interpretation and application of blinded randomized clinical trials to inform evidence-based medical care.

Background Process evaluations are recommended to open the ‘black box’ of complex interventions evaluated in trials, but there is limited guidance to help researchers design process evaluations. Much current literature on process evaluations of complex interventions focuses on qualitative methods, with less attention paid to quantitative methods. This discrepancy led us to develop our own framework for designing process evaluations of cluster-randomised controlled trials. Methods We reviewed recent theoretical and methodological literature and selected published process evaluations; these publications identified a need for structure to help design process evaluations. We drew upon this literature to develop a framework through iterative exchanges, and tested this against published evaluations. Results The developed framework presents a range of candidate approaches to understanding trial delivery, intervention implementation and the responses of targeted participants. We believe this framework will be useful to others designing process evaluations of complex intervention trials. We also propose key information that process evaluations could report to facilitate their identification and enhance their usefulness. Conclusion There is no single best way to design and carry out a process evaluation. Researchers will be faced with choices about what questions to focus on and which methods to use. The most appropriate design depends on the purpose of the process evaluation; the framework aims to help researchers make explicit their choices of research questions and methods. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01425502

To evaluate the convergent and construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale used to rate the methodological quality of randomized trials in physiotherapy. PEDro total scores and individual-item scores were extracted from 9,456 physiotherapy trials indexed on PEDro. Convergent validity was tested by comparing PEDro total scores with three other quality scales. Construct validity was tested by regressing the PEDro score and individual-item scores with the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge impact factors (IF) and SCImago journal rankings (SJR) for the journals in which the trials were published. Testing of convergent validity revealed correlations with the other quality scales ranging from 0.31 to 0.69. The PEDro total score was weakly but significantly associated with IF and SJR (P < 0.0001). Eight of the 10 individual scale items that contribute to the PEDro total score were significantly associated with IF. This study provides preliminary evidence of the convergent and construct validity of the PEDro total score and the construct validity of eight individual scale items.

Background Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment between causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not interested in communicating caution). Methods We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news: (a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious for correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The ‘participants’ were press releases on health-related topics ( N  = 312; control = 89, claim alignment = 64, causality statement = 79, both = 80) from nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims, caveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N  = 2257), news uptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious statements). Results News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR = 1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR = 1.3 to 4.4). News claims also followed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR = 1.4 to 5.7). The same was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR = 0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There was no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR = 0.7 to 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR = 0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs 52%, OR = 1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and caveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR = 1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively). Conclusions News claims—even headlines—can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and explicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from AT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press releases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across conditions. Trial registration ISRCTN10492618 (20 August 2015)

Background The Veterans Health Administration (VA) has undertaken a major initiative to transform care through implementation of Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs). Based on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) concept, PACT aims to improve access, continuity, coordination, and comprehensiveness using team-based care that is patient-driven and patient-centered. However, how VA should adapt PACT to meet the needs of special populations, such as women Veterans (WVs), was not considered in initial implementation guidance. WVs’ numerical minority in VA healthcare settings (approximately 7–8 % of users) creates logistical challenges to delivering gender-sensitive comprehensive care. The main goal of this study is to test an evidence-based quality improvement approach (EBQI) to tailoring PACT to meet the needs of WVs, incorporating comprehensive primary care services and gender-specific care in gender-sensitive environments, thereby accelerating achievement of PACT tenets for women (Women’s Health (WH)-PACT). Methods/design EBQI is a systematic approach to developing a multilevel research-clinical partnership that engages senior organizational leaders and local quality improvement (QI) teams in adapting and implementing new care models in the context of prior evidence and local practice conditions, with researchers providing technical support, formative feedback, and practice facilitation. In a 12-site cluster randomized trial, we will evaluate WH-PACT model achievement using patient, provider, staff, and practice surveys, in addition to analyses of secondary administrative and chart-based data. We will explore impacts of receipt of WH-PACT care on quality of chronic disease care and prevention, health status, patient satisfaction and experience of care, provider experience, utilization, and costs. Using mixed methods, we will assess pre-post practice contexts; document EBQI activities undertaken in participating facilities and their relationship to provider/staff and team actions/attitudes; document WH-PACT implementation; and examine barriers/facilitators to EBQI-supported WH-PACT implementation through a combination of semi-structured interviews and monthly formative progress narratives and administrative data. Discussion Lack of gender-sensitive comprehensive care has demonstrated consequences for the technical quality and ratings of care among WVs and may contribute to decisions to continue use or seek care elsewhere under the US Affordable Care Act. We hypothesize that tailoring PACT implementation through EBQI may improve the experience and quality of care at many levels. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02039856

The evidence base available to trialists to support trial process decisions—e.g. how best to recruit and retain participants, how to collect data or how to share the results with participants—is thin. One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. These are self-contained research studies embedded within a host trial that aim to evaluate or explore alternative ways of delivering or organising a particular trial process. SWATs are increasingly being supported by funders and considered by trialists, especially in the UK and Ireland. At some point, increasing SWAT evidence will lead funders and trialists to ask: given the current body of evidence for a SWAT, do we need a further evaluation in another host trial? A framework for answering such a question is needed to avoid SWATs themselves contributing to research waste. This paper presents criteria on when enough evidence is available for SWATs that use randomised allocation to compare different interventions.

Background Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is prevalent and often associated with meniscal tear. Physical therapy (PT) and exercise regimens are often used to treat OA or meniscal tear, but, to date, few programs have been designed specifically for conservative treatment of meniscal tear with concomitant knee OA. Clinical care and research would be enhanced by a standardized, evidence–based, conservative treatment program and the ability to study the effects of the contextual factors associated with interventions for patients with painful, degenerative meniscal tears in the setting of OA. This paper describes the process of developing both a PT intervention and a home exercise program for a randomized controlled clinical trial that will compare the effectiveness of these interventions for patients with knee pain, meniscal tear and concomitant OA. Methods This paper describes the process utilized by an interdisciplinary team of physical therapists, physicians, and researchers to develop and refine a standardized in-clinic PT intervention, and a standardized home exercise program to be carried out without PT supervision. The process was guided in part by Medical Research Council guidance on intervention development. Results The investigators achieved agreement on an in-clinic PT intervention that included manual therapy, stretching, strengthening, and neuromuscular functional training addressing major impairments in range of motion, musculotendinous length, muscle strength and neuromotor control in the major muscle groups associated with improving knee function. The investigators additionally achieved agreement on a progressive, protocol-based home exercise program (HEP) that addressed the same major muscle groups. The HEP was designed to allow patients to perform and progress the exercises without PT supervision, utilizing minimal equipment and a variety of methods for instruction. Discussion This multi-faceted in-clinic PT program and standardized HEP provide templates for in-clinic and home-based care for patients with symptomatic degenerative meniscal tear and concomitant OA. These interventions will be tested as part of the Treatment of Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis (TeMPO) Trial. Trial registration The TeMPO Trial was first registered at clinicaltrials.gov with registration No. NCT03059004 on February 14, 2017. TeMPO was also approved by the Institutional Review Board at Partners HealthCare/Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Evidence is valuable because it informs decisions to produce better outcomes. However, the same evidence that is complete for some individuals or groups may be incomplete for others, leading to inefficiencies in decision making and growth in disparities in outcomes. Specifically, the presence of treatment effect heterogeneity across some measure of baseline risk, and noisy information about such heterogeneity, can induce self-selection into randomized clinical trials (RCTs) by patients with distributions of baseline risk different from that of the target population. Consequently, average results from RCTs can disproportionately affect the treatment choices of patients with different baseline risks. Using economic models for these sequential processes of RCT enrollment, information generation, and the resulting treatment choice decisions, we show that the dynamic consequences of such information flow and behaviors may lead to growth in disparities in health outcomes across racial and ethnic categories. These disparities arise due to either the differential distribution of risk across those categories at the time RCT results are reported or the different rate of change of baseline risk over time across race and ethnicity, even though the distribution of risk within the RCT matched that of the target population when the RCT was conducted. We provide evidence on how these phenomena may have contributed to the growth in racial disparity in diabetes incidence.