Search

Introduction Models that have so far been used to estimate and project the prevalence and disease burden of asthma are in most cases inadequately described and irreproducible. We aim systematically to describe and critique the existing models in relation to their strengths, limitations and reproducibility, and to determine the appropriate models for estimating and projecting the prevalence and disease burden of asthma. Methods We will search the following electronic databases to identify relevant literature published from 1980 to 2017: Medline, Embase, WHO Library and Information Services and Web of Science Core Collection. We will identify additional studies by searching the reference list of all the retrieved papers and contacting experts. We will include observational studies that used models for estimating and/or projecting prevalence and disease burden of asthma regarding human population of any age and sex. Two independent reviewers will assess the studies for inclusion and extract data from included papers. Data items will include authors’ names, publication year, study aims, data source and time period, study population, asthma outcomes, study methodology, model type, model settings, study variables, methods of model derivation, methods of parameter estimation and/or projection, model fit information, key findings and identified research gaps. A detailed critical narrative synthesis of the models will be undertaken in relation to their strengths, limitations and reproducibility. A quality assessment checklist and scoring framework will be used to determine the appropriate models for estimating and projecting the prevalence anddiseaseburden of asthma. Ethics and dissemination We will not collect any primary data for this review, and hence there is no need for formal National Health Services Research Ethics Committee approval. We will present our findings at scientific conferences and publish the findings in the peer-reviewed scientific journal.

ObjectivesLow birthweight significantly contributes to neonatal mortality, morbidities and psychosocial debilities throughout the course of life. A large proportion of infants (36–55%) in Bangladesh is born with low birthweight. Nutritional status of women during pregnancy is critical for optimal growth and development of the fetus. Nutrition education has been found to improve maternal nutritional status. Our study aims to determine whether nutrition education with a practical demonstration during pregnancy is an effective intervention for improving the birthweight of infants compared with standard nutrition education only.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a community-based cluster randomised controlled trial in one rural district of Bangladesh. Treatments will be allocated evenly between the study clusters (n=36). Participants in the intervention clusters receive ‘balanced plate nutrition education’ with a practical demonstration from community health workers 4–7 times throughout their entire pregnancy, starting from the first trimester. The control clusters will receive standard nutrition education delivered by public and other healthcare providers as per ongoing antenatal care protocol. Our sample size would be 900 pregnant women to determine 100 g differences in mean birthweight, considering 5% type 1 error, 80% power and an intra-cluster correlation coefficient of 0.03. The primary outcome of the trial is birthweight of the infants and the secondary outcomes include daily caloric intake and dietary diversity score among the pregnant women. Outcomes will be measured at enrolment, third to ninth month of gestation (monthly) and at delivery. Community health workers blinded to the study hypothesis will collect all data.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University Ethical Review Committee, Dhaka, Bangladesh. We will communicate the final results to relevant research and public health groups and publish research papers in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberACTRN12616000080426.

Purpose There is an increased need for determining which patients with musculoskeletal pain benefit from additional diagnostic testing or psychologically informed intervention. The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome (OSPRO) cohort studies were designed to develop and validate standard assessment tools for review of systems and yellow flags. This cohort profile paper provides a description of and future plans for the validation cohort. Participants Patients (n=440) with primary complaint of spine, shoulder or knee pain were recruited into the OSPRO validation cohort via a national Orthopaedic Physical Therapy-Investigative Network. Patients were followed up at 4 weeks, 6 months and 12 months for pain, functional status and quality of life outcomes. Healthcare utilisation outcomes were also collected at 6 and 12 months. Findings to date There are no longitudinal findings reported to date from the ongoing OSPRO validation cohort. The previously completed cross-sectional OSPRO development cohort yielded two assessment tools that were investigated in the validation cohort. Future plans Follow-up data collection was completed in January 2017. Primary analyses will investigate how accurately the OSPRO review of systems and yellow flag tools predict 12-month pain, functional status, quality of life and healthcare utilisation outcomes. Planned secondary analyses include prediction of pain interference and/or development of chronic pain, investigation of treatment expectation on patient outcomes and analysis of patient satisfaction following an episode of physical therapy. Trial registration number The OSPRO validation cohort was not registered.

ObjectivesTo review studies eliciting patient and healthcare provider preferences for healthcare interventions using discrete choice experiments (DCEs) to (1) review the methodology to evaluate similarities, differences, rigour of designs and whether comparisons are made at the aggregate level or account for individual heterogeneity; and (2) quantify the extent to which they demonstrate concordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences.MethodsA systematic review searching Medline, EMBASE, Econlit, PsycINFO and Web of Science for DCEs using patient and healthcare providers. Inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed; complete empiric text in English from 1995 to 31July 2015; discussing a healthcare-related topic; DCE methodology; comparing patients and healthcare providers.DesignSystematic review.ResultsWe identified 38 papers exploring 16 interventions in 26 diseases/indications. Methods to analyse results, determine concordance between patient and physician values, and explore heterogeneity varied considerably between studies. The majority of studies we reviewed found more evidence of mixed concordance and discordance (n=28) or discordance of patient and healthcare provider preferences (n=12) than of concordant preferences (n=4). A synthesis of concordance suggested that healthcare providers rank structure and outcome attributes more highly than patients, while patients rank process attributes more highly than healthcare providers.ConclusionsDiscordant patient and healthcare provider preferences for different attributes of healthcare interventions are common. Concordance varies according to whether attributes are processes, structures or outcomes, and therefore determining preference concordance should consider all aspects jointly and not a binary outcome. DCE studies provide excellent opportunities to assess value concordance between patients and providers, but assessment of concordance was limited by a lack of consistency in the approaches used and consideration of heterogeneity of preferences. Future DCEs assessing concordance should fully report the framing of the questions and investigate the heterogeneity of preferences within groups and how these compare.

Introduction The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in major general medical journals and in some category-specific journals was shown to be poor before the publication of the ConsolidatedStandards of ReportingTrials (CONSORT) extension for abstracts in 2008, and an improvement in the quality of reporting of abstracts was observed after its publication. The effect of the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts on the quality of reporting of RCTs in emergency medicine journals has not been studied. In this paper, we present the protocol of a systematic survey of the literature, aimed at assessing the quality of reporting in abstracts of RCTs published in emergency medicine journals and at evaluating the effect of the publication of the CONSORT extension for abstracts on the quality of reporting. Methods and analysis The Medline database will be searched for RCTs published in the years 2005–2007 and 2014–2015 in the top 10 emergency medicine journals, according to their impact factor. Candidate studies will be screened for inclusion in the review. Exclusion criteria will be the following: the abstract is not available, they are published only as abstracts, still recruiting, or duplicate publications. The study outcomes will be the overall quality of reporting (number of items reported) according to the CONSORT extension and the compliance with its individual items. Two independent reviewers will screen each article for inclusion and will extract data on the CONSORT items and on other variables, which can possibly affect the quality of reporting. Ethics and dissemination This is a library-based study and therefore exempt from research ethics board review. The review results will be disseminated through abstract submission to conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal.