Search

With the objective of increasing the magnitude of treatment effects in behavioral health, there is steadily growing interest in tailoring assessments and interventions to better match individual needs. This aligns with the central idea that behavior can be adequately understood by considering the unique characteristics of the individual and context. Thus, data collected at an individual level provides critical evidence that can be used to inform health care decisions, improve treatment, or refine theories. Yet, the majority of research in behavioral health is based on group-level analyses. Recent developments in the field of single-case experimental design (SCED) has provided new opportunities to utilize individual data. The present article provides a state-of-the art overview regarding key aspects of SCED, including a historical background to why and how SCED emerged, declined, and recently reemerged as well as methodological aspects such as design issues, challenges related to reliability and validity of repeated observations, innovations in visual and statistical analyses of individual data, strategies to deal with missing values, methodology to examine effect size, and approaches to summarize data from a large number of SCEDs using multilevel models and meta-analyses of replication data. Finally, the article discusses key concerns and actions needed to move the field forward.

With the objective of increasing the magnitude of treatment effects in behavioral health, there is steadily growing interest in tailoring assessments and interventions to better match individual needs. This aligns with the central idea that behavior can be adequately understood by considering the unique characteristics of the individual and context. Thus, data collected at an individual level provides critical evidence that can be used to inform health care decisions, improve treatment, or refine theories. Yet, the majority of research in behavioral health is based on group-level analyses. Recent developments in the field of single-case experimental design (SCED) has provided new opportunities to utilize individual data. The present article provides a state-of-the art overview regarding key aspects of SCED, including a historical background to why and how SCED emerged, declined, and recently reemerged as well as methodological aspects such as design issues, challenges related to reliability and validity of repeated observations, innovations in visual and statistical analyses of individual data, strategies to deal with missing values, methodology to examine effect size, and approaches to summarize data from a large number of SCEDs using multilevel models and meta-analyses of replication data. Finally, the article discusses key concerns and actions needed to move the field forward.

With the objective of increasing the magnitude of treatment effects in behavioral health, there is steadily growing interest in tailoring assessments and interventions to better match individual needs. This aligns with the central idea that behavior can be adequately understood by considering the unique characteristics of the individual and context. Thus, data collected at an individual level provides critical evidence that can be used to inform health care decisions, improve treatment, or refine theories. Yet, the majority of research in behavioral health is based on group-level analyses. Recent developments in the field of single-case experimental design (SCED) has provided new opportunities to utilize individual data. The present article provides a state-of-the art overview regarding key aspects of SCED, including a historical background to why and how SCED emerged, declined, and recently reemerged as well as methodological aspects such as design issues, challenges related to reliability and validity of repeated observations, innovations in visual and statistical analyses of individual data, strategies to deal with missing values, methodology to examine effect size, and approaches to summarize data from a large number of SCEDs using multilevel models and meta-analyses of replication data. Finally, the article discusses key concerns and actions needed to move the field forward.

BackgroundN-of-1 trials are multiple cross-over trials done in individual participants, generating individual treatment effect information. While reporting guidelines for the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) already exist, there is no standardized recommendation for the reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate current literature on N-of-1 design and reporting to identify key elements of rigorous N-of-1 protocol design.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search for all N-of-1 trial guidelines and protocol-reporting guidelines published in peer-reviewed literature. We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Eligible articles will contain explicit guidance on N-of-1 protocol construction or reporting. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and then undertake full-text reviews of potential articles to determine eligibility. One reviewer will perform data extraction of selected articles, checked by the second reviewer. Data analysis will ascertain common features of N-of-1 trial protocols and compare them to the SPIRIT and CENT items.DiscussionThis systematic review assesses recommendations on the design and reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols. These findings will inform an international Delphi development process for an N-of-1 trial protocol reporting guideline. The development of this guideline is critical for improving the quality of N-of-1 protocols, leading to improvements in the quality of published N-of-1 trial research.

BackgroundN-of-1 trials are multiple cross-over trials done in individual participants, generating individual treatment effect information. While reporting guidelines for the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) already exist, there is no standardized recommendation for the reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate current literature on N-of-1 design and reporting to identify key elements of rigorous N-of-1 protocol design.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search for all N-of-1 trial guidelines and protocol-reporting guidelines published in peer-reviewed literature. We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CENTRAL, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Eligible articles will contain explicit guidance on N-of-1 protocol construction or reporting. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts and then undertake full-text reviews of potential articles to determine eligibility. One reviewer will perform data extraction of selected articles, checked by the second reviewer. Data analysis will ascertain common features of N-of-1 trial protocols and compare them to the SPIRIT and CENT items.DiscussionThis systematic review assesses recommendations on the design and reporting of N-of-1 trial protocols. These findings will inform an international Delphi development process for an N-of-1 trial protocol reporting guideline. The development of this guideline is critical for improving the quality of N-of-1 protocols, leading to improvements in the quality of published N-of-1 trial research.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of reporting of single-patient (N-of-1) trials published in the medical literature based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT) statement and to examine factors that influence reporting quality in these trials.Study design and settingThrough a search of 10 electronic databases, we identified N-of-1 trials in clinical medicine published between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2013. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility and independently extracted data. Quality assessment was performed using the CENT statement. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe identified 112 eligible N-of-1 trials published in 87 journals and involving a total of 2,278 patients. Overall, kappa agreement between the two evaluators for compliance with CENT criteria was 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.79, 0.82). Trials assessed pharmacology and therapeutics (87%), behavior (11%), or diagnosis (2%). Although 87% of articles described the trial design (including the planned number of subjects and length of treatment period), the median percentage of specific CENT elements reported in the Methods was 41% (range, 16-87%), and the median percentage in the Results was 38% (range, 32-93%). First authors were predominantly from North America (46%), Europe (29%), and Australia (17%). Quality of reporting was higher in articles published in journals with relatively high-impact factors (P = 0.004).ConclusionThe quality of reporting of published N-of-1 trials is variable and in need of improvement. Because the CENT guidelines were not published until near the end of the period of this review, these results represent a baseline from which improvement may be expected in the future.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of reporting of single-patient (N-of-1) trials published in the medical literature based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT) statement and to examine factors that influence reporting quality in these trials.Study design and settingThrough a search of 10 electronic databases, we identified N-of-1 trials in clinical medicine published between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2013. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility and independently extracted data. Quality assessment was performed using the CENT statement. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe identified 112 eligible N-of-1 trials published in 87 journals and involving a total of 2,278 patients. Overall, kappa agreement between the two evaluators for compliance with CENT criteria was 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.79, 0.82). Trials assessed pharmacology and therapeutics (87%), behavior (11%), or diagnosis (2%). Although 87% of articles described the trial design (including the planned number of subjects and length of treatment period), the median percentage of specific CENT elements reported in the Methods was 41% (range, 16-87%), and the median percentage in the Results was 38% (range, 32-93%). First authors were predominantly from North America (46%), Europe (29%), and Australia (17%). Quality of reporting was higher in articles published in journals with relatively high-impact factors (P = 0.004).ConclusionThe quality of reporting of published N-of-1 trials is variable and in need of improvement. Because the CENT guidelines were not published until near the end of the period of this review, these results represent a baseline from which improvement may be expected in the future.

Objective Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is commonly used by children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), yet no validated questionnaires assess that use. The objective of this study was to develop child self- and parent proxy-report questionnaires assessing CAM use and to determine the face and content validity of the "Which Health Approaches and Treatments are you using?" (WHAT) questionnaires in pediatric rheumatology. Methods A sequential phased mixed methods approach was used to develop the questionnaires. A Delphi Survey of 126 experts followed by an interdisciplinary consensus conference of 14 stakeholders in CAM, general pediatrics and pediatric rheumatology was held to develop consensus on the content of the questionnaires using a nominal group technique. To determine face and content validity of the questionnaires, two groups, including (a) a purposive sample of 22 children with JIA 8 to 18 years and their parents from the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the Hospital for Sick Children, and (b) 21 Canadian pediatric rheumatology experts, participated in interviews. Participants were independently asked about the goal, understandability and comprehensiveness of the WHAT questionnaires, as well as the relevance of items. Results Consensus was reached on 17 items of the WHAT questionnaires. The domains found to be relevant were child's CAM use, factors associated with CAM use, perceived impact of CAM use, and communication about CAM. A total of 15 items in the parent proxy-report questionnaire and 13 items in the child report questionnaire showed adequate content validity. Conclusions Consensus was reached by experts on the content of a pediatric CAM questionnaire. Face and content validity testing and modifications made to the WHAT questionnaires have helped ensure adequate preliminary validity for use in pediatric rheumatology. This constitutes the basis for further testing of these questionnaires in pediatric rheumatology and

To determine whether the application of occlusive wrap applied immediately after birth will reduce mortality in very preterm infants.This was a prospective randomized controlled trial of infants born 24 0/7 to 27 6/7 weeks' gestation who were assigned randomly to occlusive wrap or no wrap. The primary outcome was all cause mortality at discharge or 6 months' corrected age. Secondary outcomes included temperature, Apgar scores, pH, base deficit, blood pressure and glucose, respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, seizures, patent ductus arteriosus, necrotizing enterocolitis, gastrointestinal perforation, intraventricular hemorrhage, cystic periventricular leukomalacia, pulmonary hemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, sepsis, hearing screen, and pneumothorax.Eight hundred one infants were enrolled. There was no difference in baseline population characteristics. There were no significant differences in mortality (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5). Wrap infants had statistically significant greater baseline temperatures (36.3°C wrap vs 35.7°C no wrap, P < .0001) and poststabilization temperatures (36.6°C vs 36.2°C, P < .001) than nonwrap infants. For the secondary outcomes, there was a significant decrease in pulmonary hemorrhage (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-0.9) in the wrap group and a significant lower mean one minute Apgar score (P = .007) in the wrap group. The study was stopped early because continued enrollment would not result in the attainment of a significant difference in the primary outcome.Application of occlusive wrap to very preterm infants immediately after birth results in greater mean body temperature but does not reduce mortality.Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose. Natural health products (NHPs), including melatonin, are widely used products. Despite the widespread assumption that all NHPs are safe, they contain pharmacologically active substances and can therefore have adverse effects and/or interact with pharmaceuticals. Objective: To investigate the mechanism underlying NHP interactions identified through the Pharmacy SONAR active surveillance study. Methods: Active surveillance was undertaken in community pharmacies to identify adverse events in patients who had recently taken NHPs together with conventional pharmaceuticals. For suspected NHP-pharmaceutical interactions, the possible mechanism of action was explored by in vitro analysis of samples of different products to identify cytochrome P450 enzyme (CYP) inhibition potential. Results: Active surveillance identified a 19-year-old male taking citalopram, nortriptyline and oxycodone concomitantly and who experienced severe sedation when melatonin was added to this regimen. In vitro analysis involving several melatonin products showed product-dependent inhibition of CYP1A2, CYP2C19 and CYP3A7. Conclusion: The adverse event was likely due to a primary pharmacokinetic interaction between melatonin and citalopram; although mechanistically, interactions affecting cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism may have occurred with all of these health products. A pharmacodynamic interaction may also be possible, but beyond the capacity of this study to establish.Key words: Melatonin, citalopram, nortriptyline, oxycodone, drug interaction. This article is open to POST-PUBLICATION REVIEW. Registered readers (see “For Readers”) may comment by clicking on ABSTRACT on the issue’s contents page.