Search

Background: Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are associated with high morbidity and mortality and frequent readmissions.Research Question: What is the effectiveness of a COPD transition bundle, with and without a care coordinator, on rehospitalizations and ED revisits?Study Design and Methods: Two patient cohorts were selected: (1) the group exposed to the transition bundle and (2) the group not exposed to the transition bundle (usual care group). Patients exposed subsequently were randomized to a care coordinator. An AECOPD transition bundle was implemented in the hospital; patients randomized to the care coordinator were contacted ≤ 72 h after discharge. Six hundred four patients (320 to the care coordinator and 284 to routine care) who met eligibility criteria from five hospitals across three cities in Alberta, Canada, were exposed to the transition bundle, whereas 3,106 patients discharged from the same hospitals received the usual care. Primary outcomes were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day readmissions, median length of stay (LOS), and 30-day ED revisits.Results: The transition bundle cohort were 83% (relative risk [RR], 0.17; 95% CI, 0.07-0.35) less likely to be readmitted within 7 days and 26% (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.91) less likely to be readmitted within 30 days of discharge. Ninety-day readmissions were unchanged (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.93-1.18). The transition bundle was associated with a 7.3% (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.0-1.15) relative increase in LOS and a 76% (RR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.53-2.02) greater risk of a 30-day ED revisit. The care coordinator did not influence readmission or ED revisits.Interpretation: The COPD transition bundle reduced 7- and 30-day hospital readmissions while increasing LOS and ED revisits. The care coordinator did not improve outcomes.Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03358771; URL: www.Clinicaltrials: gov. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). Results: In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: −0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  −0.04 (“Other bias”) to κ  =  0.62 (“Sequence generation”). There was also no agreement (κ  =  −0.29, 95%CI: −0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. Conclusions: Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Assessing the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is crucial to understand how biases affect treatment effect estimates. A number of tools have been developed to evaluate risk of bias of RCTs; however, it is unknown how these tools compare to each other in the items included. The main objective of this study was to describe which individual items are included in RCT quality tools used in general health and physical therapy (PT) research, and how these items compare to those of the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) tool. Methods: We used comprehensive literature searches and a systematic approach to identify tools that evaluated the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in general health and PT research. We extracted individual items from all quality tools. We calculated the frequency of quality items used across tools and compared them to those in the RoB tool. Comparisons were made between general health and PT quality tools using Chi-squared tests. Results: In addition to the RoB tool, 26 quality tools were identified, with 19 being used in general health and seven in PT research. The total number of quality items included in general health research tools was 130, compared with 48 items across PT tools and seven items in the RoB tool. The most frequently included items in general health research tools (14/19, 74%) were inclusion and exclusion criteria, and appropriate statistical analysis. In contrast, the most frequent items included in PT tools (86%, 6/7) were: baseline comparability, blinding of investigator/assessor, and use of intention-to-treat analysis. Key items of the RoB tool (sequence generation and allocation concealment) were included in 71% (5/7) of PT tools, and 63% (12/19) and 37% (7/19) of general health research tools, respectively. Conclusions: There is extensive item variation across tools that evaluate the risk of bias of RCTs in health research. Results call for an in-depth analysis of items that should be used to assess risk of bias of RCTs. Further empirical evidence on the use of individual items and the psychometric properties of risk of bias tools is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past 20 years a variety of treatments have been developed to remediate deficits associated with autism. Since the early 1990s, Social Stories™ have been suggested to positively affect the social development of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite much research, there remains uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of this modality. We conducted a systematic review of the literature using pre-defined, rigorous methods. Studies were considered eligible if they were controlled trials evaluating Social Stories™ among persons with ASD. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion, applied eligibility criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. A qualitative analysis was conducted on six eligible controlled trials. Five of the six trials showed statistically significant benefits for a variety of outcomes related to social interaction. This review underscores the need for further rigorous research and highlights some outstanding questions regarding maintenance and generalization of the benefits of Social Stories™. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Much controversy exists regarding the clinical efficacy of behavioural and developmental interventions for improving the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of behavioural and developmental interventions for ASD. Methods and Findings: Comprehensive searches were conducted in 22 electronic databases through May 2007. Further information was obtained through hand searching journals, searching reference lists, databases of theses and dissertations, and contacting experts in the field. Experimental and observational analytic studies were included if they were written in English and reported the efficacy of any behavioural or developmental intervention for individuals with ASD. Two independent reviewers made the final study selection, extracted data, and reached consensus on study quality. Results were summarized descriptively and, where possible, meta-analyses of the study results were conducted. One-hundred-and-one studies at predominantly high risk of bias that reported inconsistent results across various interventions were included in the review. Meta-analyses of three controlled clinical trials showed that Lovaas treatment was superior to special education on measures of adaptive behaviour, communication and interaction, comprehensive language, daily living skills, expressive language, overall intellectual functioning and socialization. High-intensity Lovaas was superior to low-intensity Lovaas on measures of intellectual functioning in two retrospective cohort studies. Pooling the results of two randomized controlled trials favoured developmental approaches based on initiative interaction compared to contingency interaction in the amount of time spent in stereotyped behaviours and distal social behaviour, but the effect sizes were not clinically significant. No statistically significant differences were found for: Lovaas versus special education for non-verbal intellectual functioning; Lovaas versus Developmental Individual-difference relationship-based intervention for communication skills; computer assisted instruction versus no treatment for facial expression recognition; and TEACCH versus standard care for imitation skills and eye-hand integration. Conclusions: While this review suggests that Lovaas may improve some core symptoms of ASD compared to special education, these findings are based on pooling of a few, methodologically weak studies with few participants and relatively short-term follow-up. As no definitive behavioural or developmental intervention improves all symptoms for all individuals with ASD, it is recommended that clinical management be guided by individual needs and availability of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a cross sectional study which investigated the inter-rater reliability of a new tool introduced by the Cochrane Collaboration for assessing the internal validity of randomised trials. The study also examined the concurrent validity compared with two other approaches to quality assessment, including the Jadad scale and the Schulz approach to allocation concealment. A convenience sample of 163 randomised controlled trials in child death was studied by the researchers. Other reasons for caution are also cited, including bias and confounding.