Search

Abstract Background Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. Methods This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. Results We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I 2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I 2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. Conclusions Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. Trial registration: CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Introduction: The use of an ‘eversion’ technique is not unequivocally proven to be superior to carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty. An up-to-date systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of these two techniques. Methods: RCTs comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic and significant (≥50 %) stenosis of the internal carotid artery were enrolled. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes included 30-day stroke and mortality rate, (a) symptomatic arterial occlusion or restenosis, and adverse events not critical for decision making. Results: Four RCTs were included with 1272 surgical procedures for carotid stenosis; eversion technique n = 643 and carotid endarterectomy with patch closure n = 629. Meta-analysis comparing both techniques showed, with a very low certainty of evidence, that eversion technique might decrease the number of patients with serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64; p ≤ 0.01). However, no difference was found on the other outcomes. TSA demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to GRADE. Conclusions: This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of any difference between eversion technique and carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery. These conclusions are based on data obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to ESVS guidelines should not be abandoned.

Abstract In a recent paper, Chen et al. report the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis concerning conservative versus conventional oxygen therapy for critically ill patients. We wish to commend the authors for their interest in the matter. However, the authors appear to misquote findings, fail to report results for all specified analyses, do not identify all relevant trials, have post hoc changed the eligibility criteria, and have seemingly switched directions of effects in analyses of secondary outcomes. These issues have led to incorrect conclusions concerning the effects of targeted oxygen therapy in critically ill patients.

Abstract Background Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques. Methods Searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Results We included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Conclusions This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality,

Abstract Background All clinical research benefits from transparency and validity. Transparency and validity of studies may increase by prospective registration of protocols and by publication of statistical analysis plans (SAPs) before data have been accessed to discern data-driven analyses from pre-planned analyses. Main message Like clinical trials, recommendations for SAPs for observational studies increase the transparency and validity of findings. We appraised the applicability of recently developed guidelines for the content of SAPs for clinical trials to SAPs for observational studies. Of the 32 items recommended for a SAP for a clinical trial, 30 items (94%) were identically applicable to a SAP for our observational study. Power estimations and adjustments for multiplicity are equally important in observational studies and clinical trials as both types of studies usually address multiple hypotheses. Only two clinical trial items (6%) regarding issues of randomisation and definition of adherence to the intervention did not seem applicable to observational studies. We suggest to include one new item specifically applicable to observational studies to be addressed in a SAP, describing how adjustment for possible confounders will be handled in the analyses. Conclusion With only few amendments, the guidelines for SAP of a clinical trial can be applied to a SAP for an observational study. We suggest SAPs should be equally required for observational studies and clinical trials to increase their transparency and validity.

Abstract Objective Exposure to hyperoxemia and hypoxemia is common in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients following return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), but its effects on neurological outcome are uncertain, and study results are inconsistent. Methods Exploratory post hoc substudy of the Target Temperature Management (TTM) trial, including 939 patients after OHCA with return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). The association between serial arterial partial pressures of oxygen (PaO2) during 37 h following ROSC and neurological outcome at 6 months, evaluated by Cerebral Performance Category (CPC), dichotomized to good (CPC 1–2) and poor (CPC 3–5), was investigated. In our analyses, we tested the association of hyperoxemia and hypoxemia, time-weighted mean PaO2, maximum PaO2 difference, and gradually increasing PaO2 levels (13.3–53.3 kPa) with poor neurological outcome. A subsequent analysis investigated the association between PaO2 and a biomarker of brain injury, peak serum Tau levels. Results Eight hundred sixty-nine patients were eligible for analysis. Three hundred patients (35%) were exposed to hyperoxemia or hypoxemia at some time point after ROSC. Our analyses did not reveal a significant association between hyperoxemia, hypoxemia, time-weighted mean PaO2 exposure or maximum PaO2 difference and poor neurological outcome at 6-month follow-up after correction for co-variates (all analyses p = 0.146–0.847). We were not able to define a PaO2 level significantly associated with the onset of poor neurological outcome. Peak serum Tau levels at either 48 or 72 h after ROSC were not associated with PaO2. Conclusion Hyperoxemia or hypoxemia exposure occurred in one third of the patients during the first 37 h of hospitalization and was not significantly associated with poor neurological outcome after 6 months or with the peak s-Tau levels at either 48 or 72 h after ROSC.

Objectives To summarise the evidence on benefits and harms of prompt closure versus gradual weaning of external ventricular drainage (EVD) in patients with hydrocephalus following aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) based on randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in humans.Setting RCTs comparing prompt closure versus gradual weaning of EVD in adult patients with hydrocephalus following aSAH were included.Participants Patients aged equal to or greater than 18 years with an EVD due to hydrocephalus following aSAH were eligible for inclusion.Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, any serious adverse event, rate of ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were patients with shunt failure, hospital and neuro intensive care unit (NICU) length of stay (LOS) and complications related to treatment with an EVD. Data permitted report of rate of VP shunt placement, and hospital and NICU LOS.Results Six studies were assessed in full text. One RCT with 81 patients was included. Rate of VP shunt placement was 63.4% in the rapid weaning group (ie, prompt closure of the EVD; 41 patients) and 62.5% in the gradual weaning group (40 patients; p=0.932). LOS in hospital and NICU was significantly shorter in the rapidly weaned group compared with the gradually weaned group (mean 19.1 vs 21.5 days in hospital (p=0.03); and mean 14.1 vs 16.9 days in NICU (p=0.0002)). Data were insufficient to conduct meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis or subgroup analysis of heterogeneity and sensitivity. One RCT is currently ongoing.Conclusions We found insufficient evidence to favour any of the two strategies for EVD discontinuation in patients with hydrocephalus following aSAH.PROSPERO registration number CRD42018108801.

Abstract Background Proton pump inhibitors are often used in critically ill patients to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding despite limited evidence for benefit. Patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) are at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding as (pre-)uremia induces coagulopathy through effects on platelets and coagulation cascades. No high-quality randomized clinical trials have previously assessed the benefits and harms of prophylactic proton pump inhibitor use in this high-risk population of adult critically ill patients. Methods/design Among the 3350 patients included in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial—an investigator-initiated international randomized clinical trial on prophylactic proton pump inhibitor versus placebo in acutely admitted adult ICU patients at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding—we will compare the benefits and harms of prophylactic use of proton pump inhibitor in patients in need of RRT versus those not requiring this treatment. We will determine the proportion of patients with clinically important bleeding, the proportion of patients with adverse events including pneumonia, Clostridium difficile enteritis, or acute myocardial ischemia in the ICU, as well as transfusion requirements. Moreover, 90 day and 365 day mortality post-randomization will be investigated. As a secondary analysis, we will examine the association between acute kidney injury and RRT during ICU stay and gastrointestinal bleeding. Discussion With the outlined predefined analysis, we will characterize the balance between the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in acutely admitted adult ICU patients in need of RRT, including the potential interaction of allocation to proton pump inhibitor versus placebo. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02718261 . Registered on 14 March 2016.

Abstract Background Missing data may seriously compromise inferences from randomised clinical trials, especially if missing data are not handled appropriately. The potential bias due to missing data depends on the mechanism causing the data to be missing, and the analytical methods applied to amend the missingness. Therefore, the analysis of trial data with missing values requires careful planning and attention. Methods The authors had several meetings and discussions considering optimal ways of handling missing data to minimise the bias potential. We also searched PubMed (key words: missing data; randomi*; statistical analysis) and reference lists of known studies for papers (theoretical papers; empirical studies; simulation studies; etc.) on how to deal with missing data when analysing randomised clinical trials. Results Handling missing data is an important, yet difficult and complex task when analysing results of randomised clinical trials. We consider how to optimise the handling of missing data during the planning stage of a randomised clinical trial and recommend analytical approaches which may prevent bias caused by unavoidable missing data. We consider the strengths and limitations of using of best-worst and worst-best sensitivity analyses, multiple imputation, and full information maximum likelihood. We also present practical flowcharts on how to deal with missing data and an overview of the steps that always need to be considered during the analysis stage of a trial. Conclusions We present a practical guide and flowcharts describing when and how multiple imputation should be used to handle missing data in randomised clinical.

Abstract Background Evidence-based clinical practice is challenging in all fields, but poses special barriers in the field of rare diseases. The present paper summarises the main barriers faced by clinical research in rare diseases, and highlights opportunities for improvement. Methods Systematic literature searches without meta-analyses and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project. Results Barriers specific to rare diseases comprise the difficulty to recruit participants because of rarity, scattering of patients, limited knowledge on natural history of diseases, difficulties to achieve accurate diagnosis and identify patients in health information systems, and difficulties choosing clinically relevant outcomes. Conclusions Evidence-based clinical practice for rare diseases should start by collecting clinical data in databases and registries; defining measurable patient-centred outcomes; and selecting appropriate study designs adapted to small study populations. Rare diseases constitute one of the most paradigmatic fields in which multi-stakeholder engagement, especially from patients, is needed for success. Clinical research infrastructures and expertise networks offer opportunities for establishing evidence-based clinical practice within rare diseases.

Abstract Background Effective postoperative pain management is essential for the rehabilitation of the surgical patient. The PANSAID trial evaluates the analgesic effects and safety of the combination of paracetamol and ibuprofen. This paper describes in detail the statistical analysis plan for the primary publication to prevent outcome reporting bias and data-driven analysis results. Methods/design The PANSAID trial is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel, four-group clinical trial comparing the beneficial and harmful effects of different doses and combinations of paracetamol and ibuprofen in patients having total hip arthroplastic surgery. Patients, caregivers, physicians, investigators, and statisticians are blinded to the intervention. The two co-primary outcomes are 24-h consumption of morphine and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events within 90 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes are pain scores during mobilisation and at rest at 6 and 24 h postoperatively, and the proportion of patients with one or more adverse events within 24 h postoperatively. Discussion PANSAID will provide a large trial with low risk of bias regarding benefits and harms of the combination of paracetamol and ibuprofen used in a perioperative setting. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.org identifier: NCT02571361 . Registered on 7 October 2015.

Abstract Background It has been argued that postoperative pain treatment should be “procedure-specific”, since different analgesics may have specific effects dependent on the surgical procedure. The aim of the present subgroup analysis was to compare the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative gabapentin treatment in different surgical procedures. Methods Relevant databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing gabapentin versus placebo. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were differences in 24-h morphine consumption, and serious adverse events (SAE) between surgical procedures. These subgroup analyses were predefined in a PRISMA compliant systematic review registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42013006538). It was predefined that conclusions should primarily be based on trials classified as overall low risk of bias. Results Seventy-four RCTs with 5645 patients were included, assessing benefit and harm in cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, mastectomy, and arthroplasty surgery, spinal surgery, and thoracic surgery. Only eight of 74 trials were classified as overall low risk of bias limiting our ability to conclude on the estimates in most meta-analyses. The differences between surgical procedures in these trials were not statistically significant when tested for subgroup differences. Fifteen trials with 1377 patients reported a total of 59 SAEs, most of which were observed in the thoracic surgery group. Conclusion Both beneficial and harmful effects in these subgroup analyses were influenced by bias and insufficient data, limiting conclusions. With these limitations, we could not adequately test for differences in beneficial or harmful outcomes between six surgical subgroups undergoing perioperative gabapentin treatment.

Abstract Background Stress ulcer prophylaxis is considered standard of care in many critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the quality of evidence supporting this has recently been questioned, and clinical equipoise exists. Whether there is overall benefit or harm of stress ulcer prophylaxis in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients is unknown. Accordingly, we aim to assess patient-important benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no treatment in adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding irrespective of hospital setting. Methods/design We will conduct a systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis and assess use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in any dose, formulation and duration. We will accept placebo or no prophylaxis as control interventions. The participants will be adult hospitalised acutely ill patients with high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS and Epistemonikos for relevant literature. We will follow the recommendations by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The risk of systematic errors (bias) and random errors will be assessed, and the overall quality of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Discussion There is a need for a high-quality systematic review to summarise the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalised patients to inform practice and future research. Although stress ulcer prophylaxis is used worldwide, no firm evidence for benefit or harm as compared to placebo or no treatments has been established. Critical illness is a continuum not limited to the ICU setting, which is why it is important to assess the benefits and harms of stress ulcer prophylaxis in a wider perspective than exclusively in ICU patients. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017055676

Abstract Background Most meta-analyses in systematic reviews, including Cochrane ones, do not have sufficient statistical power to detect or refute even large intervention effects. This is why a meta-analysis ought to be regarded as an interim analysis on its way towards a required information size. The results of the meta-analyses should relate the total number of randomised participants to the estimated required meta-analytic information size accounting for statistical diversity. When the number of participants and the corresponding number of trials in a meta-analysis are insufficient, the use of the traditional 95% confidence interval or the 5% statistical significance threshold will lead to too many false positive conclusions (type I errors) and too many false negative conclusions (type II errors). Methods We developed a methodology for interpreting meta-analysis results, using generally accepted, valid evidence on how to adjust thresholds for significance in randomised clinical trials when the required sample size has not been reached. Results The Lan-DeMets trial sequential monitoring boundaries in Trial Sequential Analysis offer adjusted confidence intervals and restricted thresholds for statistical significance when the diversity-adjusted required information size and the corresponding number of required trials for the meta-analysis have not been reached. Trial Sequential Analysis provides a frequentistic approach to control both type I and type II errors. We define the required information size and the corresponding number of required trials in a meta-analysis and the diversity (D2) measure of heterogeneity. We explain the reasons for using Trial Sequential Analysis of meta-analysis when the actual information size fails to reach the required information size. We present examples drawn from traditional meta-analyses using unadjusted naïve 95% confidence intervals and 5% thresholds for statistical significance. Spurious conclusions in systematic reviews with traditional meta-analyses can be reduced using Trial Sequential Analysis. Several empirical studies have demonstrated that the Trial Sequential Analysis provides better control of type I errors and of type II errors than the traditional naïve meta-analysis. Conclusions Trial Sequential Analysis represents analysis of meta-analytic data, with transparent assumptions, and better control of type I and type II errors than the traditional meta-analysis using naïve unadjusted confidence intervals.

Objective and methods: It is rare that trialists report power estimations of non-primary outcomes. In the present article, we will describe how to define a valid hierarchy of outcomes in a randomised clinical trial, to limit problems with Type I and Type II errors, using considerations on the clinical relevance of the outcomes and power estimations. Conclusion: Power estimations of non-primary outcomes may guide trialists in classifying non-primary outcomes as secondary or exploratory. The power estimations are simple and if they are used systematically, more appropriate outcome hierarchies can be defined, and trial results will become more interpretable.

Abstract Background Targeted temperature management is recommended after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and may be achieved using a variety of cooling devices. This study was conducted to explore the performance and outcomes for intravascular versus surface devices for targeted temperature management after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Method A retrospective analysis of data from the Targeted Temperature Management trial. N = 934. A total of 240 patients (26%) managed with intravascular versus 694 (74%) with surface devices. Devices were assessed for speed and precision during the induction, maintenance and rewarming phases in addition to adverse events. All-cause mortality, as well as a composite of poor neurological function or death, as evaluated by the Cerebral Performance Category and modified Rankin scale were analysed. Results For patients managed at 33 °C there was no difference between intravascular and surface groups in the median time taken to achieve target temperature (210 [interquartile range (IQR) 180] minutes vs. 240 [IQR 180] minutes, p = 0.58), maximum rate of cooling (1.0 [0.7] vs. 1.0 [0.9] °C/hr, p = 0.44), the number of patients who reached target temperature (within 4 hours (65% vs. 60%, p = 0.30); or ever (100% vs. 97%, p = 0.47), or episodes of overcooling (8% vs. 34%, p = 0.15). In the maintenance phase, cumulative temperature deviation (median 3.2 [IQR 5.0] °C hr vs. 9.3 [IQR 8.0] °C hr, p =

INTRODUCTION:Central sensitization plays a pivotal role in maintenance of pain and is believed to be intricately involved in several chronic pain conditions. One clinical manifestation of central sensitization is secondary hyperalgesia. The degree of secondary hyperalgesia presumably reflects individual levels of central sensitization. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between areas of secondary hyperalgesia and volumes of the caudate nuclei and other brain structures involved in pain processing. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We recruited 121 healthy male participants; 118 were included in the final analysis. All participants underwent whole brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Prior to MRI, all participants underwent pain testing. Secondary hyperalgesia was induced by brief thermal sensitization. Additionally, we recorded heat pain detection thresholds (HPDT), pain during one minute thermal stimulation (p-TS) and results of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression score (HADS). RESULTS:We found no significant associations between the size of the area of secondary hyperalgesia and the volume of the caudate nuclei or of the following structures: primary somatosensory cortex, anterior and mid cingulate cortex, putamen, nucleus accumbens, globus pallidus, insula and the cerebellum. Likewise, we found no significant associations between the volume of the caudate nuclei and HPDTs, p-TS, PCS and HADS. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings indicate that the size of the secondary hyperalgesia area is not associated with the volume of brain structures relevant for pain processing, suggesting that the propensity to develop central sensitization, assessed as secondary hyperalgesia, is not correlated to brain structure volume.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155284.].

BACKGROUND:Prediction of neurological outcome is a crucial part of post cardiac arrest care and prediction in patients remaining unconscious and/or sedated after rewarming from targeted temperature management (TTM) remains difficult. Current guidelines suggest the use of serial measurements of the biomarker neuron-specific enolase (NSE) in combination with other predictors of outcome in patients admitted after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). This study sought to investigate the ability of NSE to predict poor outcome in patients remaining unconscious at day three after OHCA. In addition, this study sought to investigate if serial NSE measurements add incremental prognostic information compared to a single NSE measurement at 48 hours in this population. METHODS:This study is a post-hoc sub-study of the TTM trial, randomizing OHCA patients to a course of TTM at either 33°C or 36°C. Patients were included from sites participating in the TTM-trial biobank sub study. NSE was measured at 24, 48 and 72 hours after ROSC and follow-up was concluded after 180 days. The primary end point was poor neurological function or death defined by a cerebral performance category score (CPC-score) of 3 to 5. RESULTS:A total of 685 (73%) patients participated in the study. At day three after OHCA 63 (9%) patients had died and 473 (69%) patients were not awake. In these patients, a single NSE measurement at 48 hours predicted poor outcome with an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of 0.83. A combination of all three NSE measurements yielded the highest discovered AUC (0.88, p = .0002). Easily applicable combinations of serial NSE measurements did not significantly improve prediction over a single measurement at 48 hours (AUC 0.58-0.84 versus 0.83). CONCLUSION:NSE is a strong predictor of poor outcome after OHCA in persistently unconscious patients undergoing TTM, and NSE is a promising surrogate marker of outcome in clinical trials. While combinations of serial NSE measurements may provide an increase in overall prognostic information, it is unclear whether actual clinical prognostication with low false-positive rates is improved by application of serial measurements in persistently unconscious patients. The findings of this study should be confirmed in another prospective cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT01020916.

INTRODUCTION:Clinical pain models can be applied when investigating basic physiologic pain responses in healthy volunteers. Several pain models exist; however, only few have been adequately validated. Our primary aim with this prospective study was to investigate the intra- and inter-individual variation in secondary hyperalgesia elicited by brief thermal sensitization (45°C for 3 min) in healthy volunteers. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Fifty healthy volunteers were included. Areas of secondary hyperalgesia following brief thermal sensitization were investigated by 2 observers on 4 experimental days, with a minimum interval of 7 days. Additionally, heat pain detection threshold and pain during thermal stimulation (45°C for 1 min.), and the psychological tests Pain Catastrophizing Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score were applied. RESULTS:For areas of secondary hyperalgesia, an intra-observer intra-person correlation of 0.85, 95% CI [0.78, 0.90], an intra-observer inter-person correlation of 0.03, 95% CI [0.00, 0.16], and a coefficient of variation of 0.17, 95% CI [0.14, 0.21] was demonstrated. Four percent of the study population had areas of secondary hyperalgesia both below the 1st and above the 3rd quartile considering all included participants. Heat pain detection threshold predicted area of secondary hyperalgesia with an adjusted R2 of 0.20 (P = 0.0006). CONCLUSIONS:We have demonstrated a low intra-individual, and a high inter-individual variation in thermally induced secondary hyperalgesia. We conclude that brief thermal sensitization produce secondary hyperalgesia with a high level of reproducibility, which can be applied to investigate different phenotypes related to secondary hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02166164.

PURPOSE:Fluid resuscitation is a key intervention in patients with sepsis and circulatory impairment. The recommendations for continued fluid therapy in sepsis are vague, which may result in differences in clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate associations between hospital and patient characteristics and fluid resuscitation volumes in ICU patients with severe sepsis. METHODS:We explored the 6S trial database of ICU patients with severe sepsis needing fluid resuscitation randomised to hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 vs. Ringer's acetate. Our primary outcome measure was fluid resuscitation volume and secondary outcome total fluid input administered from 24 hours before randomisation until the end of day 3 post-randomisation. We performed multivariate analyses with hospital and patient baseline characteristics as covariates to assess associations with fluid volumes given. RESULTS:We included 654 patients who were in the ICU for 3 days and had fluid volumes available. Individual trial sites administered significantly different volumes of fluid resuscitation and total fluid input after adjusting for baseline variables (P

BackgroundIn randomised trials of medical interventions, the most reliable analysis follows the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. However, the ITT analysis requires that missing outcome data have to be imputed. Different imputation techniques may give different results and some may lead to bias. In anti-obesity drug trials, many data are usually missing, and the most used imputation method is last observation carried forward (LOCF). LOCF is generally considered conservative, but there are more reliable methods such as multiple imputation (MI).ObjectivesTo compare four different methods of handling missing data in a 60-week placebo controlled anti-obesity drug trial on topiramate.MethodsWe compared an analysis of complete cases with datasets where missing body weight measurements had been replaced using three different imputation methods: LOCF, baseline carried forward (BOCF) and MI.Results561 participants were randomised. Compared to placebo, there was a significantly greater weight loss with topiramate in all analyses: 9.5 kg (SE 1.17) in the complete case analysis (N = 86), 6.8 kg (SE 0.66) using LOCF (N = 561), 6.4 kg (SE 0.90) using MI (N = 561) and 1.5 kg (SE 0.28) using BOCF (N = 561).ConclusionsThe different imputation methods gave very different results. Contrary to widely stated claims, LOCF did not produce a conservative (i.e., lower) efficacy estimate compared to MI. Also, LOCF had a lower SE than MI.

ObjectiveIn hospital and health care organizational factors may be changed to reduce postoperative mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate a possible association between mortality and 'length of hospital stay', 'priority of surgery', 'time of surgery', or 'surgical delay' in hip fracture surgery.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingProspectively and consecutively reported data from the Danish Anaesthesia Database were linked to The Danish National Registry of Patients and The Civil Registration System. Records on vital status, admittance, discharges, codes of diagnosis, anaesthetic and surgical procedures were retrieved.Participants6143 patients aged more than 65 years undergoing hip fracture surgery.Main outcome measuresAll-cause mortality.ResultsThe one year mortality was 30% (28-31%, 95% Confidence interval (CI)). In a multivariate model 'length of hospital stay' less than 10 days and more than 20 days are associated with mortality with hazard ratios of 1.34 (1.20-1.53 CI, pConclusionNon-scheduled surgery and length of hospital stay were associated with increased mortality. Confounding by indication may bias observational studies evaluating early and late discharge as well as priority; therefore cluster randomized clinical trials comparing different clinical set ups may be warranted evaluating health care organizational factors.

BackgroundAssessment of heterogeneity is essential in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials. The most commonly used heterogeneity measure, I(2), provides an estimate of the proportion of variability in a meta-analysis that is explained by differences between the included trials rather than by sampling error. Recent studies have raised concerns about the reliability of I(2) estimates, due to their dependence on the precision of included trials and time-dependent biases. Authors have also advocated use of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to express the uncertainty associated with I(2) estimates. However, no previous studies have explored how many trials and events are required to ensure stable and reliable I(2) estimates, or how 95% CIs perform as evidence accumulates.Methodology/principal findingsTo assess the stability and reliability of I(2) estimates and their 95% CIs, in relation to the cumulative number of trials and events in meta-analysis, we looked at 16 large Cochrane meta-analyses--each including a sufficient number of trials and events to reliably estimate I(2)--and monitored the I(2) estimates and their 95% CIs for each year of publication. In 10 of the 16 meta-analyses, the I(2) estimates fluctuated more than 40% over time. The median number of events and trials required before the cumulative I(2) estimates stayed within +/-20% of the final I(2) estimate was 467 and 11. No major fluctuations were observed after 500 events and 14 trials. The 95% confidence intervals provided good coverage over time.Conclusions/significanceI(2) estimates need to be interpreted with caution when the meta-analysis only includes a limited number of events or trials. Confidence intervals for I(2) estimates provide good coverage as evidence accumulates, and are thus valuable for reflecting the uncertainty associated with estimating I(2).

The serotonergic neurotransmitter system is closely linked to depression and personality traits. It is not known if selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) have an effect on neuroticism that is independent of their effect on depression. Healthy individuals with a genetic liability for depression represent a group of particular interest when investigating if intervention with SSRIs affects personality. The present trial is the first to test the hypothesis that escitalopram may reduce neuroticism in healthy first-degree relatives of patients with major depressive disorder (MD).The trial used a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled parallel-group design. We examined the effect of four weeks escitalopram 10 mg daily versus matching placebo on personality in 80 people who had a biological parent or sibling with a history of MD. The outcome measure on personality traits was change in self-reported neuroticism scores on the Revised Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPQ) from entry until end of four weeks of intervention.When compared with placebo, escitalopram did not significantly affect self-reported NEO-PI-R and EPQ neuroticism and extroversion, EPQ psychoticism, NEO-PI-R openness, or NEO-PI-R conscientiousness (p all above 0.05). However, escitalopram increased NEO-PI-R agreeableness scores significantly compared with placebo (mean; SD) (2.38; 8.09) versus (-1.32; 7.94), p = 0.046), but not following correction for multiplicity. A trend was shown for increased conscientiousness (p = 0.07). There was no significant effect on subclinical depressive symptoms (p = 0.6).In healthy first-degree relatives of patients with MD, there is no effect of escitalopram on neuroticism, but it is possible that escitalopram may increase the personality traits of agreeableness and conscientiousness.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00386841.

Little is known on whether centralised and specialised combined pharmacological and psychological intervention in the early phase of severe unipolar depression improve prognosis. The aim of the present study was to assess the benefits and harms of centralised and specialised secondary care intervention in the early course of severe unipolar depression.A randomised multicentre trial with central randomisation and blinding in relation to the primary outcome comparing a centralised and specialised outpatient intervention program with standard decentralised psychiatric treatment. The interventions were offered at discharge from first, second, or third hospitalisation due to a single depressive episode or recurrent depressive disorder. The primary outcome was time to readmission to psychiatric hospital. The data on re-hospitalisation was obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Register. The secondary and tertiary outcomes were severity of depressive symptoms according to the Major Depression Inventory, adherence to medical treatment, and satisfaction with treatment according to the total score on the Verona Service Satisfaction Scale-Affective Disorder (VSSS-A). These outcomes were assessed using questionnaires one year after discharge from hospital.A total of 268 patients with unipolar depression were included. There was no significant difference in the time to readmission (unadjusted hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.32; log rank: χ(2) = 0.3, d.f. = 1, p = 0.6); severity of depressive symptoms (mood disorder clinic: median 21.6, quartiles 9.7-31.2 versus standard treatment: median 20.2, quartiles 10.0-29.8; p = 0.7); or the prevalence of patients in antidepressant treatment (73.9% versus 80.0%, p = 0.2). Centralised and specialised secondary care intervention resulted in significantly higher satisfaction with treatment (131 (SD 31.8) versus 107 (SD 25.6); p

BackgroundMeta-analyses including a limited number of patients and events are prone to yield overestimated intervention effect estimates. While many assume bias is the cause of overestimation, theoretical considerations suggest that random error may be an equal or more frequent cause. The independent impact of random error on meta-analyzed intervention effects has not previously been explored. It has been suggested that surpassing the optimal information size (i.e., the required meta-analysis sample size) provides sufficient protection against overestimation due to random error, but this claim has not yet been validated.MethodsWe simulated a comprehensive array of meta-analysis scenarios where no intervention effect existed (i.e., relative risk reduction (RRR) = 0%) or where a small but possibly unimportant effect existed (RRR = 10%). We constructed different scenarios by varying the control group risk, the degree of heterogeneity, and the distribution of trial sample sizes. For each scenario, we calculated the probability of observing overestimates of RRR>20% and RRR>30% for each cumulative 500 patients and 50 events. We calculated the cumulative number of patients and events required to reduce the probability of overestimation of intervention effect to 10%, 5%, and 1%. We calculated the optimal information size for each of the simulated scenarios and explored whether meta-analyses that surpassed their optimal information size had sufficient protection against overestimation of intervention effects due to random error.ResultsThe risk of overestimation of intervention effects was usually high when the number of patients and events was small and this risk decreased exponentially over time as the number of patients and events increased. The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation depended considerably on the underlying simulation settings. Surpassing the optimal information size generally provided sufficient protection against overestimation.ConclusionsRandom errors are a frequent cause of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analyses. Surpassing the optimal information size will provide sufficient protection against overestimation.

BackgroundSystematic reviews with meta-analyses often contain many statistical tests. This multiplicity may increase the risk of type I error. Few attempts have been made to address the problem of statistical multiplicity in systematic reviews. Before the implications are properly considered, the size of the issue deserves clarification. Because of the emphasis on bias evaluation and because of the editorial processes involved, Cochrane reviews may contain more multiplicity than their non-Cochrane counterparts. This study measured the quantity of statistical multiplicity present in a population of systematic reviews and aimed to assess whether this quantity is different in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.Methods/principal findingsWe selected all the systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Anaesthesia Review Group containing a meta-analysis and matched them with comparable non-Cochrane reviews. We counted the number of statistical tests done in each systematic review. The median number of tests overall was 10 (interquartile range (IQR) 6 to 18). The median was 12 in Cochrane and 8 in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in medians 4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-19.0). The proportion that used an assessment of risk of bias as a reason for doing extra analyses was 42% in Cochrane and 28% in non-Cochrane reviews (difference in proportions 14% (95% CI -8 to 36). The issue of multiplicity was addressed in 6% of all the reviews.Conclusion/significanceStatistical multiplicity in systematic reviews requires attention. We found more multiplicity in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews. Many of the reasons for the increase in multiplicity may well represent improved methodological approaches and greater transparency, but multiplicity may also cause an increased risk of spurious conclusions. Few systematic reviews, whether Cochrane or non-Cochrane, address the issue of multiplicity.

The mechanisms by which selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRI) act in depressed patients remain unknown. The serotonergic neurotransmitter system and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) system may interact. The aim of the AGENDA trial was to investigate whether long-term intervention with SSRI versus placebo affects the cortisol response in the dexamethasone corticotropin-releasing hormone (DEX-CRH) test in healthy first-degree relatives to patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Eighty healthy first-degree relatives to patients with MDD were randomized to escitalopram 10 mg versus matching placebo daily for four weeks. The primary outcome measure was the intervention difference in the change of the total area under the curve (CorAUC(total)) for plasma cortisol in the DEX-CRH test at entry to after four weeks of intervention.Change in CorAUC(total) showed no statistically significant difference between the escitalopram and the placebo group, p = 0.47. There were large intra- and inter-individual differences in the results of the DEX-CRH test. There was statistically significant negative correlation between the plasma escitalopram concentration and change in CorAUC(total), rho = -0.41, p = 0.01. Post-hoc analyses showed a statistically significant interaction between age and intervention group and change in log CorAUC(total).The present trial does not support an effect of escitalopram 10 mg daily compared with placebo on the HPA-axis in healthy first-degree relatives to patients with MDD. Increasing levels of escitalopram tended to decrease the HPA-response in the DEX-CRH test and this effect increased with age.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00386841.