A Qualitative Study of the Latter Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Living With Chronic Pain.

This qualitative study examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of patients living with chronic pain (CP). Patients referred to an interdisciplinary pain management program between July and December of 2021 were asked to respond to the question: "How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?" Fifty-four patients provided comments in response to this question. The comments were analyzed using an inductive approach. Ten themes emerged: (1) psychological state, (2) limitations on social life and activities, (3) minimal to no effect, (4) beliefs and opinions associated with COVID-19, (5) family dynamics, (6) healthcare disruptions, (7) pandemic-related fear, (8) changes in work, (9) change in pain, and (10) getting COVID-19. These themes mirror those found during the onset of the pandemic, with the addition of theme #4. Themes demonstrate the challenges experienced by individuals living with CP, in addition to new developments in the latter portion of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to understand the ramifications of shutdowns, so we are better able to address issues that occur in their aftermath.

Transition to Virtual Care Services during COVID-19 at Canadian Pain Clinics: Survey and Future Recommendations.

Introduction: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare centers quickly adapted services into virtual formats. Pain clinics in Canada play a vital role in helping people living with pain, and these clinics remained essential services for patients throughout the pandemic. This study aimed to (1) describe and compare the transition from in-person to virtual pain care services at Canadian pain clinics during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and (2) provide postpandemic recommendations for pain care services to optimize the quality of patient care. Materials and Methods: We used a qualitative participatory action study design that included a cross-sectional survey for data collection and descriptive analysis to summarize the findings. Survey responses were collected between January and March of 2021. The survey was administered to the leadership teams of 11 adult pain clinics affiliated with the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans. Responses were analyzed qualitatively to describe the transition to the virtual pain services at pain clinics. Results: We achieved a 100% response rate from participating clinics. The results focus on describing the transition to the virtual care, current treatment and services, the quality of care, program sustainability, barriers to maintaining virtual services, and future considerations. Conclusions: Participating clinics were capable of transitioning pain care services to the virtual formats and have in-person care when needed with proper safety precautions. The pandemic demonstrated that it is feasible and sustainable for pain clinics to have a hybrid of virtual and in-person care to treat those living with pain. It is recommended that moving forward, there should be a hybrid of both virtual and in-person care for pain clinics. Ministries of Health should continue to develop policies and funding mechanisms that support innovations aimed at holistic healthcare, interdisciplinary teams, and the expansion of clinics' geographical reach for patient access.

A Qualitative Study of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on a Sample of Patients With Chronic Pain.

This qualitative phenomenological study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of patients living with chronic pain. Patients referred to an intensive interdisciplinary pain management program between June 2020 to June 2021 were asked, "How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?" as part of their interdisciplinary assessment. Ninety patients (50 Veterans, 40 civilians) provided comments to this question, which were independently organized into themes using an inductive approach by 4 researchers. Nine main themes emerged: (1) changed psychological state, (2) minimal to no effect, (3) affected personal life activities, (4) changes in accessing care, (5) changes in work/education situation, (6) changes in family dynamics, (7) experiencing more annoyances, (8) COVID-19 pandemic is a barrier to making positive changes, and (9) got COVID-19. Themes are consistent with topics of interest in light of this ongoing, global stressor. Most commonly reported themes reflected changes in psychological well-being and changes in access to care, highlighting similarities between life with chronic pain and life under the pandemic for this group.

User-Centered Development and Testing of the Online Patient-Reported Outcomes, Burdens, and Experiences (PROBE) Survey and the myPROBE App and Integration With the Canadian Bleeding Disorder Registry: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes, Burdens, and Experiences (PROBE) questionnaire is a tool for assessing the quality of life and disease burden in people living with hemophilia. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were (1) to assess the needs of relevant stakeholders involved in the use of PROBE, (2) to develop the software infrastructure needed to meet these needs, and (3) to test the usability of the final product. METHODS: We conducted a series of semistructured interviews of relevant stakeholders, including PROBE investigators, people with hemophilia, and representatives of the sponsor. Based on these, we developed an online survey and a mobile app for iOS and Android. A user group evaluated the final product using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an open feedback framework. RESULTS: The online survey was updated, and the myPROBE app for mobile devices and a new application programming interface were developed. The app was tested and modified according to user feedback over multiple cycles. The final version of the app was released in July 2019. Seventeen users aged 23 to 67 years evaluated the final version of the app using the SUS. The median (first, third quartile) SUS score for the app was 85 (68, 88) out of 100. The newly introduced functionalities were as follows: (1) capability to longitudinally track repeated fillings of the questionnaire at different time points by the same participant (as opposed to anonymous completion); (2) linking of the questionnaire with hemophilia registries, starting with the Canadian Bleeding Disorders Registry as a proof of concept; (3) removing or adding questions as needed; and (4) sending notifications to the users (eg, reminders). A new secure database was built for securely storing personal information separately from the questionnaire data. The PROBE online survey is currently available in 96 countries and 34 languages. CONCLUSIONS: The online survey was updated successfully, and the myPROBE app was developed, with a SUS score of 85 (out of 100). The app has been released in 81 countries and 34 languages. This will facilitate data collection for research and advocacy purposes, and the use of this tool in everyday clinical practice.

Accuracy and Acceptability of Wrist-Wearable Activity-Tracking Devices: Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Numerous wrist-wearable devices to measure physical activity are currently available, but there is a need to unify the evidence on how they compare in terms of acceptability and accuracy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess the accuracy and acceptability (willingness to use the device for the task it is designed to support) of wrist-wearable activity trackers. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SPORTDiscus for studies measuring physical activity in the general population using wrist-wearable activity trackers. We screened articles for inclusion and, for the included studies, reported data on the studies' setting and population, outcome measured, and risk of bias. RESULTS: A total of 65 articles were included in our review. Accuracy was assessed for 14 different outcomes, which can be classified in the following categories: count of specific activities (including step counts), time spent being active, intensity of physical activity (including energy expenditure), heart rate, distance, and speed. Substantial clinical heterogeneity did not allow us to perform a meta-analysis of the results. The outcomes assessed most frequently were step counts, heart rate, and energy expenditure. For step counts, the Fitbit Charge (or the Fitbit Charge HR) had a mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) <25% across 20 studies. For heart rate, the Apple Watch had a MAPE <10% in 2 studies. For energy expenditure, the MAPE was >30% for all the brands, showing poor accuracy across devices. Acceptability was most frequently measured through data availability and wearing time. Data availability was ≥75% for the Fitbit Charge HR, Fitbit Flex 2, and Garmin Vivofit. The wearing time was 89% for both the GENEActiv and Nike FuelBand. CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR were consistently shown to have a good accuracy for step counts and the Apple Watch for measuring heart rate. None of the tested devices proved to be accurate in measuring energy expenditure. Efforts should be made to reduce the heterogeneity among studies.

Outcomes for studies assessing the efficacy of hemostatic therapies in persons with congenital bleeding disorders.

INTRODUCTION: Management strategies and hemostatic treatments to achieve control of bleeding are relevant across many disease areas. Identification of primary outcomes for studies assessing hemostatic intervention was the objective of a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) sponsored multidisciplinary initiative. The aim of this report is to summarize the evidence reviewed, and the outcomes identified by the subgroup tasked to assess outcomes for inherited bleeding disorders. METHODS: The subgroup decided to focus on haemophilia, the prototypal congenital bleeding disorder and the one with the largest available body of evidence. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO, The Cochrane Review, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for systematic and narrative reviews on outcomes used in haemophilia clinical trials. Three different clinical goals were identified as typical objectives of future research. RESULTS: Out of 1322 unique citations, 24 reviews published in the period 2002-2019 were included. We identified 113 outcome measures, categorized in 6 domains: health-related quality of life (HRQoL), comorbidities and mortality, overall physical functioning and participation, bleeding and hemostasis, joint health, and costs and resource use. Three different clinical goals were identified as typical objectives of future research: Episodic 'on demand' replacement therapy, prevention of bleeding (Prophylaxis), and long-term and overall impact of bleeding. For each of these scenarios, specific outcomes were recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcomes for clinical trials assessing the efficacy of hemostatic treatment in achieving control, prevention and limiting long-term consequences of bleeding in inherited bleeding disorders are suggested, and their strength and limitations discussed.

Identifying appropriate outcomes to help evaluate the impact of the Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Non-Cancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian Guideline for Safe and Effective Use of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain (COG) was developed in response to increasing rates of opioid-related hospital visits and deaths in Canada, and uncertain benefits of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Following publication, we developed a list of evaluable outcomes to assess the impact of this guideline on practice and patient outcomes. METHODS: A working group at the National Pain Centre at McMaster University used a modified Delphi process to construct a list of clinical and patient outcomes important in assessing the uptake and application of the COG. An advisory group then reviewed this list to determine the relevance and feasibility of each outcome, and identified potential data sources. This feedback was reviewed by the National Faculty for the Guideline, and a National Advisory Group that included the creators of the COG, resulting in the final list of 5 priority outcomes. RESULTS: Five outcomes were judged clinically important and feasible to measure: 1) Effects of opioids for CNCP on quality of life, 2) Assessment of patient's risk of addiction before starting opioid therapy, 3) Monitoring patients on opioid therapy for aberrant drug-related behaviour, 4) Mortality rates associated with prescription opioid overdose and 5) Use of treatment agreements with patients before initiating opioid therapy for CNCP. Data sources for these outcomes included patient's medical charts, e-Opioid Manager, prescription monitoring programs and administrative databases. CONCLUSION: Measuring the impact of best practice guidelines is infrequently done. Future research should consider capturing the five outcomes identified in this study to evaluate the impact of the COG in promoting evidence-based use of opioids for CNCP.

Exploring factors associated with views on sharing of certain interim trial result measures by the data safety monitoring board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members.

BACKGROUND: Sharing interim result measures by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members is an important issue that can affect trial integrity. Currently, it is unclear if there are demographic factors associated with sharing such information. This study's objective is to primarily explore the demographic factors associated with the DSMB sharing certain interim result measures and secondarily, explore demographic factors associated with the perceived usefulness in sharing certain interim result measures, with non-DSMB members. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of members of the Society of Clinical Trials (SCT) and International Society of Clinical Biostatistics (ISCB) in 2015 asking their professional views on the DSMB sharing interim trial results, specifically the interim control event rate (IControlER), interim combined even rate (ICombinedER), adaptive conditional power (ACP) and unconditional conditional power (UCP) with non-DSMB members. Binary logistic and multiple linear regressions were used to explore if demographic factors were associated with sharing a certain interim result measure and the perceived usefulness of sharing that interim result measure, respectively. Multiple imputation (MI) was used to evaluate the impact of missing data as a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 3136 (936 from SCT + ~ 2200 from ISCB) members were invited (response rate of 12%; [371/3136]. Two main findings: (1) involvement in more than 15 private industry-sponsored trials was associated with not endorsing the sharing of the IControlER (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31, 6.52]; p = 0.012), and (2) involvement in more than 15 private industry-sponsored trials was associated positively with an increase in the perceived usefulness in sharing the ACP by 2.35 points (beta coefficient estimate = 2.35 [95% CI: 0.45, 4.05], p = 0.017. The findings were similar after sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: An individual involved with more than 15 trials that had some form of private industry sponsorship is a demographic factor associated with NOT sharing the IControlER by the DSMB and an increased perceived usefulness in sharing the ACP at interim. Further studies are needed to evaluate for these demographic factors given the limitations of this study related to missing data. Due to some key limitations, regarding high non-response and missing data, we caution interpreting the results as definitive, but rather look at them as a first exploratory step to find potential associations for further evaluation.

Survey of professional views on sharing interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB): what to share, with whom and why.

BACKGROUND: Sharing interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members is an issue that can affect trial integrity. It is unclear what should be shared. This study assesses the views of professionals to understand what interim information should be shared at interim, with whom and why. METHODS: Conducted an online survey of members of the Society of Clinical Trials (SCT) and International Society of Clinical Biostatistics (ISCB) in 2015 asking their professional views on sharing interim results. Email was used to advertise the survey and a link in the email was provided to the online survey. RESULTS: Approximately 3136 (936 SCT members + 2200 ISCB members) members were invited. The response rate was 12% (371/3136). The majority reported the Interim Control Event Rate (IControlER) (149/237; 62.9% [95% CI, 56.7-69.0%]), Adaptive Conditional Power (ACP) (144/224; 64.3% [95% CI, 58.0%-70.6%]) and the Unconditional Conditional Power (UCP) (126/208; 60.6% [95% CI, 53.9-67.2%]) should not be shared with non-DSMB members. The majority reported that the Interim Combined Event Rate (ICombinedER) (168/262; 64.1% [95% CI, 58.0-69.9%]) should be shared with non-DSMB members particularly the steering committee (SC) because it does not unmask interim results and helps with monitoring trial progress, safety, and design assumptions. CONCLUSION: The IControlER and ACP are unmasking of interim results and should not be shared. The UCP is a technical measure that is potentially misleading and also should not be shared. The ICombinedER is usually known by the SC and sponsor making it easy to determine group rates if the IControlER is known. Though most respondents thought the ICombinedER should be shared with the SC as it does not unmask relative effects between groups, we do not recommend sharing the ICombinedER as it is flawed measure that can have multiple interpretations possibly suggesting that one group is performing better, worse or the same as a comparator group, leading to guesses about how groups are doing relative to one another.

Agreement in reporting between trial publications and current clinical trial registry in high impact journals: A methodological review.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this systematic survey was to examine the percentage of studies in which there was agreement in the reporting of the primary outcome between the currently updated version of the clinical trial registry and the published paper. We also investigated the factors associated with agreement in reporting of the primary outcome. METHODS: We searched PubMed for all randomized control trials (RCT)s published in 2012-2015 in the top five general medicine journals (based on the 2014 impact factor). Two hundred abstracts (50 from each year) were randomly selected for data extraction. Agreement in reporting of 11 key study conduct items (e.g., sample size) and study characteristics (e.g., funding, number of sites) were extracted by two independent reviewers. ANALYSIS: Descriptive analyses were conducted to determine the proportion of studies on which there was agreement in reporting of key study conduct items. Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with agreement in reporting of the primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 200 included studies, 87% had agreement in reporting of the primary outcome. After adjusting for other covariates, having greater than 50 sites was associated with an increased likelihood of agreement in reporting of the primary outcome (odds ratio=7.1, 95% confidence interval=1.39, 36.27, p=0.018). CONCLUSIONS: We identified substantive disagreement in reporting between publications and current clinical trial registry, which were associated with several study characteristics. Further measures are needed to improve reporting given the potential threats to the quality and integrity of scientific research.

Sharing interim trial results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board with those responsible for the trial's conduct and progress: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Sharing interim data, results or result extrapolations is an important issue that can affect trial integrity. The different ways in which Data Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) share interim results with non-DSMB members and the acceptability of such practices are poorly understood. Our objective was to undertake a narrative review specifically on what kind of interim results, if any, should be shared by the DSMB with non-DSMB members and why. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review using a systematic search strategy of several databases and major health research stakeholders. Literature was included if there was some discussion within the full text about sharing interim trial results with non-DSMB members. RESULTS: About 79.6% (129/162) of included citations were based on author's views, 16.7% (27/162) on research guidelines and 3.7% (6/162) on surveys. The largest group of citations, 73/162 (45%), expresses the opinion or argument against sharing interim results with exceptions. Trailing closely, 71/162 (43.8%) of the included citations support the opinion or argument that interim results should not be shared and should remain confidential with the DSMB. Half of the six surveys support sharing in some capacity, while the other three do not. Eleven circumstances were found that potentially warrant interim result sharing by the DSMB; they relate to (1) usual practices by DSMBs, (2) trial completion threatened, (3) patient safety, (4) regulatory approval and (5) other circumstances. Dominant risks for sharing under these conditions are associated with introducing trial bias. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: There was no majority view in the literature. However, the largest group of citations included express the idea that interim results should remain confidential with the DSMB but also acknowledge circumstances when they could be shared with non-DSMB members. Limitations of this review are that (1) the included literature predominately provides personal perspectives, not evidence, and (2) surveys found globally focus on trial monitoring practices lacking detailed information on what specifically to share, with whom and why. More research is needed with the use of a detailed survey of the clinical trial community focused on DSMB sharing interim results, to better understand and guide DSMB interim result sharing practices.

Sharing some interim data in trial monitoring can mislead or unmask trial investigators: A scenario-based survey of trial experts.

BACKGROUND: Sharing masked interim results by the Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) with non-DSMB members is an important issue that can affect trial integrity. Our survey's objective is to collect evidence to understand how seemingly masked interim results or result extrapolations are interpreted and discuss whether these results should be shared at interim. METHODS: Conducted a 6 scenario-question survey asking trial experts how they interpreted three kinds of seemingly masked interim results or result extrapolation measures (interim combined event rate, adaptive conditional power and "unconditional" conditional power). RESULTS: Thirty-one current Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials group affiliates were invited for survey participation (February 2015). Response rate: 71.0% (22/31). About half, 52.6% (95% CI: 28.9%-74.0%), (10/19), correctly indicated that the interim combined event rate can be interpreted in three ways (drug X doing better than placebo, worse than placebo or the same) if shared at interim. The majority, 72.2% (95% CI: 46.5%-89.7%), (13/18), correctly indicated that the adaptive conditional power suggests relative treatment group effects. The majority, 53.3% (95% CI: 26.6%-77.0%), (8/15), incorrectly indicated that the "unconditional" conditional power suggests relative treatment group effects. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Knowledge of these three results or result extrapolation measures should not be shared outside of the DSMB at interim as they may mislead or unmask interim results, potentially introducing trial bias. For example, the interim combined event rate can be interpreted in one of three ways potentially leading to mistaken guesswork about interim results. Knowledge of the adaptive conditional power by non-DSMB members is telling of relative treatment effects thus unmasking of interim results.

Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine if the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)(1) extension for abstracts in 2008 had led to an improvement in reporting abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).(2) METHODS: We searched PubMed for RCTs published in 2007 and 2012 in top-tier general medicine journals. A random selection of 100 trial abstracts was obtained for each year. Data were extracted in duplicate on the adherence to the CONSORT extension for abstracts. The primary outcome was the mean number of items reported and the secondary outcome was the odds of reporting each item. We also estimated incidence rate ratios (IRRs).(3) RESULTS: Significantly more checklist items were reported in 2012 than in 2007: adjusted mean difference was 2.91 (95% confidence interval [CI](4) 2.35, 3.41; p<0.001). In 2012 there were significant improvements in reporting the study as randomized in the title, describing the trial design, the participants, and objectives and blinding. In the Results section, trial status and numbers analyzed were also reported better. The IRRs were significantly higher for 2012 (IRR 1.32; 95% CI 1.25, 1.39; p<0.001) and in multisite studies compared to single site studies (IRR 1.08; 95% CI 1.03, 1.15; p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant improvement in the reporting of abstracts of RCTs in 2012 compared to 2007. However, there is still room for improvement as some items remain under-reported.

A look at the potential association between PICOT framing of a research question and the quality of reporting of analgesia RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Methodologists have proposed the formation of a good research question to initiate the process of developing a research protocol that will guide the design, conduct and analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and help improve the quality of reporting such studies. Five constituents of a good research question based on the PICOT framing include: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Time-frame of outcome assessment. The aim of this study was to analyze if the presence a structured research question, in PICOT format, in RCTs used within a 2010 meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of femoral nerve blocks after total knee arthroplasty, is independently associated with improved quality of reporting. METHODS: Twenty-three RCT reports were assessed for the quality of reporting and then examined for the presence of the five constituents of a structured research question based on PICOT framing. We created a PICOT score (predictor variable), with a possible score between 0 and 5; one point for every constituent that was included. Our outcome variable was a 14 point overall reporting quality score (OQRS) and a 3 point key methodological items score (KMIS) based on the proper reporting of allocation concealment, blinding and numbers analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. Both scores, OQRS and KMIS, are based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement. A multivariable regression analysis was conducted to determine if PICOT score was independently associated with OQRS and KMIS. RESULTS: A completely structured PICOT score question was found in 2 of the 23 RCTs evaluated. Although not statistically significant, higher PICOT was associated with higher OQRS [IRR: 1.267; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.984, 1.630; p = 0.066] but not KMIS (1.061 (0.515, 2.188); 0.872). These results are comparable to those from a similar study in terms of the direction and range of IRRs estimates. The results need to be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that PICOT framing of a research question in anesthesia-related RCTs is not often followed. Even though a statistically significant association with higher OQRS was not found, PICOT framing of a research question is still an important attribute within all RCTs.

A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how.

BACKGROUND: Sensitivity analyses play a crucial role in assessing the robustness of the findings or conclusions based on primary analyses of data in clinical trials. They are a critical way to assess the impact, effect or influence of key assumptions or variations--such as different methods of analysis, definitions of outcomes, protocol deviations, missing data, and outliers--on the overall conclusions of a study.The current paper is the second in a series of tutorial-type manuscripts intended to discuss and clarify aspects related to key methodological issues in the design and analysis of clinical trials. DISCUSSION: In this paper we will provide a detailed exploration of the key aspects of sensitivity analyses including: 1) what sensitivity analyses are, why they are needed, and how often they are used in practice; 2) the different types of sensitivity analyses that one can do, with examples from the literature; 3) some frequently asked questions about sensitivity analyses; and 4) some suggestions on how to report the results of sensitivity analyses in clinical trials. SUMMARY: When reporting on a clinical trial, we recommend including planned or posthoc sensitivity analyses, the corresponding rationale and results along with the discussion of the consequences of these analyses on the overall findings of the study.

A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.

BACKGROUND: Reporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies. METHODS: We undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Our search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies. CONCLUSION: Reporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

The quality of reporting of RCTs used within a postoperative pain management meta-analysis, using the CONSORT statement.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are routinely used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses that help inform healthcare and policy decision making. The proper reporting of RCTs is important because it acts as a proxy for health care providers and researchers to appraise the quality of the methodology, conduct and analysis of an RCT. The aims of this study are to analyse the overall quality of reporting in 23 RCTs that were used in a meta-analysis by assessing 3 key methodological items, and to determine factors associated with high quality of reporting. It is hypothesized that studies with larger sample sizes, that have funding reported, that are published in journals with a higher impact factor and that are in journals that have adopted or endorsed the CONSORT statement will be associated with better overall quality of reporting and reporting of key methodological items. METHODS: We systematically reviewed RCTs used within an anesthesiology related post-operative pain management meta-analysis. We included all of the 23 RCTs used, all of which were parallel design that addressed the use of femoral nerve block in improving outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. Data abstraction was done independently by two reviewers. The two main outcomes were: 1) 15 point overall quality of reporting score (OQRS) based on the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and 2) 3 point key methodological item score (KMIS) based on allocation concealment, blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs were included. The median OQRS was 9.0 (Interquartile Range = 3). A multivariable regression analysis did not show any significant association between OQRS or KMIS and our four predictor variables hypothesized to improve reporting. The direction and magnitude of our results when compared to similar studies suggest that the sample size and impact factor are associated with improved key methodological item reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of reporting of RCTs used within an anesthesia related meta-analysis is poor to moderate. The information gained from this study should be used by journals to register the urgency for RCTs to be clear and transparent in reporting to help make literature accessible and comparable.

Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument.

BACKGROUND: The Internet is used increasingly by providers as a tool for disseminating pain-related health information and by patients as a resource about health conditions and treatment options. However, health information on the Internet remains unregulated and varies in quality, accuracy and readability. The objective of this study was to determine the quality of pain websites, and explain variability in quality and readability between pain websites. METHODS: Five key terms (pain, chronic pain, back pain, arthritis, and fibromyalgia) were entered into the Google, Yahoo and MSN search engines. Websites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument as a quality index. Grade level readability ratings were assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Algorithm. Univariate (using alpha = 0.20) and multivariable regression (using alpha = 0.05) analyses were used to explain the variability in DISCERN scores and grade level readability using potential for commercial gain, health related seals of approval, language(s) and multimedia features as independent variables. RESULTS: A total of 300 websites were assessed, 21 excluded in accordance with the exclusion criteria and 110 duplicate websites, leaving 161 unique sites. About 6.8% (11/161 websites) of the websites offered patients' commercial products for their pain condition, 36.0% (58/161 websites) had a health related seal of approval, 75.8% (122/161 websites) presented information in English only and 40.4% (65/161 websites) offered an interactive multimedia experience. In assessing the quality of the unique websites, of a maximum score of 80, the overall average DISCERN Score was 55.9 (13.6) and readability (grade level) of 10.9 (3.9). The multivariable regressions demonstrated that website seals of approval (P = 0.015) and potential for commercial gain (P = 0.189) were contributing factors to higher DISCERN scores, while seals of approval (P = 0.168) and interactive multimedia (P = 0.244) contributed to lower grade level readability, as indicated by estimates of the beta coefficients. CONCLUSION: The overall quality of pain websites is moderate, with some shortcomings. Websites that scored high using the DISCERN questionnaire contained health related seals of approval and provided commercial solutions for pain related conditions while those with low readability levels offered interactive multimedia options and have been endorsed by health seals.