Impact of A-Scan Rate on Image Quality and Acquisition Time in OCT.

PURPOSE: This study aims to examine the impact of the A-scan rate in optical coherence tomography (OCT) on scan quality and acquisition time. METHODS: Two horizontal OCT scans per scan rate (20, 85, 125 kHz) of the right eye were captured with the same OCT device (Spectralis SHIFT, HRA + OCT, Heidelberg Engineering GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany) of patients who presented to the inherited retinal dystrophies consultation, thus predominantly challenging patients due to reduced fixation ability. Scan quality was measured by the Q score, a signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR). Acquisition time was measured in seconds. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were included in the study. The highest quality was seen for an A-scan rate of 20 kHz (44.49 dB), succeeded by scans of an A-Scan rate of 85 kHz (38.53 dB) and of 125 kHz (36.65 dB). Differences in scan quality between the various A-scan rates were statistically significant. The acquisition time seen for an A-scan rate of 20 kHz (6.45 s) was significantly longer than those seen for an A-Scan rate of 85 kHz (1.51 s) and of 125 kHz (1.69 s). CONCLUSION: An A-scan rate of 20 kHz resulted in a significantly higher scan quality but also a significantly longer acquisition time compared to scan rates of 85 kHz and 125 kHz. Differences between an A-scan rate of 85 kHz and 125 kHz were marginal.

Assessment of Clinical Information Quality in Digital Health Technologies: International eDelphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. OBJECTIVE: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. METHODS: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. RESULTS: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. CONCLUSIONS: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057430.

Clinical use of ivabradine in the acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of current evidence.

Heart rate (HR) lowering during acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is beneficial as it reduces myocardial oxygen consumption. However, the role of ivabradine as an HR-lowering agent in the setting of ACS is not clear. We aimed to systematically review and synthesize the current evidence on the role of ivabradine use in the ACS. A systematic review was conducted for eligible randomized clinical trials and quasi-experimental studies, between 2009 and 2020, that investigated the use of ivabradine in ACS. Various clinical endpoints were evaluated such as major adverse cardiovascular events, efficacy in HR control, impact on left ventricular (LV) dimensions and function, and overall safety. Eleven publications were included encompassing a total of 1833 patients. The mean age of the examined cohort was 57 ± 11 years and 80 % were men. Seven studies were in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (MI) while the remaining studies also included patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation MI. Ivabradine was administered as a peroral drug with dosing from 2.5 to 7.5 mg b.i.d. Overall, the addition of ivabradine was superior to the control arm concerning HR control with a good safety profile. Beneficial effects on LV function and potential impact on infarct size reduction were observed as well. The use of ivabradine appeared to not affect short-term mortality. In conclusion, the use of ivabradine for HR control is safe, feasible, and efficacious for HR control in the ACS. Further studies are required to elucidate other potentially beneficial effects of ivabradine.

Definitions of blinding in randomised controlled trials of interventions published in high-impact anaesthesiology journals: a methodological study and survey of authors.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the completeness of reporting of blinding in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions in anaesthesiology, the actual blinding status of various persons associated with an RCT and trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology related to RCTs. METHODS: This was a methodological study and a cross-sectional survey. We analysed reporting related to blinding in published RCTs of interventions published in seven highly cited anaesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016 and registered protocols in ClinicalTrials.gov. We surveyed corresponding authors of included RCTs about their definitions of blinding. The primary outcome was the number of RCTs that explicitly described who was blinded in a trial. Secondary outcomes were definitions of blinding terminology in the trials; trial authors' interpretation of blinding terminology; discrepancies in the blinding description within registered protocols and between registered protocols and publications. RESULTS: Out of 622 analysed RCTs, 38% were not explicitly described as either open label or blinded studies and 10% did not report any information about blinding or lack of blinding. Only one manuscript fully reported the status of blinding for various individuals that may be involved with a trial. The most common descriptor was that a trial was double-blind. We found discrepant information regarding blinding in the majority of registered protocols. Even when there were no discrepancies in the registration, we found discrepancies in the reporting of blinding between the majority of registered protocols and published manuscripts. The survey of authors (40 responses from 231 eligible authors; 17% response rate) of analysed RCTs showed that they differed in how they defined different levels of blinding in trials. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of the blinding status of key individuals involved in analysed anaesthesiology RCTs was insufficient. For reporting guidelines, peer reviewers and editors should insist on clear information on who was blinded in a trial instead of using the term 'double-blind' for different blinding practices.

Suicide prevention and depression apps' suicide risk assessment and management: a systematic assessment of adherence to clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: There are an estimated 800,000 suicides per year globally, and approximately 16,000,000 suicide attempts. Mobile apps may help address the unmet needs of people at risk. We assessed adherence of suicide prevention advice in depression management and suicide prevention apps to six evidence-based clinical guideline recommendations: mood and suicidal thought tracking, safety plan development, recommendation of activities to deter suicidal thoughts, information and education, access to support networks, and access to emergency counseling. METHODS: A systematic assessment of depression and suicide prevention apps available in Google Play and Apple's App Store was conducted. Apps were identified by searching 42matters in January 2019 for apps launched or updated since January 2017 using the terms "depression," "depressed," "depress," "mood disorders," "suicide," and "self-harm." General characteristics of apps, adherence with six suicide prevention strategies identified in evidence-based clinical guidelines using a 50-question checklist developed by the study team, and trustworthiness of the app based on HONcode principles were appraised and reported as a narrative review, using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 2690 potentially relevant apps. Sixty-nine apps met inclusion criteria and were systematically assessed. There were 20 depression management apps (29%), 3 (4%) depression management and suicide prevention apps, and 46 (67%) suicide prevention apps. Eight (12%) depression management apps were chatbots. Only 5/69 apps (7%) incorporated all six suicide prevention strategies. Six apps (6/69, 9%), including two apps available in both app stores and downloaded more than one million times each, provided an erroneous crisis helpline number. Most apps included emergency contact information (65/69 apps, 94%) and direct access to a crisis helpline through the app (46/69 apps, 67%). CONCLUSIONS: Non-existent or inaccurate suicide crisis helpline phone numbers were provided by mental health apps downloaded more than 2 million times. Only five out of 69 depression and suicide prevention apps offered all six evidence-based suicide prevention strategies. This demonstrates a failure of Apple and Google app stores, and the health app industry in self-governance, and quality and safety assurance. Governance levels should be stratified by the risks and benefits to users of the app, such as when suicide prevention advice is provided.

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Highest Ranking Journals in the Field of Pain.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are important for making clinical recommendations and guidelines. We analyzed methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs published in the top-ranking anesthesiology journals. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. SRs published from 2005 to 2015 in the first quartile journals within the Journal Citation Reports category Anesthesiology were analyzed based on the Journal Citation Reports impact factor for year 2014. Each SR was assessed by 2 independent authors using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) tools. Total score (median and interquartile range, IQR) on checklists, temporal trends in total score, correlation in total scores between the 2 checklists, and variability of those results between journals were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 446 SRs were included. Median total score of AMSTAR was 6/11 (IQR: 4-7) and of PRISMA 18.5/27 (IQR: 15-22). High compliance (reported in over 90% SRs) was found in only 1 of 11 AMSTAR and 5 of 27 PRISMA items. Low compliance was found for the majority of AMSTAR and PRISMA individual items. Linear regression indicated that there was no improvement in the methodological and reporting quality of SRs before and after the publication of the 2 checklists (AMSTAR: F(1,8) = 0.22; P = .65, PRISMA: F(1,7) = 0.22; P = .47). Total scores of AMSTAR and PRISMA had positive association (R = 0.71; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Endorsement of PRISMA in instructions for authors was not a guarantee of compliance. Methodological and reporting quality of pain-related SRs should be improved using relevant checklists. This can be remedied by a joint effort of authors, editors, and peer reviewers.