D Moher’s research while affiliated with Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and other places

Les données de santé collectées en routine et obtenues à des fins administratives et cliniques sans objectifs de recherche spécifiques a priori, sont de plus en plus utilisées pour la recherche. L'évolution rapide et la disponibilité de ces données ont révélé des problèmes qui ne sont pas abordés dans les outils d’évaluation existantes, tel que STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology). RECORD (REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data) a été développé pour combler ces lacunes. RECORD représente une extension de STROBE pour évaluer des éléments spécifiques aux études observationnelles en utilisant des données de santé collectées en routine. RECORD propose une liste de 13 éléments à évaluer concernant le titre, le résumé, l'introduction, les méthodes, les résultats et la section discussion des articles, ainsi que d'autres informations requises pour établir la qualité des études rapportées dans ces articles. Cet article méthodologique présente la liste des éléments d’évaluation ainsi que des informations explicatives pour réaliser et interpréter les évaluations. Des exemples sont également proposés pour chaque élément de la liste d’évaluation. Cet article présente une version en Français de l’outil d’évaluation RECORD. Accompagné de son site Internet (http://www.record-statement.org) son objectif est une large diffusion de l’outil d’évaluation RECORD pour faciliter sa mise en œuvre. Grâce à RECORD, les auteurs, les éditeurs de revues et les évaluateurs d’articles (c.-à-d., évaluation par les pairs) peuvent promouvoir la transparence des articles rapportant des études observationnelles originales à partir des données de santé collectées en routine.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018. METHODS: We followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010. RESULTS: The CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention. CONCLUSIONS: Authors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions.

BACKGROUND: The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently. METHODS: Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram. RESULTS: CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website (www.consort-statement.org) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.

Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. Results One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why. OBJECTIVE: To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2. METHODS: The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus. CONCLUSIONS: GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence.

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist as well as explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will improve the implementation and understanding of RECORD. By implementing RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can enhance transparency of research reporting.

Background Delirium is characterized by acute changes in mental status including inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness, and is highly prevalent in critically ill adults. Delirium has adverse consequences for both patients and the healthcare system; however, at this time, no effective treatment exists. The identification of effective prevention strategies is therefore a clinical and research imperative. An important limitation of previous reviews of delirium prevention is that interventions were considered in isolation and only direct evidence was used. Our systematic review will synthesize all existing data using network meta-analysis, a powerful statistical approach that enables synthesis of both direct and indirect evidence. Methods We will search Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from 1980 to March 2016. We will search the PROSPERO registry for protocols and the Cochrane Library for published systematic reviews. We will examine reference lists of pertinent reviews and search grey literature and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We will include randomized and quasi-randomized trials of critically ill adults evaluating any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or multi-component intervention for delirium prevention, administered in or prior to (i.e., peri-operatively) transfer to the ICU. Two authors will independently screen search results and extract data from eligible studies. Risk of bias assessments will be completed on all included studies. To inform our network meta-analysis, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses for primary and secondary outcomes using random-effects models. We will generate our network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework, assuming a common heterogeneity parameter across all comparisons, and accounting for correlations in multi-arm studies. We will perform analyses using WinBUGS software. DiscussionThis systematic review will address the existing knowledge gap regarding best practices for delirium prevention in critically ill adults by synthesizing evidence from trials of pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions administered in or prior to transfer to the ICU. Use of network meta-analysis will clarify which delirium prevention strategies are most effective in improving clinical outcomes while causing least harm. The network meta-analysis is a novel approach and will provide knowledge users and decision makers with comparisons of multiple interventions of delirium prevention strategies. Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016036313

Nonpharmacological treatments include a wide variety of treatments such as surgery, technical procedures, implantable and non-implantable devices, rehabilitation, psychotherapy, and behavioral interventions. Unlike pharmacological treatments, these have no specific requirements for approval. Consequently, they can be widely proposed in clinical practice but may not have been adequately evaluated. This situation is an important barrier for the evaluation of the beneficial effects of these treatments and the conduct of clinical trials. Randomized Clinical Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatments focuses on the methods for assessing nonpharmacological treatments, highlighting specific issues and trial design. Features: Chapters written by international experts in the field. Highlights specific issues in assessing nonpharmacological treatments in trials including: how to overcome the difficulties of blinding patients, care providers, and outcome assessors. the complexity of the intervention, the learning curve, and the clustering effect. placebos that can be used. issues of assessing harm and assessing the applicability of trials. Presents a variety of trial designs for nonpharmacological treatments-including cluster randomized controlled trials, expertise-based trials, pragmatic trials, and nonrandomized trials. Provides several examples of the planning, conduct, analyses, and reporting of trials in different fields, including surgery, technical interventions, medical devices, rehabilitation, psychotherapy, and behavioral interventions. Providing practical examples that underline these issues and solutions, this book is one of the first to exclusively explore this topic, discussing various categories of treatments, from surgical procedures to psychotherapy.