MINIMAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE TO INFORM PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming an integral part of healthcare decision making. Clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines incorporate them to learn about the effect of medical interventions in patients’ health status, without interference or mediation from clinicians or proxies. The use of these types of measures, however, is not without challenges. In particular, the complexity of the PROMs makes it difficult for patients, clinicians, and researchers to fully grasp the extent to which a treatment effect is negligible or trivial, small but important, moderate, or large. One of the most documented ways to address this issue is the use of the minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change in a PROM, either beneficial or harmful, that patients would perceive as important. A patient-oriented way to determine this threshold is the estimation of an anchor-based MID, where PROM results are compared against an external independent criterion the anchor that is in itself understandable and relevant for patients. This dissertation is an effort to facilitate the identification, evaluation, and utilization of MID estimates for PROMs. First, this thesis describes the development and reliability assessment of a new instrument to determine the credibility of primary studies ascertaining MID estimates, Second, it describes the conduct of a systematic survey to inform the creation of an inventory of all available anchor-based MIDs in the medical literature until 2015. Third, it reports an analysis of the state of the art of current MID estimates from a reporting and credibility perspective. Finally, this work concludes with a summary of the main results, presentation of strengths and limitations, and insights related to the implications for future research.DissertationDoctor of Philosophy (PhD

Population health and public health: Commonalities and differences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the synergy between population health and public health by initiating a discourse about their interconnected roles, responsibilities, and approaches in achieving optimal health outcomes. OVERVIEW: Population health and public health, although distinct, are interconnected disciplines critical for enhancing health outcomes. Population health focuses on analyzing health determinants and outcomes within specific groups, employing data to guide targeted interventions and policies. Public health, on the other hand, prioritizes broader preventive measures and community-wide interventions to safeguard health. Both fields benefit from a transdisciplinary approach that integrates strategies to address and improve health. Such integration is essential for addressing health disparities and improving the efficiency of health systems. By combining the analytical strengths of population health with the implementation capabilities of public health, a more comprehensive framework can be developed. These collaborations will not only enhance the effectiveness of health programs but also promote health equity by leveraging collective expertise and resources. They will facilitate the development of interventions that are both preventive and responsive, capable of addressing the upstream determinants of health and the immediate needs of communities. Such transdisciplinary efforts were demonstrated within the oral health field during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The synergy between population and public health can lead to robust health outcomes, fostering comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention strategies. By aligning research, practices, and policies, these integrated approaches will transcend traditional boundaries within the healthcare sector to build efficient health systems

Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE: The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P < .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. CONCLUSIONS: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol

Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis:An Analysis of Systematic Reviews

Detection and diagnosis of caries—typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations—is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future “real world” context.</p

Minimal important changes in standard deviation units are highly variable and no universally applicable value can be determined

[Objectives] This study aims to describe the distribution of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC) estimates in standard deviation (SD) units and examine if the robustness of such estimates depends on the specific SD used or on the methodological credibility of the anchor-based estimates. [Design and Setting] We included all anchor-based MIC estimates from studies published in MEDLINE and relevant literature databases upto October 2018. Each MIC was converted to SD units using baseline, endpoint, and change from baseline SDs. We performed a descriptive analysis of MICs in SD units and checked how the distribution would change if MICs with low methodological credibility were excluded from the analysis. [Results] We included 1, 009 MIC estimates from 182 studies. The medians and interquartile ranges of MICs in SD units were 0.43 (0.25 to 0.69), 0.42 (0.22 to 0.70), and 0.51 (0.28 to 0.78) for baseline, endpoint, and change SD units, respectively. Some MICs were extremely large or small. The distribution did not change significantly after excluding MICs estimated by less credible methods. [Conclusions] The size of the universally applicable MIC in SD units could not be determined. Anchor-based MICs in SD units were widely distributed, with more than half in the range of 0.2 to 0.8

Enamel Caries Detection and Diagnosis: An Analysis of Systematic Reviews

Detection and diagnosis of caries-typically undertaken through a visual-tactile examination, often with supporting radiographic investigations-is commonly regarded as being broadly effective at detecting caries that has progressed into dentine and reached a threshold where restoration is necessary. With earlier detection comes an opportunity to stabilize disease or even remineralize the tooth surface, maximizing retention of tooth tissue and preventing a lifelong cycle of restoration. We undertook a formal comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of different technologies to detect and inform the diagnosis of early caries using published Cochrane systematic reviews. Forming the basis of our comparative analysis were 5 Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews evaluating fluorescence, visual or visual-tactile classification systems, imaging, transillumination and optical coherence tomography, and electrical conductance or impedance technologies. Acceptable reference standards included histology, operative exploration, or enhanced visual assessment (with or without tooth separation) as appropriate. We conducted 2 analyses based on study design: a fully within-study, within-person analysis and a network meta-analysis based on direct and indirect comparisons. Nineteen studies provided data for the fully within-person analysis and 64 studies for the network meta-analysis. Of the 5 technologies evaluated, the greatest pairwise differences were observed in summary sensitivity points for imaging and all other technologies, but summary specificity points were broadly similar. For both analyses, the wide 95% prediction intervals indicated the uncertainty of future diagnostic accuracy across all technologies. The certainty of evidence was low, downgraded for study limitations, inconsistency, and indirectness. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy for most technologies indicate that the degree of certitude with which a decision is made regarding the presence or absence of disease may be enhanced with the use of such devices. However, given the broad prediction intervals, it is challenging to predict their accuracy in any future "real world" context

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for the Pharmacologic Management of Acute Dental Pain in Adolescents, Adults, and Older Adults: A Report From the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania

Background. A panel convened by the American Dental Association Science and Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh, and the University of Pennsylvania conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses and formulated evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacologic management of acute dental pain after simple and surgical tooth extraction(s) and for the temporary management (ie, definitive dental treatment not immediately available) of toothache associated with pulp and periapical diseases in adolescents, adults, and older adults. Types of Studies Reviewed. The panel conducted 4 systematic reviews to determine the effect of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, local anesthetics, corticosteroids, and topical anesthetics on acute dental pain. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision Framework to formulate recommendations. Results. The panel formulated recommendations and good practice statements using the best available evidence. There is a beneficial net balance favoring the use of nonopioid medications compared with opioid medications. In particular, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone or in combination with acetaminophen likely provide superior pain relief with a more favorable safety profile than opioids. Conclusions and Practical Implications. Nonopioid medications are first-line therapy for managing acute dental pain after tooth extraction(s) and the temporary management of toothache. The use of opioids should be reserved for clinical situations when the first-line therapy is insufficient to reduce pain or there is contraindication of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Clinicians should avoid the routine use of just-in-case prescribing of opioids and should exert extreme caution when prescribing opioids to adolescents and young adults

Minimally important difference estimates and methods: A protocol

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID determination. No study or database currently exists that provides all anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments; nor are there any accepted standards for appraising the credibility of MID estimates. Our objectives are to complete a systematic survey of the literature to collect and characterise published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in evaluating the effects of interventions on chronic medical and psychiatric conditions and to assess their credibility. Methods and analysis: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (1989 to present) to identify studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs of target PRO instruments or reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs. Teams of two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts of citations, and extract relevant data. On the basis of findings from studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs, we will summarise the available methods and develop an instrument addressing the credibility of empirically ascertained MIDs. We will evaluate the credibility of all studies reporting on the empirical ascertainment of anchorbased MIDs using the credibility instrument, and assess the instrument's inter-rater reliability. We will separately present reports for adult and paediatric populations. Ethics and dissemination: No research ethics approval was required as we will be using aggregate data from published studies. Our work will summarise anchor-based methods available to establish MIDs, provide an instrument to assess the credibility of available MIDs, determine the reliability of that instrument, and provide a comprehensive compendium of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments which will help improve the interpretability of outcome effects in systematic reviews and practice guidelines

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Objectives: Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). Study Design and Setting: We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. Results: We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Conclusion: SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe