Multifactorial intervention to reduce falls in older people at high risk of recurrent falls a randomized controlled trial

Background: Falls occur frequently in older people and strongly affect quality of life. Guidelines recommend multifactorial, targeted fall prevention. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention in older persons with a high risk of recurrent falls. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted from April 3, 2005, to July 21, 2008, at the geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital and regional general practices in the Netherlands. Of 2015 persons identified, 217 persons aged 65 years or older were selected to participate. They had a high risk of recurrent falls and no cognitive impairment and had visited the emergency department or their family physician after a fall. The geriatric assessment and intervention were aimed at reduction of fall risk factors. Primary outcome measures were time to first and second falls after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were fractures, activities of daily living, quality of life, and physical performance. Results: Within 1 year, 55 (51.9%) of the 106 intervention participants and 62 (55.9%) of the 111 usual care (control) participants fell at least once. No significant treatment effect was demonstrated for the time to first fall (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.37) or the time to second fall (1.13; 0.71-1.80). Similar results were obtained for secondary outcome measures and for perprotocol analysis. One intervention participant died vs 7 in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.21). Conclusion: This multifactorial fall-prevention program does not reduce falls in high-risk, cognitively intact older persons. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN11546541

Physical and Cognitive Functioning After 3 Years Can Be Predicted Using Information From the Diagnostic Process in Recently Diagnosed Multiple Sclerosis

Objective\ud To predict functioning after 3 years in patients with recently diagnosed multiple sclerosis (MS).\ud \ud Design\ud Inception cohort with 3 years of follow-up. At baseline, predictors were obtained from medical history taking, neurologic examination, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).\ud \ud Setting\ud Neurology outpatient clinic.\ud \ud Participants\ud Patients with MS (N=156); 146 with complete follow-up.\ud \ud Interventions\ud Not applicable.\ud \ud Main Outcome Measures\ud Inability to walk at least 500m, impaired dexterity, cognitive impairments, incontinence, inability to drive a car or use public transportation, social dysfunction, and reliance on a disability pension.\ud \ud Results\ud Clinical prediction rules were constructed for the models that were well calibrated (sufficient agreement between predicted and observed outcomes, based on visual inspection of calibration curves) and that showed sufficient discrimination (area under the receiver operation characteristic curve >.70) after internal bootstrap validation. The models for the inability to walk at least 500m, impaired dexterity, and cognitive impairments were well calibrated. Discrimination was sufficient for all 7 models, except the one predicting social dysfunction (.67). The inability to walk at least 500m was predicted by the perceived ability to walk, impairment of the cerebellar tract, and the number of MRI lesions in the spinal cord. Impaired dexterity was predicted by the perceived ability to use the hands, impairments of the pyramidal, cerebellar, and sensory tracts, and the T2-weighted infratentorial lesion load. Cognitive impairment was predicted by age, gender, the perceived ability to concentrate, and the T2-weighted supratentorial lesion load.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Inability to walk at least 500m, impaired dexterity, and cognitive impairments can be predicted with predictors that are derived from medical history taking, neurologic examination, and MRI shortly after a definite diagnosis of MS has been made.\ud \u

Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies

PURPOSE: To evaluate quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 in journals with impact factor of at least 4 by using items of Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) statement published later in 2003. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English-language articles on primary diagnostic accuracy studies in 2000 were identified with validated search strategy in MEDLINE. Articles published in journals with impact factor of 4 or higher that regularly publish articles on diagnostic accuracy were selected. Two independent reviewers evaluated quality of reporting by using STARD statement, which consists of 25 items and encourages use of a flow diagram. Total STARD score for each article was calculated by summing number of reported items. Subgroup analyses were performed for study design (case-control or cohort study) by using Student t tests for continuous outcomes and chi(2) tests for dichotomous outcomes. RESULTS: Included were 124 articles published in 2000 in 12 journals: 33 case-control and 91 cohort studies. Only 41% of articles (51 of 124) reported on more than 50% of STARD items, while no articles reported on more than 80%. A flow chart was presented in two articles. Assessment of reporting on individual items of STARD statement revealed wide variation, with some items described in 11% of articles and others in 92%. Mean STARD score (0-25 points available) was 11.9 (range, 3.5-19.5). Mean difference in STARD score between cohort studies and case-control studies was 1.53 (95% confidence interval: 0.24, 2.82). CONCLUSION: Quality of reporting in diagnostic accuracy articles published in 2000 is less than optimal, even in journals with high impact factor. Authors, editors, and reviewers should pay more attention to reporting by checking STARD statement items and including a flow diagram to represent study design and patient flow. Supplemental material: radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2352040507/DC1 (c) RSNA, 200

Improving the Action Research Arm test: a unidimensional hierarchical scale

The Action Research Arm (ARA) test is a performance test of upper extremity motor function which consists of 19 items divided into four hierarchical subtests. This multidimensionality has not yet been tested empirically. To investigate the dimensionality of the ARA test. Cross-sectional study involving a sample of 63 chronic stroke patients. A Mokken scale analysis was performed. The Mokken scale analysis revealed one strong unidimensional scale containing all 19 items, of which the scalability coefficient H was 0.79, while H per item ranged from 0.69 to 0.86. The reliability coefficient rho equalled 0.98, indicating a very high internal consistency. A subset of 15 out of 19 items showed an invariant hierarchical item-ordering. The ARA test is a unidimensional scale. The use of subtests, as proposed in the original description of the instrument, is not supported by the present findings. The 15-item scale presented here can be used for adaptive testing, i.e. using only a selected subset of items based on prior knowledge about the patient's abilities, thus minimizing testing tim

Publication Bias in Laboratory Animal Research: A Survey on Magnitude, Drivers, Consequences and Potential Solutions

Contains fulltext : 109229.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)CONTEXT: Publication bias jeopardizes evidence-based medicine, mainly through biased literature syntheses. Publication bias may also affect laboratory animal research, but evidence is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To assess the opinion of laboratory animal researchers on the magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions for publication bias. And to explore the impact of size of the animals used, seniority of the respondent, working in a for-profit organization and type of research (fundamental, pre-clinical, or both) on those opinions. DESIGN: Internet-based survey. SETTING: All animal laboratories in The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Laboratory animal researchers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Median (interquartile ranges) strengths of beliefs on 5 and 10-point scales (1: totally unimportant to 5 or 10: extremely important). RESULTS: Overall, 454 researchers participated. They considered publication bias a problem in animal research (7 (5 to 8)) and thought that about 50% (32-70) of animal experiments are published. Employees (n = 21) of for-profit organizations estimated that 10% (5 to 50) are published. Lack of statistical significance (4 (4 to 5)), technical problems (4 (3 to 4)), supervisors (4 (3 to 5)) and peer reviewers (4 (3 to 5)) were considered important reasons for non-publication (all on 5-point scales). Respondents thought that mandatory publication of study protocols and results, or the reasons why no results were obtained, may increase scientific progress but expected increased bureaucracy. These opinions did not depend on size of the animal used, seniority of the respondent or type of research. CONCLUSIONS: Non-publication of "negative" results appears to be prevalent in laboratory animal research. If statistical significance is indeed a main driver of publication, the collective literature on animal experimentation will be biased. This will impede the performance of valid literature syntheses. Effective, yet efficient systems should be explored to counteract selective reporting of laboratory animal research

Steps toward preregistration of research on research integrity

Abstract Background A proposal to encourage the preregistration of research on research integrity was developed and adopted as the Amsterdam Agenda at the 5th World Conference on Research Integrity (Amsterdam, 2017). This paper reports on the degree to which abstracts of the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity (Hong Kong, 2019) reported on preregistered research. Methods Conference registration data on participants presenting a paper or a poster at 6th WCRI were made available to the research team. Because the data set was too small for inferential statistics this report is limited to a basic description of results and some recommendations that should be considered when taking further steps to improve preregistration. Results 19% of the 308 presenters preregistered their research. Of the 56 usable cases, less than half provided information on the six key elements of the Amsterdam Agenda. Others provided information that invalidated their data, such as an uninformative URL. There was no discernable difference between qualitative and quantitative research. Conclusions Some presenters at the WCRI have preregistered their research on research integrity, but further steps are needed to increase frequency and completeness of preregistration. One approach to increase preregistration would be to make it a requirement for research presented at the World Conferences on Research Integrity.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/174042/1/41073_2021_Article_108.pd