Does sensory relearning improve tactile function after carpal tunnel decompression? A pragmatic, assessor-blinded, randomized clinical trial

Despite surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) being effective in 80-90% of cases, chronic numbness and hand disability can occur. The aim of this study was to investigate whether sensory relearning improves tactile discrimination and hand function after decompression. In a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomized, controlled trial, 104 patients were randomized to sensory relearning (n=52) or control (n=52) group. 93 patients completed 12 week follow-up. Primary outcome was the Shape-Texture Identification (STI) test at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes were touch threshold, touch localisation, dexterity and self-reported hand function. No significant group differences were seen for the primary outcome (STI) at 6 weeks or 12 weeks. Similarly, no significant group differences were observed on secondary outcomes, with the exception of self-reported hand function. A secondary Complier-Averaged-CausalEffects (CACE) analysis showed no statistically significant treatment effect on the primary outcome. Sensory relearning for tactile sensory and functional deficits after carpal tunnel decompression is not effective

Is there evidence for accelerated polyethylene wear in uncemented compared to cemented acetabular components? A systematic review of the literature

Joint arthroplasty registries show an increased rate of aseptic loosening in uncemented acetabular components as compared to cemented acetabular components. Since loosening is associated with particulate wear debris, we postulated that uncemented acetabular components demonstrate a higher polyethylene wear rate than cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. We performed a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, comparing the wear rate in uncemented and cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. Studies were identified using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Study quality was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The search resulted in 425 papers. After excluding duplicates and selection based on title and abstracts, nine studies were found eligible for further analysis: two randomised controlled trials, and seven observational studies. One randomised controlled trial found a higher polyethylene wear rate in uncemented acetabular components, while the other found no differences. Three out of seven observational studies showed a higher polyethylene wear in uncemented acetabular component fixation; the other four studies did not show any differences in wear rates. The available evidence suggests that a higher annual wear rate may be encountered in uncemented acetabular components as compared to cemented components

Blinded Outcome Assessment Was Infrequently Used and Poorly Reported in Open Trials

Objective Unblinded outcome assessment can lead to biased estimates of treatment effect in randomised trials. We reviewed published trials to assess how often blinded assessment is used, and whether its use varies according to the type of outcome or assessor. Design and setting A review of parallel group, individually randomised phase III trials published in four general medical journals (BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) in 2010. Main outcome measures Whether assessment of the primary outcome was blinded, and whether this differed according to outcome or assessor type. Results We identified 258 eligible trials. Of these, 106 (41%) were reported as double-blind, and 152 (59%) as partially or fully open-label (that is, they included some groups who were unblinded, such as patients, those delivering the intervention, or those in charge of medical care). Of the 152 open trials, 125 required outcome assessment. Of these 125 trials, only 26% stated that outcome assessment was blinded; 51% gave no information on whether assessment was blinded or not. Furthermore, 18% of trials did not state who performed the assessment. The choice of outcome type (e.g. instrument measured, rated, or naturally occurring event) did not appear to influence whether blinded assessment was performed (range 24-32% for the most common outcome types). However, the choice of outcome assessor did influence blinding; independent assessors were blinded much more frequently (71%) than participant (5%) or physician (24%) assessors. Despite this, open trials did not use independent assessors any more frequently than double-blind trials (17% vs. 18% respectively). Conclusions Blinding of outcome assessors is infrequently used and poorly reported. Increased use of independent assessors could increase the frequency of blinded assessment

Functional recovery is considered the most important target: a survey of dedicated professionals

Background: The aim of this study was to survey the relative importance of postoperative recovery targets and perioperative care items, as perceived by a large group of international dedicated professionals. Methods: A questionnaire with eight postoperative recovery targets and 13 perioperative care items was mailed to participants of the first international Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) congress and to authors of papers with a clear relevance to ERAS in abdominal surgery. The responders were divided into categories according to profession and region. Results: The recovery targets ‘To be completely free of nausea’, ‘To be independently mobile’ and ‘To be able to eat and drink as soon as possible’ received the highest score irrespective of the responder's profession or region of origin. Equally, the care items ‘Optimizing fluid balance’, ‘Preoperative counselling’ and ‘Promoting early and scheduled mobilisation’ received the highest score across all groups. Conclusions: Functional recovery, as in tolerance of food without nausea and regained mobility, was considered the most important target of recovery. There was a consistent uniformity in the way international dedicated professionals scored the relative importance of recovery targets and care items. The relative rating of the perioperative care items was not dependent on the strength of evidence supporting the items

Reducing bias in open-label trials where blinded outcome assessment is not feasible: strategies from two randomised trials

Background Blinded outcome assessment is recommended in open-label trials to reduce bias, however it is not always feasible. It is therefore important to find other means of reducing bias in these scenarios. Methods We describe two randomised trials where blinded outcome assessment was not possible, and discuss the strategies used to reduce the possibility of bias. Results TRIGGER was an open-label cluster randomised trial whose primary outcome was further bleeding. Because of the cluster randomisation, all researchers in a hospital were aware of treatment allocation and so could not perform a blinded assessment. A blinded adjudication committee was also not feasible as it was impossible to compile relevant information to send to the committee in a blinded manner. Therefore, the definition of further bleeding was modified to exclude subjective aspects (such as whether symptoms like vomiting blood were severe enough to indicate the outcome had been met), leaving only objective aspects (the presence versus absence of active bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract confirmed by an internal examination). TAPPS was an open-label trial whose primary outcome was whether the patient was referred for a pleural drainage procedure. Allowing a blinded assessor to decide whether to refer the patient for a procedure was not feasible as many clinicians may be reluctant to enrol patients into the trial if they cannot be involved in their care during follow-up. Assessment by an adjudication committee was not possible, as the outcome either occurred or did not. Therefore, the decision pathway for procedure referral was modified. If a chest x-ray indicated that more than a third of the pleural space filled with fluid, the patient could be referred for a procedure; otherwise, the unblinded clinician was required to reach a consensus on referral with a blinded assessor. This process allowed the unblinded clinician to be involved in the patient’s care, while reducing the potential for bias. Conclusions When blinded outcome assessment is not possible, it may be useful to modify the outcome definition or method of assessment to reduce the risk of bias

The Harris hip score: Do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?: A systematic review

The Harris hip score (HHS), a disease-specific health status scale that is frequently used to measure the outcome of total hip arthroplasty, has never been validated properly. A questionnaire is suitable only when all 5 psychometric properties are of sufficient quality. We questioned the usefulness of the HHS by investigating its content validity. We performed a systematic review based on a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for descriptive studies published in 2007. 54 studies (59 patient groups) met our criteria and were included in the data analysis. To determine the content validity, we calculated the ceiling effect (percentage) for each separate study and we pooled data to measure the weighted mean. A subanalysis of indications for THA was performed to differentiate the populations for which the HHS would be suitable and for which it would not. A ceiling effect of 15% or less was considered to be acceptable. Over half the studies (31/59) revealed unacceptable ceiling effects. Pooled data across the studies included (n = 6,667 patients) suggested ceiling effects of 20% (95%CI: 18-22). Ceiling effects were greater (32%, 95%CI:12-52) in those patients undergoing hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Although the Harris hip score is widely used in arthroplasty research on outcomes, ceiling effects are common and these severely limit its validity in this field of researc