Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices

Many claims about the effects of treatments, though well intentioned, are wrong. Indeed, they are sometimes deliberately misleading to serve interests other than the well-being of patients and the public. People need to know how to spot unreliable treatment claims so that they can protect themselves and others from harm. The ability to assess the trustworthiness of treatment claims is often lacking. Acquiring this ability depends on being familiar with, and correctly applying, some key concepts, for example, that' association is not the same as causation.' The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Project has identified 36 such concepts and shown that people can be taught to use them in decision making. A randomised trial in Uganda, for example, showed that primary school children with poor reading skills could be taught to apply 12 of the IHC Key Concepts. The list of IHC Key Concepts has proven to be effective in providing a framework for developing and evaluating IHC resources to help children to think critically about treatment claims. The list also provides a framework for retrieving, coding and organising other teaching and learning materials for learners of any age. It should help teachers, researchers, clinicians, and patients to structure critical thinking about the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects.

Catalogue of bias: observer bias

This article is part of a series featured from the Catalogue of Bias introduced in this volume of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine that describes biases and outlines their potential impact in research studies. Observer bias is systematic discrepancy from the truth during the process of observing and recording information for a study. Many healthcare observations are at risk of this bias. Evidence shows that treatment effect estimates can be exaggerated by a third to two-thirds in the presence of observer bias in outcome assessment. Preventing observer bias involves proper masking in intervention studies including the use of matched placebo interventions where appropriate and training of observers to make assessment consistent and reduce biases resulting from conscious or unconscious prejudices. Where observers are involved in a research study, it is probably not possible for the study to be entirely free of observer biases.

Catalogue of bias: allocation bias

This article is part of a series of articles featuring the Catalogue of Bias introduced in this volume of BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine that describes allocation bias and outlines its potential impact on research studies and the preventive steps to minimise its risk. Allocation bias is a type of selection bias and is relevant to clinical trials of interventions. Knowledge of interventions prior to group allocation can result in systematic differences in important characteristics that could influence study findings. Allocation bias can overestimate effect size by up to 30%-40%. Sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes; containers; pharmacy-controlled randomisation and central computer randomisation are methods to minimise allocation bias.

Ten essential papers for the practice of evidence-based medicine

In this article we signpost readers to 10 papers we consider essential reading for anyone starting out on an evidence-based medicine journey. We have considered papers consisting a mix of old and new, seminal and cutting-edge that offer insight into what evidence-based medicine is, where it came from, why it matters and what it has achieved. This is balanced against some of the common criticisms of evidence-based medicine and efforts to tackle them. We have also highlighted papers acknowledging the importance of teaching and learning of the principles of evidence-based medicine and how health professionals can better use evidence in clinical decisions with patients.

Impact of heterogeneity and effect size on the estimation of the optimal information size: analysis of recently published meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of systematic reviews that meet the optimal information size (OIS) and assess the impact heterogeneity and effect size have on the OIS estimate by type of outcome (eg, mortality, semiobjective or subjective).

METHODS

We carried out searches of Medline and Cochrane to retrieve meta-analyses published in systematic reviews from 2010 to 2012. We estimated the OIS using Trial Sequential Analysis software (TSA V.0.9) and based on several heterogeneity and effect size scenarios, stratifying by type of outcome (mortality/semiobjective/subjective) and by Cochrane/non-Cochrane reviews.

RESULTS

We included 137 meta-analyses out of 218 (63%) potential systematic reviews (one meta-analysis from each systematic review). Of these reviews, 83 (61%) were Cochrane and 54 (39%) non-Cochrane. The Cochrane reviews included a mean of 6.5 (SD 6.1) studies and the non-Cochrane included a mean of 13.2 (SD 10.2) studies. The mean number of patients was 2619.1 (SD 6245.8 or median 586.0) for the Cochrane and 19 888.5 (SD 32 925.7 or median 6566.5) patients for the non-Cochrane reviews. The percentage of systematic reviews that achieved the OIS for all-cause mortality outcome were 0% Cochrane and 25% for non-Cochrane reviews; for semiobjective outcome 17% for Cochrane and 46% for non-Cochrane reviews and for subjective outcome 45% for Cochrane and 72% for non-Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of systematic reviews that meet an optimal information size is low and varies depending on the type of outcome and the type of publication. Less than half of primary outcomes synthesised in systematic reviews achieve the OIS, and therefore the conclusions are subject to substantial uncertainty.

Pharmaceutical companies' policies on access to trial data, results, and methods: audit study

Objectives To identify the policies of major pharmaceutical companies on transparency of trials, to extract structured data detailing each companies' commitments, and to assess concordance with ethical and professional guidance.Design Structured audit.Setting Pharmaceutical companies, worldwide.Participants 42 pharmaceutical companies.Main outcome measures Companies' commitments on sharing summary results, clinical study reports (CSRs), individual patient data (IPD), and trial registration, for prospective and retrospective trials.Results Policies were highly variable. Of 23 companies eligible from the top 25 companies by revenue, 21 (91%) committed to register all trials and 22 (96%) committed to share summary results; however, policies commonly lacked timelines for disclosure, and trials on unlicensed medicines and off-label uses were only included in six (26%). 17 companies (74%) committed to share the summary results of past trials. The median start date for this commitment was 2005. 22 companies (96%) had a policy on sharing CSRs, mostly on request: two committed to share only synopses and only two policies included unlicensed treatments. 22 companies (96%) had a policy to share IPD; 14 included phase IV trials (one included trials on unlicensed medicines and off-label uses). Policies in the exploratory group of smaller companies made fewer transparency commitments. Two companies fell short of industry body commitments on registration, three on summary results. Examples of contradictory and ambiguous language were documented and summarised by theme. 23/42 companies (55%) responded to feedback; 7/1806 scored policy elements were revised in light of feedback from companies (0.4%). Several companies committed to changing policy; some made changes immediately.Conclusions The commitments made by companies to transparency of trials were highly variable. Other than journal submission for all trials within 12 months, all elements of best practice were met by at least one company, showing that these commitments are realistic targets.

Cardiovascular disease risk and prevention amongst Syrian refugees: mixed methods study of Médecins Sans Frontières programme in Jordan

Background

The growing burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) presented new challenges for medical humanitarian aid and little was known about primary health care approaches for these diseases in humanitarian response. We aimed to evaluate Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF’s) use of total CVD risk based prevention strategies amongst Syrian refugees in northern Jordan to identify opportunities to improve total CVD risk based guidance for humanitarian settings.

Methods

We evaluated CVD risk assessment and management in two outpatient NCD clinics in the Irbid governorate of Jordan using a mixed methods design with qualitative and quantitative strands of equal priority, integrated during data collection and interpretation. World Health Organisation/International Society of Hypertension (WHO/ISH) CVD risk charts requiring measured cholesterol were used in the clinics and in our analysis. An electronic database of routine clinical information was used to determine the CVD risk profile of the clinic population, the pattern and concordance of lipid-lowering treatment prescriptions, and the prevalence and accuracy of documented CVD risk scores. This was combined with semi-structured interviews with MSF health workers, which were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed thematically.

Results

We reviewed the clinical records of 2907 patients. One fifth (20.9%; 95% CI 19.5, 22.4) of patients had a history of CVD while 56.8% (95% CI 54.9, 58.6) of patients had a WHO/ISH risk of <10%. Only 23.3% (95% CI 21.9, 25.0) of patients had a documented WHO/ISH risk score of which 65% were correct. 60.4% (95% CI 58.6, 62.2) of patients were eligible for lipid-lowering treatment and 48.3% (95% CI 45.9, 50.6) of these patients were prescribed it. Analysis of interviews with sixteen MSF staff identified nine explanatory themes. Providers had confusion about when and how to use the risk charts, tended to favour lifestyle intervention over drug treatment, and had uncertainty about the role of lipid-lowering treatment in primary but not secondary prevention. Patients were reluctant to start, stop, or change medication and were less able to modify risk factors and benefit from health education because of their social and economic context.

Conclusions

Four priority areas to improve CVD risk-based guidance for prevention in humanitarian settings include: practical training for health workers on total CVD risk assessment and associated guidance; supporting the use of CVD risk charts as a communication tool and task sharing; contextualising risk scoring in a broader, single consultation, total CVD risk-based algorithm; and targeting popular health myths amongst the community.

A real-world approach to Evidence-Based Medicine in general practice: a competency framework derived from a systematic review and Delphi process

BACKGROUND

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) skills have been included in general practice curricula and competency frameworks. However, GPs experience numerous barriers to developing and maintaining EBM skills, and some GPs feel the EBM movement misunderstands, and threatens their traditional role. We therefore need a new approach that acknowledges the constraints encountered in real-world general practice. The aim of this study was to synthesise from empirical research a real-world EBM competency framework for general practice, which could be applied in training, in the individual pursuit of continuing professional development, and in routine care. We sought to integrate evidence from the literature with evidence derived from the opinions of experts in the fields of general practice and EBM.

METHODS

We synthesised two sets of themes describing the meaning of EBM in general practice. One set of themes was derived from a mixed-methods systematic review of the literature; the other set was derived from the further development of those themes using a Delphi process among a panel of EBM and general practice experts. From these two sets of themes we constructed a real-world EBM competency framework for general practice.

RESULTS

A simple competency framework was constructed, that acknowledges the constraints of real-world general practice: (1) mindfulness - in one's approach towards EBM itself, and to the influences on decision-making; (2) pragmatism - in one's approach to finding and evaluating evidence; and (3) knowledge of the patient - as the most useful resource in effective communication of evidence. We present a clinical scenario to illustrate how a GP might demonstrate these competencies in their routine daily work.

CONCLUSION

We have proposed a real-world EBM competency framework for general practice, derived from empirical research, which acknowledges the constraints encountered in modern general practice. Further validation of these competencies is required, both as an educational resource and as a strategy for actual practice.

Self-Management Support Using a Digital Health System Compared With Usual Care for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a digital health system supporting clinical care through monitoring and self-management support in community-based patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a fully automated Internet-linked, tablet computer-based system of monitoring and self-management support (EDGE' sElf-management anD support proGrammE) in improving quality of life and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We compared daily use of EDGE with usual care for 12 months. The primary outcome was COPD-specific health status measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for COPD (SGRQ-C).

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients were randomized (110 EDGE, 56 usual care). All patients were included in an intention to treat analysis. The estimated difference in SGRQ-C at 12 months (EDGE-usual care) was -1.7 with a 95% CI of -6.6 to 3.2 (P=.49). The relative risk of hospital admission for EDGE was 0.83 (0.56-1.24, P=.37) compared with usual care. Generic health status (EQ-5D, EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire) between the groups differed significantly with better health status for the EDGE group (0.076, 95% CI 0.008-0.14, P=.03). The median number of visits to general practitioners for EDGE versus usual care were 4 versus 5.5 (P=.06) and to practice nurses were 1.5 versus 2.5 (P=.03), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The EDGE clinical trial does not provide evidence for an effect on COPD-specific health status in comparison with usual care, despite uptake of the intervention. However, there appears to be an overall benefit in generic health status; and the effect sizes for improved depression score, reductions in hospital admissions, and general practice visits warrants further evaluation and could make an important contribution to supporting people with COPD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 40367841; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN40367841 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pmfIJ9KK).

Effect of Oral Dexamethasone Without Immediate Antibiotics vs Placebo on Acute Sore Throat in Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Acute sore throat poses a significant burden on primary care and is a source of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Corticosteroids could be an alternative symptomatic treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of oral corticosteroids for acute sore throat in the absence of antibiotics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial (April 2013-February 2015; 28-day follow-up completed April 2015) conducted in 42 family practices in South and West England, enrolled 576 adults recruited on the day of presentation to primary care with acute sore throat not requiring immediate antibiotic therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Single oral dose of 10 mg of dexamethasone (n = 293) or identical placebo (n = 283).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary: proportion of participants experiencing complete resolution of symptoms at 24 hours. Secondary: complete resolution at 48 hours, duration of moderately bad symptoms (based on a Likert scale, 0, normal; 6, as bad as it could be), visual analog symptom scales (0-100 mm; 0, no symptom to 100, worst imaginable), health care attendance, days missed from work or education, consumption of delayed antibiotics or other medications, adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 565 eligible participants who were randomized (median age, 34 years [interquartile range, 26.0-45.5 year]; 75.2% women; 100% completed the intervention), 288 received dexamethasone; 277, placebo. At 24 hours, 65 participants (22.6%) in the dexamethasone group and 49 (17.7%) in the placebo group achieved complete resolution of symptoms, for a risk difference of 4.7% (95% CI, -1.8% to 11.2%) and a relative risk of 1.28 (95% CI; 0.92 to 1.78; P = .14). At 24 hours, participants receiving dexamethasone were not more likely than those receiving placebo to have complete symptom resolution. At 48 hours, 102 participants (35.4%) in the dexamethasone group vs 75 (27.1%) in the placebo group achieved complete resolution of symptoms, for a risk difference of 8.7% (95% CI, 1.2% to 16.2%) and a relative risk of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.68; P = .03). This difference also was observed in participants not offered delayed antibiotic prescription, for a risk difference of 10.3% (95% CI, 0.6% to 20.1%) and a relative risk of 1.37 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.87; P = .046). There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults presenting to primary care with acute sore throat, a single dose of oral dexamethasone compared with placebo did not increase the proportion of patients with resolution of symptoms at 24 hours. However, there was a significant difference at 48 hours.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN17435450.

Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients' perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.

Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients' perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.

The effect of grapefruits (Citrus paradisi) on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for or against the effectiveness of grapefruits (Citrus paradisi) on body weight, blood pressure, and lipid profile. Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, and the Cochrane Clinical Trials databases to identify relevant human randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Hand searches of bibliographies were also conducted. Only overweight and obese subjects were included. The reporting quality was assessed using the CONSORT checklist, and the strength of the overall body of evidence was rated based on the GRADE criteria. One hundred and fifty four citations were identified and three RCTs with a total of 250 participants were included. The RCTs were of moderate quality. A meta-analysis for change in body weight failed to reveal a significant difference between grapefruits and controls, MD: -0.45 kg (95% CI: -1.06 to 0.16; I² = 53%, but analysis revealed a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure, MD: -2.43 mmHg (95% CI: -4.77 to -0.09; I² = 0%). Paucity in the number of RCTs, short durations of interventions, and lack of an established minimum effective dose limit the conclusions that can be drawn about the effects of grapefruit on body weight and metabolic parameters. Further clinical trials evaluating the effects of grapefruit are warranted.

Digital health system for personalised COPD long-term management

Background

Recent telehealth studies have demonstrated minor impact on patients affected by long-term conditions. The use of technology does not guarantee the compliance required for sustained collection of high-quality symptom and physiological data. Remote monitoring alone is not sufficient for successful disease management. A patient-centred design approach is needed in order to allow the personalisation of interventions and encourage the completion of daily self-management tasks.

Methods

A digital health system was designed to support patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in self-managing their condition. The system includes a mobile application running on a consumer tablet personal computer and a secure backend server accessible to the health professionals in charge of patient management. The patient daily routine included the completion of an adaptive, electronic symptom diary on the tablet, and the measurement of oxygen saturation via a wireless pulse oximeter.

Results

The design of the system was based on a patient-centred design approach, informed by patient workshops. One hundred and ten patients in the intervention arm of a randomised controlled trial were subsequently given the tablet computer and pulse oximeter for a 12-month period. Patients were encouraged, but not mandated, to use the digital health system daily. The average used was 6.0 times a week by all those who participated in the full trial. Three months after enrolment, patients were able to complete their symptom diary and oxygen saturation measurement in less than 1 m 40s (96% of symptom diaries). Custom algorithms, based on the self-monitoring data collected during the first 50 days of use, were developed to personalise alert thresholds.

Conclusions

Strategies and tools aimed at refining a digital health intervention require iterative use to enable convergence on an optimal, usable design. ‘Continuous improvement’ allowed feedback from users to have an immediate impact on the design of the system (e.g., collection of quality data), resulting in high compliance with self-monitoring over a prolonged period of time (12-month). Health professionals were prompted by prioritisation algorithms to review patient data, which led to their regular use of the remote monitoring website throughout the trial.

Trial registration

Trial registration: ISRCTN40367841. Registered 17/10/2012.

Telemonitoring and/or self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension (TASMINH4): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background

Self-monitoring of hypertension is associated with lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, evidence for the use of self-monitoring to titrate antihypertensive medication by physicians is equivocal. Furthermore, there is some evidence for the efficacy of telemonitoring in the management of hypertension but it is not clear what this adds over and above self-monitoring. This trial aims to evaluate whether GP led antihypertensive titration using self-monitoring results in lower SBP compared to usual care and whether telemonitoring adds anything to self-monitoring alone.

Methods/Design

This will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-monitoring of BP with or without telemonitoring compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care, self-monitoring alone, or self-monitoring with telemonitoring. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in clinic SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP, gender, BP target and practice. At least 1110 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-monitoring with or without telemonitoring and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power with an adjusted alpha of 0.017 (2-sided) to adjust for all three pairwise comparisons. Other outcomes will include adherence of anti-hypertensive medication, lifestyle behaviours, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. An economic analysis will consider both within trial costs and a model extrapolating the results thereafter. A qualitative sub study will gain insights into the views, experiences and decision making processes of patients and health care professionals focusing on the acceptability of self-monitoring and telemonitoring in the routine management of hypertension.

Discussion

The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-monitoring of BP in people with hypertension would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 83571366. Registered 17 July 2014