1
|
Bdair F, Mangala S, Kashir I, Young Shing D, Price J, Shoaib M, Flood B, Nademi S, Thabane L, Madden K. The reporting quality and transparency of orthopaedic studies using Bayesian analysis requires improvement: A systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2023; 33:101132. [PMID: 37122488 PMCID: PMC10130591 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2023.101132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Revised: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 04/05/2023] [Indexed: 05/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Bayesian methods are being used more frequently in orthopaedics. To advance the use and transparent reporting of Bayesian studies, reporting guidelines have been recommended. There is currently little known about the use or applications of Bayesian analysis in orthopedics including adherence to recommended reporting guidelines. The objective is to investigate the reporting of Bayesian analysis in orthopedic surgery studies; specifically, to evaluate if these papers adhere to reporting guidelines. Methods We searched PUBMED to December 2nd, 2020. Two reviewers independently identified studies and full-text screening. We included studies that focused on one or more orthopaedic surgical interventions and used Bayesian methods. Results After full-text review, 100 articles were included. The most frequent study designs were meta-analysis or network meta-analysis (56%, 95% CI 46-65) and cohort studies (25%, 95% CI 18-34). Joint replacement was the most common subspecialty (33%, 95% CI 25-43). We found that studies infrequently reported key concepts in Bayesian analysis including, specifying the prior distribution (37-39%), justifying the prior distribution (18%), the sensitivity to different priors (7-8%), and the statistical model used (22%). In contrast, general methodological items on the checklists were largely well reported. Conclusions There is an opportunity to improve reporting quality and transparency of orthopaedic studies using Bayesian analysis by encouraging adherence to reporting guidelines such as ROBUST, JASP, and BayesWatch. There is an opportunity to better report prior distributions, sensitivity analyses, and the statistical models used.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faris Bdair
- Mathematical and Computational Science, Stanford University, USA
| | - Sophia Mangala
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Canada
- Research Institute of St. Joseph's Hamilton, Canada
| | - Imad Kashir
- Research Institute of St. Joseph's Hamilton, Canada
| | | | | | - Murtaza Shoaib
- Department of Molecular Biosciences, University of Kansas, USA
| | | | | | - Lehana Thabane
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Canada
- Research Institute of St. Joseph's Hamilton, Canada
| | - Kim Madden
- Research Institute of St. Joseph's Hamilton, Canada
- Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Canada
- Corresponding author. Department of Surgery, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, G841-50 Charlton Ave E, Hamilton, Ontario, L8L 4A6, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Panesar B, Soni D, Khan MI, Bdair F, Holek M, Tahir T, Woo J, Sanger N, Khumalo NP, Minuzzi L, Thabane L, Samaan Z. National suicide management guidelines recommending family-based prevention, intervention and postvention and their association with suicide mortality rates: systematic review. BJPsych Open 2022; 8:e54. [PMID: 35197148 PMCID: PMC8935913 DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2022.15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Suicidal behaviour remains a major public health concern and countries have responded by authoring guidelines to help mitigate death by suicide. Guidelines can include family-based recommendations, but evidence for the level and category of family-based involvement that is needed to effectively prevent suicide is unclear. AIMS To explore the association between family-based recommendations in guidelines and countries' crude suicide rates. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019130195. METHOD MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science and WHO MiNDbank databases and grey literature were searched within the past 20 years (1 January 2000 to 22 June 2020) for national guidelines giving family-based recommendations in any of three categories (prevention, intervention and postvention). RESULTS We included 63 guidelines from 46 countries. All identified guidelines included at least one family-based recommendation. There were no statistically significant differences seen between mean World Health Organization crude suicide rates for countries that included only one, two or all three categories of family-based recommendations. However, a lower spread of crude suicide rates was seen when guideline recommendations included all three categories (mean crude suicide rates for one category: 11.09 (s.d. = 5.71); for two categories: 13.42 (s.d. = 7.76); for three categories: 10.68 (s.d. = 5.20); P = 0.478). CONCLUSIONS Countries should work towards a comprehensive national suicide guideline that includes all categories of family-based recommendations. Countries with previously established guidelines should work towards the inclusion of evidence-based recommendations that have clear implementation plans to potentially help lower suicide rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Balpreet Panesar
- Neuroscience Graduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Divya Soni
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mohammed I Khan
- Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Faris Bdair
- Mathematical and Computational Science Undergraduate Program, Stanford University, California, USA
| | - Matthew Holek
- Health Sciences Undergraduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Talha Tahir
- Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julia Woo
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nitika Sanger
- Medical Science Graduate Program, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nonhlanhla P Khumalo
- Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital, and University of Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Luciano Minuzzi
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Centre for Evaluation of Medicines, Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zainab Samaan
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Khan MI, Mbuagbaw L, Holek M, Bdair F, Durrani ZH, Mellor K, Eddy S, Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Lancaster GA, Thabane L. Transparency of informed consent in pilot and feasibility studies is inadequate: a single-center quality assurance study. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2021; 7:96. [PMID: 33863400 PMCID: PMC8051114 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-021-00828-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2020] [Accepted: 03/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) often have complex objectives aimed at assessing feasibility of conducting a larger study. These may not be clear to participants in pilot studies. METHODS Here, we aimed to assess the transparency of informed consent in PAFS by investigating whether researchers communicate, through patient information leaflets and consent forms, key features of the studies. We collected this data from original versions of these documents submitted for ethics approval and the final approved documents for PAFS submitted to the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. RESULTS One hundred eighty-four PAFS, submitted for ethics approval from 2004 to 2020, were included, and we found that of the approved consent documents which were provided to participants, 83.2% (153) stated the terms "pilot" or "feasibility" in their title, 12% (22) stated the definition of a pilot/feasibility study, 42.4% (78) of the studies stated their intent to assess feasibility, 19.6% (36) stated the specific feasibility objectives, 1.6% (3) stated the criteria for success of the pilot study, and 0.5% (1) stated all five of these criteria. After ethics review, a small increase in transparency occurred, ranging from 1.6 to 2.8% depending on the criteria. By extracting data from the protocols of the PAFS, we found that 73.9% (136) stated intent to assess feasibility, 71.2% (131) stated specific feasibility objectives, and 33.7% (62) stated criteria for success of the study to lead to a larger study. CONCLUSION The transparency of informed consent in PAFS is inadequate and needs to be specifically addressed by research ethics guidelines. Research ethics boards and researchers ought to be made aware and mindful of best practices of informed consent in the context of PAFS.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed I.U. Khan
- Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
- University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario Canada
| | - Lawrence Mbuagbaw
- Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8 Canada
| | - Matthew Holek
- Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
| | - Faris Bdair
- Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
| | | | - Katie Mellor
- Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Saskia Eddy
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sandra M. Eldridge
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Claire L. Chan
- Institute of Population Health Sciences, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Michael J. Campbell
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire UK
| | - Christine M. Bond
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
| | - Sally Hopewell
- Oxford Clinical Trials Research Unit/Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Lehana Thabane
- Biostatistics Unit, St. Joseph’s Healthcare, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street W, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Holek M, Bdair F, Khan M, Walsh M, Devereaux P, Walter SD, Thabane L, Mbuagbaw L. Fragility of clinical trials across research fields: A synthesis of methodological reviews. Contemp Clin Trials 2020; 97:106151. [DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2020.106151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2020] [Revised: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 09/10/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
5
|
Panesar B, Soni D, Khan MI, Bdair F, Holek M, Tahir T, Woo J, Khumalo N, Thabane L, Samaan Z. National suicide management guidelines with family as an interv'ention and suicide mortality rates: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e034694. [PMID: 32690736 PMCID: PMC7375499 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034694] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Suicidal behaviour remains a major public health challenge worldwide. Several countries have developed national suicide guidelines aimed at raising awareness of and preventing deaths by suicide. One of the interventions often mentioned in these national guidelines is the involvement of family members as a protective factor in suicide prevention. However, the level or type of family involvement required to reduce suicidal behaviour is not well understood. Thus, in this systematic review, we seek to determine the effectiveness of family-based interventions as a suicide prevention tool, by comparing suicide mortality rates between countries whose national suicide prevention guidelines include family-based interventions and those whose do not. METHODS AND ANALYSIS MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and WHO MiNDbank databases as well as grey literature such as National Guideline Clearinghouse will be searched. National guidelines for suicide prevention published within the last 20 years (between 1999 and 2019) will be included. Results will be analysed using thematic and qualitative analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The findings of the study will help improve the efficacy of national suicide prevention strategies. Findings will be disseminated using easily accessible summary reports and resources to primary end users. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019130195).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Divya Soni
- McMaster University Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Mohammed I Khan
- Life Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Faris Bdair
- Blue Valley Southwest High School, Overland Park, Kansas, USA
| | - Matthew Holek
- Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Talha Tahir
- McMaster University Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Julia Woo
- University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nonhlanhla Khumalo
- Department of Medicine, Groote Schuur Hospital and the University of Cape Town, Observatory, Western Cape, South Africa
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics; Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, Centre for Evaluation of Medicines; Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health (PATH) Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Zainab Samaan
- Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences; Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Khan MI, Holek M, Bdair F, Mbuagbaw L, Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Lancaster GA, Thabane L. Assessing the transparency of informed consent in feasibility and pilot studies: a single-centre quality assurance study protocol. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e036226. [PMID: 32571863 PMCID: PMC7311004 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2019] [Revised: 03/20/2020] [Accepted: 05/07/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Pilot/feasibility studies assess the feasibility of conducting a larger study. Although researchers ought to communicate the feasibility objectives to their participants, many research ethics guidelines do not comment on how informed consent applies to pilot studies. It is unclear whether researchers and research ethics boards clearly communicate the purpose of pilot studies to participants consenting.The primary objective of this study is to assess whether pilot/feasibility studies submitted for ethics approval to a research ethics board transparently communicate the purpose of the study to participants through their informed consent practice. A highly transparent consent practice entails the consent documents communicate: (1) the term 'pilot' or 'feasibility' in the title; (2) the definition of a pilot/feasibility study; (3) the primary objectives of the study are to assess feasibility; (4) the specific feasibility objectives; and (5) the criteria for the study to successfully lead to the main study. The secondary objectives are to assess whether there is a difference between submitted and revised versions of the consent documents (revisions are made to obtain research ethics approval), to determine factors associated with transparent consent practices and to assess the consistency with which pilot and feasibility studies assess feasibility outcomes as their primary objectives. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This is a retrospective review of informed consent information for pilot/feasibility studies submitted to the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, Canada. We will look at submitted and revised consent documents for pilot/feasibility studies submitted over a 14-year period. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise data, reporting results as percentages with 95% CIs, and conduct logistic regression to determine characteristics associated with transparent consent practices. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study protocol was approved by the Hamilton integrated Research Ethics Board, and the results of this study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammed I Khan
- Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthew Holek
- Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Faris Bdair
- Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lawrence Mbuagbaw
- Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Sandra M Eldridge
- Barts and The London Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Claire L Chan
- Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Michael J Campbell
- School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Christine M Bond
- Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Sally Hopewell
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
| | - Gillian A Lancaster
- School of Primary, Community and Social Care; Keele Clinical Trials Unit, Keele University, Newcastle under Lyme, UK
| | - Lehana Thabane
- Biostatistics Unit, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|