Evidence-Based Transfusion Medicine or the Need to Evaluate Clinical Outcome

Author(s):  
J. Th. M. de Wolf
Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Przemysław Kunert ◽  
Łukasz Przepiórka ◽  
Jan Fortuniak ◽  
Karol Wiśniewski ◽  
Ernest Jan Bobeff ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In the early days of neurosurgery, extradural haemorrhages (EDHs) contributed to a high mortality rate after craniotomies. Almost a century ago, Walter Dandy reported dural tenting sutures as an effective way to prevent postoperative EDH. Over time, his technique gained in popularity and significance to finally become a neurosurgical standard. Yet, several retrospective reports and one prospective report have questioned the ongoing need for dural tenting sutures. Dandy’s explanation that the haemostasis observed under hypotensive conditions is deceiving and eventually causes EDH may be obsolete. Today, proper intra- and postoperative care, including maintenance of normovolemia and normotension and the use of modern haemostatic agents, may be sufficient for effective haemostasis. Thus, there is a fundamental need to evaluate the necessity of dural tenting sutures in a solid, unbiased, evidence-based manner. Methods This study is designed as a randomised, multicentre, double-blinded, controlled interventional trial with 1:1 allocation. About one half of the participants will undergo craniotomy without dural tenting sutures and will be considered an intervention group. The other half will undergo craniotomy with these sutures. Both groups will be followed clinically and radiologically. The primary outcome is reoperation due to extradural haematoma. Secondary outcomes aim to evaluate the impact of dural tenting sutures on mortality, readmission risk, postoperative headaches, size of extradural collection, cerebrospinal fluid leak risk and the presence of any new neurological deficit. The study protocol follows the SPIRIT 2013 statement. Discussion It is possible that many neurosurgeons around the globe are tenting the dura in elective craniotomies which brings no benefit and only extends the operation. Unfortunately, there is not enough data to support or reject this technique in modern neurosurgery. This is the first study that may produce strong, evidence-based recommendations on using dural tenting sutures. Trial registration, ethics and dissemination The Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of Warsaw approved the study protocol (KB/106/2018). The trial is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03658941) on September 6, 2018. The findings of this trial will be submitted to a peer-reviewed neurosurgical journal. Abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international conferences. Trial status Protocol version and date: version 1.5, 14.01.2020 First recruitment: September 7, 2018 Estimated recruitment completion: September 1, 2021


2009 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 616-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam R. Habib ◽  
Michael J. Solomon ◽  
Jane M. Young ◽  
Bruce K. Armstrong ◽  
Dianne O'Connell ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Skye P. Barbic ◽  
Stefan J. Cano

Clinical outcome assessment (COA) in mental health is essential to inform patient-centred care and clinical decision-making. In this chapter, the reader is introduced to COA as it is evolving in the field of mental health. Multiple approaches to COA are presented, but emphasis is placed on approaches that generate clinically meaningful data. Understanding COA can position clinicians and stakeholders to better evaluate their own practice and to contribute to the ongoing evolution of COA research and evidence-based medicine. This chapter begins with the definitions of assessment and measurement. Conceptual frameworks and models of COA development and testing are then presented. These are followed by a discussion of measurement in practice that reviews measurement issues related to clinical decision-making, programme evaluation, and clinical trials. Finally, this chapter highlights the contribution of metrology to improving health outcomes of individuals who experience mental health disorders.


2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. e4.137-e4
Author(s):  
Jeremy Hobart ◽  
Sophie Cleanthous ◽  
John Zajieck ◽  
Stefan Cano

BackgroundNeurology clinical trials frequently use clinical outcome assessment instruments (COAs) as outcome measures. We question the extent to which measurement limitations of COAs contribute to clinical trials failures in Alzheimer's disease.ObjectivesWe conducted a series of literature reviews to: identify the concepts assessed in AD clinical trials, and how these concepts were defined and measured; identify which COAs have been used in AD clinical trials, and on which grounds they were selected. We examined published measurement properties of COAs used in AD clinical trials in accordance with FDA guidance.ResultsA set of literature reviews identified >6500 publications from PUBMED/EMBASE inception. In the extracted 850 articles, 984 uniquely named concepts were assessed and 1283 COAs were used. However, few trials provided definitions of the concepts they measured; very different COAs were used to measure the same (named) concepts; the same COAs were used to measure different concepts; COA selection was rarely justified or evidence-based. Further reviews of COA development papers (n=174) indicated most fail to meet recommended criteria.ConclusionsFindings imply substantial measurement confusion in AD clinical trials and suggest they have provided weak evaluations of treatment effectiveness. Findings were replicated in Parkinson's disease (n366 articles).


2017 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 641-663 ◽  
Author(s):  
Satoshi Yasumura ◽  
Shigeyoshi Makino ◽  
Masanori Matsumoto ◽  
Takehiro Kono ◽  
Shuichi Kino ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0242811
Author(s):  
Andrea N. Christoforou ◽  
Melissa J. Armstrong ◽  
Michael J. G. Bergin ◽  
Ann Robbins ◽  
Shannon A. Merillat ◽  
...  

Introduction The high failure rate of clinical trials in traumatic brain injury (TBI) may be attributable, in part, to the use of untested or insensitive measurement instruments. Of more than 1,000 clinical outcome assessment measures (COAs) for TBI, few have been systematically vetted to determine their performance within specific “contexts of use (COU).” As described in guidance issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the COU specifies the population of interest and the purpose for which the COA will be employed. COAs are commonly used for screening, diagnostic categorization, outcome prediction, and establishing treatment effectiveness. COA selection typically relies on expert consensus; there is no established methodology to match the appropriateness of a particular COA to a specific COU. We developed and pilot-tested the Evidence-Based Clinical Outcome assessment Platform (EB-COP) to systematically and transparently evaluate the suitability of TBI COAs for specific purposes. Methods and findings Following a review of existing literature and published guidelines on psychometric standards for COAs, we developed a 6-step, semi-automated, evidence-based assessment platform to grade COA performance for six specific purposes: diagnosis, symptom detection, prognosis, natural history, subgroup stratification and treatment effectiveness. Mandatory quality indicators (QIs) were identified for each purpose using a modified Delphi consensus-building process. The EB-COP framework was incorporated into a Qualtrics software platform and pilot-tested on the Glasgow Outcome Scale—Extended (GOSE), the most widely-used COA in TBI clinical studies. Conclusion The EB-COP provides a systematic methodology for conducting more precise, evidence-based assessment of COAs by evaluating performance within specific COUs. The EB-COP platform was shown to be feasible when applied to a TBI COA frequently used to detect treatment effects and can be modified to address other populations and COUs. Additional testing and validation of the EB-COP are warranted.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document