05 / Reporting of conflicts of interest in clinical practice guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Objective Rating tissue irritability has been recommended to aid decision making in several recent clinical practice guidelines. An explicit method for rating tissue irritability was proposed as part of the Staged Algorithm for Rehabilitation Classification: Shoulder Disorders (STAR-Shoulder), but the reliability and validity of this classification are unknown. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and concurrent validity of shoulder tissue irritability ratings as part of a system designed to guide appropriate treatment strategy and intensity. Methods A clinical measurement, prospective repeated-measures cross-sectional design was used. The 101 consecutive participants with primary complaints of shoulder pain were assessed by pairs of blinded raters (24 raters in total) and rated for tissue irritability. Patients completed 3 patient-rated outcome (PRO) measures reflecting both pain and disability, and these scores were compared with ratings of tissue irritability. Paired ratings of irritability were analyzed for reliability with prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted Kappa for ordinal scales (PABAK-OS). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare PRO measures across different levels of irritability. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was utilized to derive cut-off scores for 3 PRO instruments. Results Interrater reliability was 0.69 (95% CI = 0.59–0.78), with 67% agreement. All PRO measures were significantly different among 3 levels of tissue irritability. Conclusion There appear to be acceptable reliability and a strong relationship between PRO measures and therapist-rated tissue irritability, supporting the use of the STAR-Shoulder irritability rating system. Impact Several clinical practice guidelines have recommended that clinicians rate tissue irritability as part of their examination. This study provides important new information supporting the reliability and validity of the STAR-Shoulder tissue irritability rating system.

Download Full-text

Antimicrobial Use Control Measures to Prevent and Control Antimicrobial Resistance in US Hospitals

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1086/507963 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 27 (10) ◽

pp. 1088-1095 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

Alan J. Zillich ◽

Jason M. Sutherland ◽

Stephen J. Wilson ◽

Daniel J. Diekema ◽

Erika J. Ernst ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Antimicrobial Resistance ◽

Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽

Practice Guidelines ◽

Veterans Affairs ◽

Control Measures ◽

Antimicrobial Use ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Term Care ◽

Recommended Practices

Objective.Clinical practice guidelines and recommended practices to control use of antibiotics have been published, but the effect of these practices on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) rates in hospitals is unknown. The objective of this study was to examine relationships between antimicrobial use control strategies and AMR rates in a national sample of US hospitals.Design.Cross-sectional, stratified study of a nationally representative sample of US hospitals.Methods.A survey instrument was sent to the person responsible for infection control at a sample of 670 US hospitals. The outcome was current prevalences of 4 epidemiologically important, drug-resistant pathogens, considered concurrently: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci, ceftazidime-resistant Klebsiella species, and quinolone (ciprofloxacin)-resistant Escherichia coli Five independent variables regarding hospital practices were selected from the survey: the extent to which hospitals (1) implement practices recommended in clinical practice guidelines and ensure best practices for antimicrobial use, (2) disseminate information on clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial use, (3) use antimicrobial-related information technology, (4) use decision support tools, and (5) communicate to prescribers about antimicrobial use. Control variables included the hospitals' number of beds, teaching status, Veterans Affairs status, geographic region, and number of long-term care beds; and the presence of an intensive care unit, a burn unit, or transplant services. A generalized estimating equation modeled all resistance rates simultaneously to identify overall predictors of AMR levels at the facility.Results.Completed survey instruments were returned by 448 hospitals (67%). Four antimicrobial control measures were associated with higher prevalence of AMR. Implementation of recommended practices for antimicrobial use (P< .01) and optimization of the duration of empirical antibiotic prophylaxis (P<.01) were associated with a lower prevalence of AMR. Use of restrictive formularies (P = .05) and dissemination of clinical practice guideline information (P<.01) were associated with higher prevalence of AMR. Number of beds and Veterans Affairs status were also associated with higher AMR rates overall.Conclusions.Implementation of guideline-recommended practices to control antimicrobial use and optimize the duration of empirical therapy appears to help control AMR rates in US hospitals. A longitudinal study would confirm the results of this cross-sectional study. These results highlight the need for systems interventions and reengineering to ensure more-consistent application of guideline-recommended measures for antimicrobial use.

Download Full-text