Whole Grain Consumption and Inflammatory Markers: A Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Control Trials

Whole grain foods are rich in nutrients, dietary fibre, a range of antioxidants, and phytochemicals, and may have potential to act in an anti-inflammatory manner, which could help impact chronic disease risk. This systematic literature review aimed to examine the specific effects of whole grains on selected inflammatory markers from human clinical trials in adults. As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) protocol, the online databases MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched from inception through to 31 August 2021. Randomized control trials (RCTs) ≥ 4 weeks in duration, reporting ≥1 of the following: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF), were included. A total of 31 RCTs were included, of which 16 studies recruited overweight/obese individuals, 12 had pre-existing conditions, two were in a healthy population, and one study included participants with prostate cancer. Of these 31 RCTs, three included studies with two intervention arms. A total of 32 individual studies measured CRP (10/32 were significant), 18 individual studies measured IL-6 (2/18 were significant), and 13 individual studies measured TNF (5/13 were significant). Most often, the overweight/obese population and those with pre-existing conditions showed significant reductions in inflammatory markers, mainly CRP (34% of studies). Overall, consumption of whole grain foods had a significant effect in reducing at least one inflammatory marker as demonstrated in 12/31 RCTs.

Need for including Hand Eye Coordination and Hand Function Training in the Management of Adhesive Capsulitis – A non-randomized control trial

Objectives: The objective of the study was to identify the effect of Maitland mobilization with hand-eye coordination and hand function exercises in the prognosis of adhesive capsulitis. Methods: This non-randomized control trial was done with 40 patients with adhesive capsulitis referred to the OPD at UCA College of Physiotherapy, Chennai. The study was performed for 8 months duration from August 2018 to March 2019. After providing a sufficient explanation of the procedure, the patients were divided into Group-A and Group-B. Group-A were allocated to Maitland group (n=20) (MG) and Group-B, were assigned to the Maitland, Hand-eye coordination and Hand Function exercises group (n=20) (MHG), respectively. We measured Quality of life using SF36 to know whether these patients had poor QOL compared to normative. Each patient underwent testing before the experiment to evaluate the range of motion of the shoulder (Abduction and External rotation) measured using a 180º goniometer, Functional Disability assessed using SPADI index. Statistical analysis was applied using SPSS version 20.0. Before the study, data normality was tested. A parametric test was used to compare pre-and post-intervention data in each Group-And also compare the MG vs. MHG. An α < 0.05 is the level of significance in all analyses. Results: A total of 40 subjects accounted for the study results. Their quality of life was significantly lower from the normative values. Both groups were homogenous at baseline with no significant difference between the ROM and SPADI scores. Both groups showed a significant improvement in ER, abduction ROM and SPADI scores, however the between group posttest analysis revealed that the Group-B subjects progressed significantly better. Conclusions: The study concluded that the Maitland mobilization and hand-eye coordination and hand function exercises are an effective tool in improving shoulder abduction, external rotation and shoulder functions. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.3.5153 How to cite this:Senthil Kumar B, Subbaiah S, Ramachandran A. Need for including Hand Eye Coordination and Hand Function Training in the Management of Adhesive Capsulitis – A non-randomized control trial. Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(3):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.3.5153 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Accuracy and Precision of Fixed and Random Effects in Meta-Analyses of Randomized Control Trials for Continuous Outcomes

Meta-analyses of treatment effects in randomized control trials are often faced with the problem of missing information required to calculate effect sizes and their sampling variances. Particularly, correlations between pre- and posttest scores are frequently not available. As an ad-hoc solution, researchers impute a constant value for the missing correlation. As an alternative, we propose adopting a multivariate meta-regression approach that models independent group effect sizes and accounts for the dependency structure using robust variance estimation or three-level modeling. A comprehensive simulation study mimicking realistic conditions of meta-analyses in clinical and educational psychology suggested that the prevalent imputation approach works well for estimating the pooled effect but severely distorts the between-study heterogeneity. In contrast, the robust meta-regression approach resulted in largely unbiased fixed and random effects. Based on these results recommendations for meta-analytic practice and future meta-analytic developments are provided.

Randomized Control Trials with Schools: Handling Real-World Practicalities and Problems

There is a need for more evidence-based research in education and research involving the use of randomized control trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy of interventions. However, the difficulty of conducting interventional research in educational settings is often less acknowledged. This article provides practical examples of the issues encountered when implementing a cognitive science informed intervention and the solutions that were successfully implemented. This article will also highlight the importance of designing a multifaceted intervention while considering the cost of the intervention itself, especially when working with hard-to-reach families. It is helpful to make use of existing classroom resources in the intervention to lower costs. Additionally, being consistent and attentive to the developmental stage of the children and supporting parental engagement are two aspects that are crucial to the implementation of the intervention. Researchers would benefit from conducting workshops and public engagement events and can use these opportunities to provide practical strategies about how to support the development of children’s skills in the home environment. In-person interactions are key as parents can ask any questions that they may have, and it can help to dispel any mistrust that they may have with the research process. The article also provides suggestions for building the researcher-practitioner relationship from study onset, including being flexible and accommodating towards the changes in the school context and communicating effectively with teachers. Lastly, the article outlines the benefit of using scaffolding, positive reinforcement, and play-based learning over the course of the intervention to support child outcomes.

Primary care clinicians’ opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study

Background Electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians’ (PCCs’) clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs’ opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms. Methods This study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017–1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020–4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms. Results Pre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS’s information and utility. Conclusions While appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs’ confidence regarding discussing patients’ breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.