Protocol > Research Study
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 November 26; Volume 7 (Issue 11); e12334.; DOI:10.2196/12334
Alga A, Wong S, Haweizy R, Conneryd Lundgren K, von Schreeb J, et al.
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 November 26; Volume 7 (Issue 11); e12334.; DOI:10.2196/12334
BACKGROUND
In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds.
METHODS
This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat.
RESULTS
The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019.
CONCLUSIONS
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies.
In armed conflict, injuries commonly affect the extremities and contamination with foreign material often increases the risk of infection. The use of negative-pressure wound therapy has been described in the treatment of acute conflict-related wounds, but reports are retrospective and with limited follow-up.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of negative-pressure wound therapy use in the treatment of patients with conflict-related extremity wounds.
METHODS
This is a multisite, superiority, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. We are considering for inclusion patients 18 years of age and older who are presenting with a conflict-related extremity wound within 72 hours after injury. Patients are block randomly assigned to either negative-pressure wound therapy or standard treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point is wound closure by day 5. Secondary end points include length of stay, wound infection, sepsis, wound complications, death, and health-related quality of life. We will explore economic outcomes, including direct health care costs and cost effectiveness, in a substudy. Data are collected at baseline and at each dressing change, and participants are followed for up to 3 months. We will base the primary statistical analysis on intention-to-treat.
RESULTS
The trial is ongoing. Patient enrollment started in June 2015. We expect to publish findings from the trial by the end of 2019.
CONCLUSIONS
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no randomized trial of negative-pressure wound therapy in this context. We expect that our findings will increase the knowledge to establish best-treatment strategies.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 October 21; Volume 9 (Issue 10); e17864.; DOI:10.2196/17864
Mahajan R, Burza S, Bouter LM, Sijtsma K, Knottnerus A, et al.
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 October 21; Volume 9 (Issue 10); e17864.; DOI:10.2196/17864
BACKGROUND
Approximately 90% of currently published clinical and public health research is in the form of observational studies. Having a detailed and registered study protocol prior to data collection is important in any empirical study. Without this, there is no reliable way to assess the occurrence of publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and other protocol deviations. However, there is currently no solid guidance available on the information that a protocol for an observational study should contain.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to formulate the Standardized Protocol Items Recommendations for Observational Studies (SPIROS) reporting guidelines, which focus on 3 main study designs of analytical epidemiology: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
METHODS
A scoping review of published protocol papers of observational studies in epidemiology will identify candidate items for the SPIROS reporting guidelines. The list of items will be extended with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist items and recommendations from the SPIROS steering committee. This long list serves as the basis for a 2-round Delphi survey among experts to obtain consensus on which items to include. Each candidate item from the long list will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess relevance for inclusion in the SPIROS reporting guidelines. Following the Delphi survey, an expert-driven consensus workshop will be convened to finalize the reporting guidelines.
RESULTS
A scoping review of published observational study protocols has been completed, with 59 candidate items identified for inclusion into the Delphi survey, itself launched in early 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
This project aims to improve the timeliness, completeness, and clarity of study protocols of observational studies in analytical epidemiology by producing expert-based recommendations of items to be addressed. These reporting guidelines will facilitate and encourage researchers to prepare and register study protocols of sufficient quality prior to data collection in order to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and quality of observational studies.
Approximately 90% of currently published clinical and public health research is in the form of observational studies. Having a detailed and registered study protocol prior to data collection is important in any empirical study. Without this, there is no reliable way to assess the occurrence of publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and other protocol deviations. However, there is currently no solid guidance available on the information that a protocol for an observational study should contain.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to formulate the Standardized Protocol Items Recommendations for Observational Studies (SPIROS) reporting guidelines, which focus on 3 main study designs of analytical epidemiology: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
METHODS
A scoping review of published protocol papers of observational studies in epidemiology will identify candidate items for the SPIROS reporting guidelines. The list of items will be extended with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist items and recommendations from the SPIROS steering committee. This long list serves as the basis for a 2-round Delphi survey among experts to obtain consensus on which items to include. Each candidate item from the long list will be rated on a 5-point Likert scale to assess relevance for inclusion in the SPIROS reporting guidelines. Following the Delphi survey, an expert-driven consensus workshop will be convened to finalize the reporting guidelines.
RESULTS
A scoping review of published observational study protocols has been completed, with 59 candidate items identified for inclusion into the Delphi survey, itself launched in early 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
This project aims to improve the timeliness, completeness, and clarity of study protocols of observational studies in analytical epidemiology by producing expert-based recommendations of items to be addressed. These reporting guidelines will facilitate and encourage researchers to prepare and register study protocols of sufficient quality prior to data collection in order to improve the transparency, reproducibility, and quality of observational studies.
Protocol > Research Study
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 November 4; Volume 9 (Issue 11); e21430.; DOI:10.2196/21430
Gaudenzi G, Kumbakumba E, Rasti R, Nanjebe D, Reu P, et al.
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 November 4; Volume 9 (Issue 11); e21430.; DOI:10.2196/21430
BACKGROUND
A timely differential diagnostic is essential to identify the etiology of central nervous system (CNS) infections in children, in order to facilitate targeted treatment, manage patients, and improve clinical outcome.
OBJECTIVE
The Pediatric Infection-Point-of-Care (PI-POC) trial is investigating novel methods to improve and strengthen the differential diagnostics of suspected childhood CNS infections in low-income health systems such as those in Southwestern Uganda. This will be achieved by evaluating (1) a novel DNA-based diagnostic assay for CNS infections, (2) a commercially available multiplex PCR-based meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel for clinical use in a facility-limited laboratory setting, (3) proteomics profiling of blood from children with severe CNS infection as compared to outpatient controls with fever yet not severely ill, and (4) Myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA) as a biomarker in blood for viral CNS infection. Further changes in the etiology of childhood CNS infections after the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against Streptococcus pneumoniae will be investigated. In addition, the carriage and invasive rate of Neisseria meningitidis will be recorded and serotyped, and the expression of its major virulence factor (polysaccharide capsule) will be investigated.
METHODS
The PI-POC trial is a prospective observational study of children including newborns up to 12 years of age with clinical features of CNS infection, and age-/sex-matched outpatient controls with fever yet not severely ill. Participants are recruited at 2 Pediatric clinics in Mbarara, Uganda. Cerebrospinal fluid (for cases only), blood, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs (for both cases and controls) sampled at both clinics are analyzed at the Epicentre Research Laboratory through gold-standard methods for CNS infection diagnosis (microscopy, biochemistry, and culture) and a commercially available ME panel for multiplex PCR analyses of the cerebrospinal fluid. An additional blood sample from cases is collected on day 3 after admission. After initial clinical analyses in Mbarara, samples will be transported to Stockholm, Sweden for (1) validation analyses of a novel nucleic acid–based POC test, (2) biomarker research, and (3) serotyping and molecular characterization of S. pneumoniae and N. meningitidis.
RESULTS
A pilot study was performed from January to April 2019. The PI-POC trial enrollment of patients begun in April 2019 and will continue until September 2020, to include up to 300 cases and controls. Preliminary results from the PI-POC study are expected by the end of 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings from the PI-POC study can potentially facilitate rapid etiological diagnosis of CNS infections in low-resource settings and allow for novel methods for determination of the severity of CNS infection in such environment.
A timely differential diagnostic is essential to identify the etiology of central nervous system (CNS) infections in children, in order to facilitate targeted treatment, manage patients, and improve clinical outcome.
OBJECTIVE
The Pediatric Infection-Point-of-Care (PI-POC) trial is investigating novel methods to improve and strengthen the differential diagnostics of suspected childhood CNS infections in low-income health systems such as those in Southwestern Uganda. This will be achieved by evaluating (1) a novel DNA-based diagnostic assay for CNS infections, (2) a commercially available multiplex PCR-based meningitis/encephalitis (ME) panel for clinical use in a facility-limited laboratory setting, (3) proteomics profiling of blood from children with severe CNS infection as compared to outpatient controls with fever yet not severely ill, and (4) Myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA) as a biomarker in blood for viral CNS infection. Further changes in the etiology of childhood CNS infections after the introduction of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine against Streptococcus pneumoniae will be investigated. In addition, the carriage and invasive rate of Neisseria meningitidis will be recorded and serotyped, and the expression of its major virulence factor (polysaccharide capsule) will be investigated.
METHODS
The PI-POC trial is a prospective observational study of children including newborns up to 12 years of age with clinical features of CNS infection, and age-/sex-matched outpatient controls with fever yet not severely ill. Participants are recruited at 2 Pediatric clinics in Mbarara, Uganda. Cerebrospinal fluid (for cases only), blood, and nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs (for both cases and controls) sampled at both clinics are analyzed at the Epicentre Research Laboratory through gold-standard methods for CNS infection diagnosis (microscopy, biochemistry, and culture) and a commercially available ME panel for multiplex PCR analyses of the cerebrospinal fluid. An additional blood sample from cases is collected on day 3 after admission. After initial clinical analyses in Mbarara, samples will be transported to Stockholm, Sweden for (1) validation analyses of a novel nucleic acid–based POC test, (2) biomarker research, and (3) serotyping and molecular characterization of S. pneumoniae and N. meningitidis.
RESULTS
A pilot study was performed from January to April 2019. The PI-POC trial enrollment of patients begun in April 2019 and will continue until September 2020, to include up to 300 cases and controls. Preliminary results from the PI-POC study are expected by the end of 2020.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings from the PI-POC study can potentially facilitate rapid etiological diagnosis of CNS infections in low-resource settings and allow for novel methods for determination of the severity of CNS infection in such environment.