Karen Kearley

Are journal clubs effective in supporting evidence-based decision making? A systematic review. BEME Guide No. 16.

Background: Journal clubs (JCs) are a common form of interactive education in health care aiming to promote the uptake of research evidence into practice, but their effectiveness has not been established. Objective: This systematic review aimed to determine whether the JC is an effective intervention in supporting clinical decision making. Methods: We searched for studies which evaluated whether clubs promote changes in learner reaction, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour or patient outcomes. We included undergraduate, postgraduate and practice JCs and excluded studies evaluating video/internet meetings or single meetings. Results: Eighteen studies were included. Studies reported improvements in reading behaviour (N = 5/11), confidence in critical appraisal (N = 7/7), critical appraisal test scores (N = 5/7) and ability to use findings (N = 5/7). No studies reported on patient outcomes. Sixteen studies used self-reported measures, but only four studies used validated tests. Interventions were too heterogeneous to allow pooling. Realist synthesis identified potentially ‘active educational ingredients’, including mentoring, brief training in clinical epidemiology, structured critical appraisal tools, adult-learning principles, multifaceted teaching approaches and integration of the JC with other clinical and academic activities. Conclusion: The effectiveness of JCs in supporting evidence-based decision making is not clear. Better reporting of the intervention and a mixed methods approach to evaluating active ingredients are needed in order to understand how JCs may support evidence-based practice.

Triage tests for identifying atrial fibrillation in primary care: a diagnostic accuracy study comparing single-lead ECG and modified BP monitors

Objective New electronic devices offer an opportunity within routine primary care settings for improving the detection of atrial fibrillation (AF), which is a common cardiac arrhythmia and a modifiable risk factor for stroke. We aimed to assess the performance of a modified blood pressure (BP) monitor and two single-lead ECG devices, as diagnostic triage tests for the detection of AF. Setting 6 General Practices in the UK. Participants 1000 ambulatory patients aged 75 years and over. Primary and secondary outcome measures Comparative diagnostic accuracy of modified BP monitor and single-lead ECG devices, compared to reference standard of 12-lead ECG, independently interpreted by cardiologists. Results A total of 79 participants (7.9%) had AF diagnosed by 12-lead ECG. All three devices had a high sensitivity (93.9–98.7%) and are useful for ruling out AF. WatchBP is a better triage test than Omron autoanalysis because it is more specific—89.7% (95% CI 87.5% to 91.6%) compared to 78.3% (95% CI 73.0% to 82.9%), respectively. This would translate into a lower follow-on ECG rate of 17% to rule in/rule out AF compared to 29.7% with the Omron text message in the study population. The overall specificity of single-lead ECGs analysed by a cardiologist was 94.6% for Omron and 90.1% for Merlin. Conclusions WatchBP performs better as a triage test for identifying AF in primary care than the single-lead ECG monitors as it does not require expertise for interpretation and its diagnostic performance is comparable to single-lead ECG analysis by cardiologists. It could be used opportunistically to screen elderly patients for undiagnosed AF at regular intervals and/or during BP measurement.

Clinical prediction rules in practice: review of clinical guidelines and survey of GPs

BACKGROUND The publication of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) studies has risen significantly. It is unclear if this reflects increasing usage of these tools in clinical practice or how this may vary across clinical areas. AIM To review clinical guidelines in selected areas and survey GPs in order to explore CPR usefulness in the opinion of experts and use at the point of care. DESIGN AND SETTING A review of clinical guidelines and survey of UK GPs. METHOD Clinical guidelines in eight clinical domains with published CPRs were reviewed for recommendations to use CPRs including primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and stroke, diabetes mellitus, fracture risk assessment in osteoporosis, lower limb fractures, breast cancer, depression, and acute infections in childhood. An online survey of 401 UK GPs was also conducted. RESULTS Guideline review: Of 7637 records screened by title and/or abstract, 243 clinical guidelines met inclusion criteria. CPRs were most commonly recommended in guidelines regarding primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (67%) and depression (67%). There was little consensus across various clinical guidelines as to which CPR to use preferentially. SURVEY Of 401 responders to the GP survey, most were aware of and applied named CPRs in the clinical areas of cardiovascular disease and depression. The commonest reasons for using CPRs were to guide management and conform to local policy requirements. CONCLUSION GPs use CPRs to guide management but also to comply with local policy requirements. Future research could focus on which clinical areas clinicians would most benefit from CPRs and promoting the use of robust, externally validated CPRs.

Automated Software System to Promote Anticoagulation and Reduce Stroke Risk: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Purpose— Oral anticoagulants (OAC) substantially reduce risk of stroke in atrial fibrillation, but uptake is suboptimal. Electronic health records enable automated identification of people at risk but not receiving treatment. We investigated the effectiveness of a software tool (AURAS-AF [Automated Risk Assessment for Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation]) designed to identify such individuals during routine care through a cluster-randomized trial. Methods— Screen reminders appeared each time the electronic health records of an eligible patient was accessed until a decision had been taken over OAC treatment. Where OAC was not started, clinicians were prompted to indicate a reason. Control practices continued usual care. The primary outcome was the proportion of eligible individuals receiving OAC at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included rates of cardiovascular events and reports of adverse effects of the software on clinical decision-making. Results— Forty-seven practices were randomized. The mean proportion–prescribed OAC at 6 months was 66.3% (SD=9.3) in the intervention arm and 63.9% (9.5) in the control arm (adjusted difference 1.21% [95% confidence interval −0.72 to 3.13]). Incidence of recorded transient ischemic attack was higher in the intervention practices (median 10.0 versus 2.3 per 1000 patients with atrial fibrillation; P=0.027), but at 12 months, we found a lower incidence of both all cause stroke (P=0.06) and hemorrhage (P=0.054). No adverse effects of the software were reported. Conclusions— No significant change in OAC prescribing occurred. A greater rate of diagnosis of transient ischemic attack (possibly because of improved detection or overdiagnosis) was associated with a reduction (of borderline significance) in stroke and hemorrhage over 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.isrctn.com. Unique Identifier: ISRCTN55722437.

Danger of stereotyping in suspected osteomalaciaCommentary: Stereotyping may delay proper and systematic investigation

Clinical findings, not ethnic origin, should drive the diagnostic evaluation for suspected osteomalacia

Lesson of the week: Danger of stereotyping in suspected osteomalacia

Clinical findings, not ethnic origin, should drive the diagnostic evaluation for suspected osteomalacia

Lesson of the week: Danger of stereotyping in suspected osteomalacia Commentary: Stereotyping may delay proper and systematic investigation

Clinical findings, not ethnic origin, should drive the diagnostic evaluation for suspected osteomalacia