Ruth Foxlee

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses: systematic review

Objective To review systematically the evidence of effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, OldMedline, Embase, and CINAHL, without restrictions on language or publication. Data selection Studies of any intervention to prevent the transmission of respiratory viruses (isolation, quarantine, social distancing, barriers, personal protection, and hygiene). A search of study designs included randomised trials, cohort, case-control, crossover, before and after, and time series studies. After scanning of the titles, abstracts and full text articles as a first filter, a standardised form was used to assess the eligibility of the remainder. Risk of bias of randomised studies was assessed for generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, and follow-up. Non-randomised studies were assessed for the presence of potential confounders and classified as being at low, medium, or high risk of bias. Data synthesis 58 papers of 59 studies were included. The quality of the studies was poor for all four randomised controlled trials and most cluster randomised controlled trials; the observational studies were of mixed quality. Meta-analysis of six case-control studies suggested that physical measures are highly effective in preventing the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome: handwashing more than 10 times daily (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.57; number needed to treat=4, 95% confidence interval 3.65 to 5.52), wearing masks (0.32, 0.25 to 0.40; NNT=6, 4.54 to 8.03), wearing N95 masks (0.09, 0.03 to 0.30; NNT=3, 2.37 to 4.06), wearing gloves (0.43, 0.29 to 0.65; NNT=5, 4.15 to 15.41), wearing gowns (0.23, 0.14 to 0.37; NNT=5, 3.37 to 7.12), and handwashing, masks, gloves, and gowns combined (0.09, 0.02 to 0.35; NNT=3, 2.66 to 4.97). The combination was also effective in interrupting the spread of influenza within households. The highest quality cluster randomised trials suggested that spread of respiratory viruses can be prevented by hygienic measures in younger children and within households. Evidence that the more uncomfortable and expensive N95 masks were superior to simple surgical masks was limited, but they caused skin irritation. The incremental effect of adding virucidals or antiseptics to normal handwashing to reduce respiratory disease remains uncertain. Global measures, such as screening at entry ports, were not properly evaluated. Evidence was limited for social distancing being effective, especially if related to risk of exposure—that is, the higher the risk the longer the distancing period. Conclusion Routine long term implementation of some of the measures to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses might be difficult. However, many simple and low cost interventions reduce the transmission of epidemic respiratory viruses. More resources should be invested into studying which physical interventions are the most effective, flexible, and cost effective means of minimising the impact of acute respiratory tract infections.

Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram

Cochrane systematic reviews are conducted and reported according to rigorous standards. A study flow diagram must be included in a new review, and there is clear guidance from the PRISMA statement on how to do this. However, for a review update, there is currently no guidance on how study flow diagrams should be presented. To address this, a working group was formed to find a solution and produce guidance on how to use these diagrams in review updates.A number of different options were devised for how these flow diagrams could be used in review updates, and also in cases where multiple searches for a review or review update have been conducted. These options were circulated to the Cochrane information specialist community for consultation and feedback. Following the consultation period, the working group refined the guidance and made the recommendation that for review updates an adapted PRISMA flow diagram should be used, which includes an additional box with the number of previously included studies feeding into the total. Where multiple searches have been conducted, the results should be added together and treated as one set of results.There is no existing guidance for using study flow diagrams in review updates. Our adapted diagram is a simple and pragmatic solution for showing the flow of studies in review updates.

Funding source and the quality of reports of chronic wounds trials: 2004 to 2011

BackgroundCritical commentaries suggest that wound care randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are often poorly reported with many methodological flaws. Furthermore, interventions in chronic wounds, rather than being drugs, are often medical devices for which there are no requirements for RCTs to bring products to market. RCTs in wounds trials therefore potentially represent a form of marketing. This study presents a methodological overview of chronic wound trials published between 2004 and 2011 and investigates the influence of industry funding on methodological quality.MethodsA systematic search for RCTs for the treatment of chronic wounds published in the English language between 2004 and 2011 (inclusive) in the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials was carried out.Data were extracted on aspects of trial design, conduct and quality including sample size, duration of follow-up, specification of a primary outcome, use of surrogate outcomes, and risks of bias. In addition, the prevalence of industry funding was assessed and its influence on the above aspects of trial design, conduct and quality was assessed.ResultsA total of 167 RCTs met our inclusion criteria. We found chronic wound trials often have short durations of follow-up (median 12 weeks), small sample sizes (median 63), fail to define a primary outcome in 41% of cases, and those that do define a primary outcome, use surrogate measures of healing in 40% of cases. Only 40% of trials used appropriate methods of randomisation, 25% concealed allocation and 34% blinded outcome assessors. Of the included trials, 41% were wholly or partially funded by industry, 33% declared non-commercial funding and 26% did not report a funding source. Industry funding was not statistically significantly associated with any measure of methodological quality, though this analysis was probably underpowered.ConclusionsThis overview confirms concerns raised about the methodological quality of RCTs in wound care and illustrates that greater efforts must be made to follow international standards for conducting and reporting RCTs. There is currently minimal evidence of an influence of industry funding on methodological quality although analyses had limited power and funding source was not reported for a quarter of studies.

Letter: Evidence‐Based Wound Care in the UK: A Response to David Leaper's Editorial in International Wound Journal April 2009 6 (2)

In David Leaper’s editorial published in April 2009 (1), some important points are made. These include the necessity for evidence-based practice and standards, the limited evidence for some wound care management strategies, and the difficulty this poses for making recommendations for clinical practice. However, other points made about the usefulness of observational evidence for the evaluation of interventions and that in the field of wound care ‘further Cochrane systematic reviews are not likely to achieve much’ (p. 90) are debatable (1). Professor Leaper confuses the primary functions of Cochrane reviews and clinical guidelines, the former being to address the question of the effectiveness of particular interventions and the latter being to provide recommendations to guide clinical practice. He criticises Cochrane reviews for failing to admit all the available (experimental and observational) evidence, unlike guidelines, and then producing recommendations that further research is needed, while failing to provide clinical guidance. Professor Leaper also argues that Cochrane reviews do not benefit from the input of an expert panel and that review authors have scientific skills with no topic-related knowledge. The Cochrane Collaboration is an organisation in large part driven by the efforts of those carrying out systematic reviews on a voluntary (unpaid) basis. Many of these volunteer review authors are clinicians who are very keen to further the evidence base in topic areas where they have a high level of knowledge, experience and expertise. In reviews of wound management, these people include physicians, surgeons, nurses and podiatrists. In addition, each Cochrane review is subject to a very rigorous peer review process by both clinical and methodological experts, and so overall there is ample opportunity for clinical input, helping to ensure that Cochrane reviews are methodologically sound but also relevant in terms of topic coverage and interpretation of findings. In commenting on a systematic review on antibiotics and antiseptics used with venous leg ulcers, Professor Leaper describes ‘the lack of expertise on the panel’. We are pleased to confirm that this review team represented a wealth of clinical knowledge and experience including medicine, nursing, pharmacology and clinical research (2). Cochrane reviews in the field of wound care (and other areas) are important because in addition to summarising the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for the benefit of patients, health care practitioners and policymakers, they highlight gaps in the evidence,