Sonya Chelvanayagam

Fecal Incontinence: The Quality of Reported Randomized, Controlled Trials in the Last Ten Years

PurposeThis study was designed to analyze the characteristics and the quality of reporting of randomized, controlled trials published during the last ten years on fecal incontinence.MethodsAn electronic search for all randomized, controlled trials on fecal incontinence was undertaken by using the MEDLINE database via PubMed. The data collected were divided into general data, characteristics of reporting, methodology quality assessment using the Jadad scale and a validated methodology quality score (MINCIR score), evaluation of the items published in the CONSORT statement, and the journal impact factor. Reports were divided into two groups: published articles from 1996 to 2000 (Group 1), and from 2001 to 2005 (Group 2).ResultsForty-two trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the study (Group 1, n = 15; and Group 2, n = 27). There were no significant differences in general characteristics of randomized, controlled trials between the two groups. In Group 2, there were a statistically significant higher number of studies that reported a flow chart (P < 0.001), written informed consent (P = 0.008), sample size calculation (P = 0.023), and withdrawals and dropouts (P < 0.001). We found a statistically significant higher score in Jadad scale (P = 0.046) and MINCIR score (P = 0.016) in the published studies in Group 2. Also we found higher journal impact factor of journals that published these randomized, controlled trials during the most recent years (P = 0.04).ConclusionsThere is a lack of high-quality reported randomized, controlled trials on fecal incontinence during the last ten years. Reports of randomized, controlled trials involving patients with fecal incontinence published after 2001 were better reported than in the previous five years.

The benefits of interprofessional education 10 years on

Interprofessional education (IPE) was first conceived in 1973 by a World Health Organization (WHO) expert group in Geneva. WHO member states were then charged with implementing medical education IPE pilot projects and from then to today there has a been a rapid proliferation in the number of publications on the subject. IPE has generated research into its use, conferences specific to IPE, organisations dedicated to it and policy championing it. The authors question whether there has been any major shift in the silos in which different professions might be working. The authors published an article on the benefits of IPE ( Illingworth and Chelvanayagam, 2007 ). Ten years have now passed and many changes have been implemented and experienced in health and social care and therefore a review of the literature is required. Also, it is 7 years since the publication of WHOs report outlining the role of IPE in the preparation of health professionals ( WHO, 2010 ) and, increasingly, UK Government policy champions collaborative and integrated working. The conclusions from the 2007 article acknowledged the development of IPE; however, it highlighted the need for empirical evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of IPE in service user and carer outcomes. This article will explore whether IPE has achieved the benefits discussed in the previous article and what developments have occurred since it was published.