BackgroundSensitivity analyses play a crucial role in assessing the robustness of the findings or conclusions based on primary analyses of data in clinical trials. They are a critical way to assess the impact, effect or influence of key assumptions or variations—such as different methods of analysis, definitions of outcomes, protocol deviations, missing data, and outliers—on the overall conclusions of a study.The current paper is the second in a series of tutorial-type manuscripts intended to discuss and clarify aspects related to key methodological issues in the design and analysis of clinical trials.DiscussionIn this paper we will provide a detailed exploration of the key aspects of sensitivity analyses including: 1) what sensitivity analyses are, why they are needed, and how often they are used in practice; 2) the different types of sensitivity analyses that one can do, with examples from the literature; 3) some frequently asked questions about sensitivity analyses; and 4) some suggestions on how to report the results of sensitivity analyses in clinical trials.SummaryWhen reporting on a clinical trial, we recommend including planned or posthoc sensitivity analyses, the corresponding rationale and results along with the discussion of the consequences of these analyses on the overall findings of the study.

No abstract

Given the considerable lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, we recommend against routine performance of DRE to screen for prostate cancer in the primary care setting.

Introduction:Despite its efficacy and widespread use, methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) continues to be widely stigmatized. Reducing the stigma surrounding MMT will help improve the accessibility, retention, and treatment outcomes in MMT.Methods:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 adults undergoing MMT. Thematic content analysis was used to identify overarching themes.Results:In total, 78% of participants reported having experienced stigma surrounding MMT. Common stereotypes associated with MMT patients included the following: methadone as a way to get high, incompetence, untrustworthiness, lack of willpower, and heroin junkies. Participants reported that stigma resulted in lower self-esteem; relationship conflicts; reluctance to initiate, access, or continue MMT; and distrust toward the health care system. Public awareness campaigns, education of health care workers, family therapy, and community meetings were cited as potential stigma-reduction strategies.Discussion and Conclusion:Stigma is a widespread and serious issue that adversely affects MMT patients’ quality of life and treatment. More efforts are needed to combat MMT-related stigma.

BackgroundAdvances in genomics technology have led to a dramatic increase in the number of published genetic association studies. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are a common method of synthesizing findings and providing reliable estimates of the effect of a genetic variant on a trait of interest. However, summary estimates are subject to bias due to the varying methodological quality of individual studies. We embarked on an effort to develop and evaluate a tool that assesses the quality of published genetic association studies. Performance characteristics (i.e. validity, reliability, and item discrimination) were evaluated using a sample of thirty studies randomly selected from a previously conducted systematic review.ResultsThe tool demonstrates excellent psychometric properties and generates a quality score for each study with corresponding ratings of ‘low’, ‘moderate’, or ‘high’ quality. We applied our tool to a published systematic review to exclude studies of low quality, and found a decrease in heterogeneity and an increase in precision of summary estimates.ConclusionThis tool can be used in systematic reviews to inform the selection of studies for inclusion, to conduct sensitivity analyses, and to perform meta-regressions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12863-015-0211-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundReporting guidelines have been available for the past 17 years since the inception of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement in 1996. These guidelines were developed to improve the quality of reporting of studies in medical literature. Despite the widespread availability of these guidelines, the quality of reporting of medical literature remained suboptimal. In this study, we assess the current adherence practice to reporting guidelines; determine key factors associated with better adherence to these guidelines; and provide recommendations to enhance adherence to reporting guidelines for future studies.MethodsWe undertook a systematic scoping review of systematic reviews of adherence to reporting guidelines across different clinical areas and study designs. We searched four electronic databases (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline) from January 1996 to September 2012. Studies were included if they addressed adherence to one of the following guidelines: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND), Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) and Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). A protocol for this study was devised. A literature search, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors in duplicate. This study reporting follows the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsOur search retrieved 5159 titles, of which 50 were eligible. Overall, 86.0% of studies reported suboptimal levels of adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with better adherence included journal impact factor and endorsement of guidelines, publication date, funding source, multisite studies, pharmacological interventions and larger studies.ConclusionReporting guidelines in the clinical literature are important to improve the standards of reporting of clinical studies; however, adherence to these guidelines remains suboptimal. Action is therefore needed to enhance the adherence to these standards. Strategies to enhance adherence include journal editorial policies endorsing these guidelines.

No abstract

BackgroundDespite the growing numbers of men and women with opioid use disorder in Canada, sex-specific issues in treatment have not been re-examined in the current population of patients with opioid addiction. We aimed to evaluate sex differences in substance use, health, and social functioning among men and women currently receiving methadone treatment for opioid use disorder in Ontario, Canada.MethodsWe recruited 503 participants with opioid dependence disorder receiving methadone maintenance treatment. We collected data on demographics, treatment characteristics, psychiatric history, addiction severity, and drug use patterns through urinalysis. We performed adjusted univariate analyses and logistic regression to identify distinct factors affecting men and women.ResultsAmong our sample of 54 % (n = 266) men and 46 % women (n = 226) with mean age 38.3 years, less than half of participants were employed (35.6 %) and married (31.8 %) and had completed a high school education (27.9 %). Compared to men, women had frequent physical and psychological health problems, family history of psychiatric illness, and childcare responsibilities and began using opioids through a physician prescription. Men had higher rates of employment, cigarette smoking, and cannabis use compared to women.ConclusionsOur results have revealed different patterns of substance use, health, and social functioning among men and women currently receiving methadone treatment for opioid addiction in Ontario, Canada. This information can be used to develop an integrative treatment regimen that caters to the individual needs of men and women, as well as to inform methadone treatment protocols to include specialized services (including vocational counseling, childcare and parenting assistance, medical assistance, relationship or domestic violence counseling, etc.) and increase their availability and accessibility on a larger scale.