Aims/hypothesis Sedentary (sitting) behaviours are ubiquitous in modern society. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the association of sedentary time with diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Methods Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for terms related to sedentary time and health outcomes. Cross-sectional and prospective studies were included. RR/HR and 95% CIs were extracted by two independent reviewers. Data were adjusted for baseline event rate and pooled using a random-effects model. Bayesian predictive effects and intervals were calculated to indicate the variance in outcomes that would be expected if new studies were conducted in the future. Results Eighteen studies (16 prospective, two cross-sectional) were included, with 794,577 participants. Fifteen of these studies were moderate to high quality. The greatest sedentary time compared with the lowest was associated with a 112% increase in the RR of diabetes (RR 2.12; 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.61, 2.78), a 147% increase in the RR of cardiovascular events (RR 2.47; 95% CI 1.44, 4.24), a 90% increase in the risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.90; 95% CrI 1.36, 2.66) and a 49% increase in the risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.49; 95% CrI 1.14, 2.03). The predictive effects and intervals were only significant for diabetes. Conclusions/interpretation Sedentary time is associated with an increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality; the strength of the association is most consistent for diabetes.

SummaryBackgroundFemoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care.MethodsUK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment.FindingsBetween July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7–12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of the...

Aims/hypothesis Precise estimates of progression rates from 'prediabetes' to type 2 diabetes are needed to optimise prevention strategies for high-risk individuals. There is acceptance of prediabetes defined by impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), but there is some controversy surrounding HbA 1c -defined prediabetes ranges, with some favouring 6.0-6.4% (42-46 mmol/mol). Comparing progression rates between groups might aid this issue, thus we aimed to accurately estimate progression rates to diabetes from different prediabetes categories. Methods Meta-analysis of prospective observational studies in which participants had prediabetes at baseline (ADAdefined IFG [5.6-6.9 mmol/l], WHO-defined IFG [6.1-6.9 mmol/l], IGT (7.8-11.0 mmol/l) or raised HbA 1c [6.0-6.4%/42-46 mmol/mol]) and were followed up for incident diabetes. Incidence rates were combined using Bayesian random effects models. Results Overall, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria. In the six studies that used raised HbA 1c , the pooled incidence rate (95% credible interval) of diabetes was 35.6 (15.1, 83.0) per 1,000 person-years. This rate was most similar to that for ADA-defined IFG (11 studies; 35.5 [26.6, 48.0]) and was non-significantly lower than 47.4 [37.4, 59.8]), IGT (46 studies, 45.5 [37.8, 54.5]) and IFG plus IGT (15 studies, 70.4 [53.8, 89.7]). Similar results were seen when the data were analysed by the criteria used to diagnose diabetes. Conclusions/interpretation This study provides evidence that progression rates differ by prediabetes definition, which has implications for the planning and implementation of diabetes prevention programmes. HbA 1c 6.0-6.4% might identify people at a lower diabetes risk than other prediabetes definitions, but further research is needed.

Cardiac arrest effectiveness trials have traditionally reported outcomes that focus on survival. A lack of consistency in outcome reporting between trials limits the opportunities to pool results for meta-analysis. The COSCA initiative (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest), a partnership between patients, their partners, clinicians, research scientists, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, sought to develop a consensus core outcome set for cardiac arrest for effectiveness trials. Core outcome sets are primarily intended for large, randomized clinical effectiveness trials (sometimes referred to as or) rather than for pilot or efficacy studies. A systematic review of the literature combined with qualitative interviews among cardiac arrest survivors was used to generate a list of potential outcome domains. This list was prioritized through a Delphi process, which involved clinicians, patients, and their relatives/partners. An international advisory panel narrowed these down to 3 core domains by debate that led to consensus. The writing group refined recommendations for when these outcomes should be measured and further characterized relevant measurement tools. Consensus emerged that a core outcome set for reporting on effectiveness studies of cardiac arrest (COSCA) in adults should include survival, neurological function, and health-related quality of life. This should be reported as survival status and modified Rankin scale score at hospital discharge, at 30 days, or both. Health-related quality of life should be measured with ≥1 tools from Health Utilities Index version 3, Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and EuroQol 5D-5L at 90 days and at periodic intervals up to 1 year after cardiac arrest, if resources allow.

BackgroundNetwork meta-analysis (NMA) enables simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments while preserving randomisation. When summarising evidence to inform an economic evaluation, it is important that the analysis accurately reflects the dependency structure within the data, as correlations between outcomes may have implication for estimating the net benefit associated with treatment. A multivariate NMA offers a framework for evaluating multiple treatments across multiple outcome measures while accounting for the correlation structure between outcomes.MethodsThe standard NMA model is extended to multiple outcome settings in two stages. In the first stage, information is borrowed across outcomes as well across studies through modelling the within-study and between-study correlation structure. In the second stage, we make use of the additional assumption that intervention effects are exchangeable between outcomes to predict effect estimates for all outcomes, including effect estimates on outcomes where evidence is either sparse or the treatment had not been considered by any one of the studies included in the analysis. We apply the methods to binary outcome data from a systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of nine home safety interventions on uptake of three poisoning prevention practices (safe storage of medicines, safe storage of other household products, and possession of poison centre control telephone number) in households with children. Analyses are conducted in WinBUGS using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations.ResultsUnivariate and the first stage multivariate models produced broadly similar point estimates of intervention effects but the uncertainty around the multivariate estimates varied depending on the prior distribution specified for the between-study covariance structure. The second stage multivariate analyses produced more precise effect estimates while enabling intervention effects to be predicted for all outcomes, including intervention effects on outcomes not directly considered by the studies included in the analysis.ConclusionsAccounting for the dependency between outcomes in a multivariate meta-analysis may or may not improve the precision of effect estimates from a network meta-analysis compared to analysing each outcome separately.

No abstract

Cardiac arrest effectiveness trials have traditionally reported outcomes that focus on survival. A lack of consistency in outcome reporting between trials limits the opportunities to pool results for meta-analysis. The COSCA initiative (Core Outcome Set for Cardiac Arrest), a partnership between patients, their partners, clinicians, research scientists, and the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, sought to develop a consensus core outcome set for cardiac arrest for effectiveness trials. Core outcome sets are primarily intended for large, randomised clinical effectiveness trials (sometimes referred to as pragmatic trials or phase III/IV trials) rather than for pilot or efficacy studies. A systematic review of the literature combined with qualitative interviews among cardiac arrest survivors was used to generate a list of potential outcome domains. This list was prioritised through a Delphi process, which involved clinicians, patients, and their relatives/partners. An international advisory panel narrowed these down to 3 core domains by debate that led to consensus. The writing group refined recommendations for when these outcomes should be measured and further characterised relevant measurement tools. Consensus emerged that a core outcome set for reporting on effectiveness studies of cardiac arrest (COSCA) in adults should include survival, neurological function, and health-related quality of life. This should be reported as survival status and modified Rankin scale score at hospital discharge, at 30 days, or both. Health-related quality of life should be measured with ≥1 tools from Health Utilities Index version 3, Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and EuroQol 5D-5L at 90 days and at periodic intervals up to 1 year after cardiac arrest, if resources allow. © 2018 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Home safety education and provision of safety equipment for injury prevention.