In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials.

I nvestigators who conduct randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs often perform analyses of effect modification to assess whether intervention effects might vary by another variable such as age, disease severity or, in a meta-analysis, study setting or year of study. 1-14 The terminology varies; Box 1 presents the alternatives currently in use. Investigators sometimes make claims that an effect modification is present. Literature surveys suggest that 14%-26% of RCTs and meta-analyses emphasize at least 1 potential effect modification in their abstract or discussion. 4-9,11 The interest in effect modification is understandable: if patients with differing characteristics respond differently to the same intervention, the overall effect estimate is misleading for some, if not all, patients. Identifying situations in which true variation in effects exist is important, and the notion of tailoring therapy to patients has enormous appeal. Moreover, the opportunities for analyzing effect modification grow with the increasing number of newly developed diagnostic and genomic markers. However, mistaken claims of effect modification may compromise optimal patient care, and many claims of effect modification have subsequently proved spurious. 15-24 Applying a mistaken claim of effect modification may cause harms through administration of ineffective treatment or may lead to patients' being denied beneficial therapies, and will likely increase health care costs. Numerous theoretical analyses and simulation studies show that the fundamental reason for misleading claims of effect RESEARCH Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses

IMPORTANCE Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear. OBJECTIVE To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting. RESULTS Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], −0.69 cm [95% CI, −0.82 to −0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low-to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, −0.60 cm [95% CI, −1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, −0.90 points [95% CI, −2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, −0.13 cm [95% CI, −0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, −5.31 points [95% CI, −13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, −0.90 cm [95% CI, −1.65 to −0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, −5.77 to 6.66 points]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Objective To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument. Design Instrument development and reliability study. Data sources Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument. Participants With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates. Main outcome measures Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined. Results The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors. Conclusions Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

No abstract

Our classification could serve as a checklist to assist investigators in the planning of RCTs. Most reasons for recruitment failure seem preventable with a pilot study that applies the planned informed consent procedure.

Offering return-to-work coordination programmes for workers on sick leave for at least four weeks results in no benefits when compared to usual practice. We found no significant differences for the outcomes time to return to work, cumulative sickness absence, the proportion of participants at work at end of the follow-up or the proportion of participants who had ever returned to work at short-term, long-term or very long-term follow-up. For patient-reported outcomes, we found only marginal effects below the MID. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate across all outcomes.

ObjectiveTo determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease.DesignSystematic review.Main outcome measuresPain, function, adverse events.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016.Eligibility criteriaFor effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence.ResultsWe included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference =5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference =3.1, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference =4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference =3.2, 95% CI −0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy.ConclusionsOver the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function.Trial registration numberPROSPERO CRD42016046242.