BackgroundClinical trial registries can improve the validity of trial results by facilitating comparisons between prospectively planned and reported outcomes. Previous reports on the frequency of planned and reported outcome inconsistencies have reported widely discrepant results. It is unknown whether these discrepancies are due to differences between the included trials, or to methodological differences between studies. We aimed to systematically review the prevalence and nature of discrepancies between registered and published outcomes among clinical trials.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, and checked references of included publications to identify studies that compared trial outcomes as documented in a publicly accessible clinical trials registry with published trial outcomes. Two authors independently selected eligible studies and performed data extraction. We present summary data rather than pooled analyses owing to methodological heterogeneity among the included studies.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion. The overall risk of bias among included studies was moderate to high. These studies assessed outcome agreement for a median of 65 individual trials (interquartile range [IQR] 25–110). The median proportion of trials with an identified discrepancy between the registered and published primary outcome was 31 %; substantial variability in the prevalence of these primary outcome discrepancies was observed among the included studies (range 0 % (0/66) to 100 % (1/1), IQR 17–45 %). We found less variability within the subset of studies that assessed the agreement between prospectively registered outcomes and published outcomes, among which the median observed discrepancy rate was 41 % (range 30 % (13/43) to 100 % (1/1), IQR 33–48 %). The nature of observed primary outcome discrepancies also varied substantially between included studies. Among the studies providing detailed descriptions of these outcome discrepancies, a median of 13 % of trials introduced a new, unregistered outcome in the published manuscript (IQR 5–16 %).ConclusionsDiscrepancies between registered and published outcomes of clinical trials are common regardless of funding mechanism or the journals in which they are published. Consistent reporting of prospectively defined outcomes and consistent utilization of registry data during the peer review process may improve the validity of clinical trial publications.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0520-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives We estimate the prevalence of malnutrition among older patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) in the southeastern United States and identify subgroups at increased risk. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study with random time block sampling of cognitively intact patients aged 65 years and older. Nutrition was assessed using the Mini Nutritional Assessment Short-Form (0–14 scale) with malnutrition defined as a score of 7 or less and at-risk for malnutrition defined as a score of 8–11. The presence of depressive symptoms was defined as a Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression-10 score of 4 or more (0–10 scale). Results Among 138 older adults, 16% (95% Confidence Interval [CI], 10%–22%) were malnourished and 60% (95% CI, 52%–69%) were either malnourished or at-risk for malnutrition. Seventeen of the 22 malnourished patients (77%) denied previously being diagnosed with malnutrition. The prevalence of malnutrition was not appreciably different between males and females, across levels of patient education, or between those living in urban and rural areas. However, the prevalence of malnutrition was higher among patients with depressive symptoms 52%, those residing in assisted living 50%, those with difficulty eating 38%, and those reporting difficulty buying groceries 33%. Conclusion Among a random sample of cognitively intact older ED patients, more than half were malnourished or at-risk for malnutrition, and the majority of malnourished patients had not previously been diagnosed. Higher rates of malnutrition among those with depression, difficulty eating, and difficulty buying groceries suggest the need to explore multifaceted interventions.

Objectives Adoption of emergency department (ED) initiation of buprenorphine (BUP) for opioid use disorder (OUD) into routine emergency care has been slow, partly due to clinicians’ unfamiliarity with this practice and perceptions that it is complicated and time‐consuming. To address these barriers and guide emergency clinicians through the process of BUP initiation, we implemented a user‐centered computerized clinical decision support system (CDS). This study was conducted to assess the feasibility of implementation and to evaluate the preliminary efficacy of the intervention to increase the rate of ED‐initiated BUP. Methods An interrupted time series study was conducted in an urban, academic ED from April 2018 to February 2019 (preimplementation phase), March 2019 to August 2019 (implementation phase), and September 2019 to December 2019 (maintenance phase) to study the effect of the intervention on adult ED patients identified by a validated electronic health record (EHR)‐based computable phenotype consisting of structured data consistent with potential cases of OUD who would benefit from BUP treatment. The intervention offers flexible CDS for identification of OUD, assessment of opioid withdrawal, and motivation of readiness to start treatment and automates EHR activities related to ED initiation of BUP (including documentation, orders, prescribing, and referral). The primary outcome was the rate of ED‐initiated BUP. Secondary outcomes were launch of the intervention, prescription for naloxone at ED discharge, and referral for ongoing addiction treatment. Results Of the 141,041 unique patients presenting to the ED over the preimplementation and implementation phases (i.e., the phases used in primary analysis), 906 (574 preimplementation and 332 implementation) met OUD phenotype and inclusion criteria. The rate of BUP initiation increased from 3.5% (20/574) in the preimplementation phase to 6.6% (22/332) in the implementation phase (p = 0.03). After the temporal trend of the number of physician's with X‐waiver training and other covariates were adjusted for, the relative risk of BUP initiation rate was 2.73 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 12.0, p = 0.18). Similarly, the number of unique attendings who initiated BUP increased modestly 7/53 (13.0%) to 13/57 (22.8%, p = 0.10) after offering just‐in‐time training during the implementation period. The rate of naloxone prescribed at discharge also increased (6.5% preimplementation and 11.5% implementation; p < 0.01). The intervention received a system usability scale score of 82.0 (95% CI = 76.7 to 87.2). Conclusion Implementation of user‐centered CDS at a single ED was feasible, acceptable, and associated with increased rates of ED‐initiated BUP and naloxone prescribing in patients with OUD and a doubling of the number of unique physicians adopting the practice. We have implemented this intervention across several health systems in an ongoing trial to assess its effectiveness, scalability, and generalizability.

Objectives Musculoskeletal pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visit by older adults. Outpatient pain management following ED visits in this population is challenging as a result of contraindications to, and side effects from, available therapies. Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and emergency physicians may improve patient experiences and health outcomes. Among older ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain, we sought to characterize their desire for involvement in the selection of outpatient analgesics. We also sought to assess the impact of SDM on change in pain at 1 week, patient satisfaction, and side effects. Methods This was a prospective study of adults aged 60 years and older presenting to the ED with acute musculoskeletal pain. Participants’ desire to contribute to outpatient analgesic selection was assessed by phone within 24 hours of ED discharge using the Control Preferences Scale and categorized as active, collaborative, or passive. The extent to which SDM occurred in the ED was also assessed within 24 hours of discharge using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, and scores were subsequently grouped into tertiles of low, middle, and high SDM. The primary outcome was change in pain severity between the ED visit and 1 week. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction regarding the decision about how to treat pain at home, satisfaction with the pain medication itself, and side effects. Results Desire of participants (N = 94) to contribute to the decision regarding selection of outpatient analgesics varied: 16% active (i.e., make the final decision themselves), 37% collaborative (i.e., share decision with provider), and 47% passive (i.e., let the doctor make the final decision). The percentage of patients who desired an active role in the decision was higher for patients who were college educated versus those who were not college educated (28% vs. 11%; difference 17%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0% to 35%), received care from a nurse practitioner versus a resident or an attending physician (32% vs. 9%; difference 23%, 95% CI = 4% to 42%), or received care from a female versus a male provider (24% vs. 5%; difference 19%, 95% = CI 5% to 32%). After potential confounders were adjusted for, the mean decrease in pain severity from the ED visit to 1-week follow-up was not significantly different across tertiles of SDM (p = 0.06). Higher SDM scores were associated with greater satisfaction with the discharge pain medications (p = 0.006). SDM was not associated with the class of analgesic received. Conclusions In this sample of older adults with acute musculoskeletal pain, the reported desire of patients to contribute to decisions regarding analgesics varied based on both patient and on provider characteristics. SDM was not significantly related to pain reduction in the first week or type of pain medication received, but was associated with greater patient satisfaction.

Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) faces challenges to interoperability and scalability. Centralized, web-based solutions offer a mechanism to share the cost of CDS development, maintenance, and implementation across practices. Data standards have emerged to facilitate interoperability and rapid integration of such third-party CDS. This case report describes the challenges to implementation and scalability of an integrated, web-based CDS intervention for EMergency department-initiated BuprenorphinE for opioid use Disorder which will soon be evaluated in a trial across 20 sites in five healthcare systems. Due to limitations of current standards, security concerns, and the need for resource-intensive local customization, barriers persist related to centralized CDS at this scale. These challenges demonstrate the need and importance for future standards to support two-way messaging (read and write) between electronic health records and web applications, thus allowing for more robust sharing across health systems and decreasing redundant, resource-intensive CDS development at individual sites.