Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.
Background: In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.Methods: Using software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.Results: Four hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6-18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25-38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance.
This study provides an in-depth understanding of the perceptions of patients with T2DM before use (acceptability) and after use (acceptance) regarding 4 different mobile health apps for diabetes control and self-management. This study was part of the TOPFIT Citizenlab project. TOPFIT Citizenlab is a 3-year research and innovation program in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Citizens, health care professionals (HCPs), and companies have joined forces with researchers to develop and implement technology for health and well-being.
MULTIFILE
