Ruairidh Milne

Bio: Ruairidh Milne is an academic researcher from University of Southampton. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Systematic review. The author has an hindex of 32, co-authored 110 publications receiving 8410 citations. Previous affiliations of Ruairidh Milne include National Institute for Health Research & Durham University.

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

Abstract: Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Better reporting of interventions: Template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

Abstract: Free to read Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches

Abstract: Objectives: To analyze sources searched in Cochrane reviews, to determine the proportion of trials included in reviews that are indexed in major databases, and to compare the quality of these trials with those from other sources.Methods: All new systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library, Issue1 2001, that were restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were selected. The sources searched in the reviews were recorded, and the trials included were checked to see whether they were indexed in four major databases. Trials not indexed were checked to determine how they could be identified. The quality of trials found in major databases was compared with those found from other sources.Results: The range in the number of databases searched per review ranged between one and twenty-seven. The proportion of the trials in the four databases were Cochrane Controlled Trials Register=78.5%, MEDLINE=68.8%, Embase=65.0%, and Science/Social Sciences Citation Index=60.7%. Searching another twenty-six databases after Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR), MEDLINE, and Embase only found 2.4% additional trials. There was no significant difference between trials found in the CCTR, MEDLINE, and Embase compared with other trials, with respect to adequate allocation concealment or sample size.Conclusions: There was a large variation between reviews in the exhaustiveness of the literature searches. CCTR was the single best source of RCTs. Additional database searching retrieved only a small percentage of extra trials. Contacting authors and manufacturers to find unpublished trials appeared to be a more effective method of obtaining the additional better quality trials.

Involving consumers in research and development agenda setting for the NHS: developing an evidence-based approach

Abstract: Objectives The objectives of the study were to: 1) look at the processes and outcomes of identification and prioritisation in both national and regional RD whether consumers or researchers initiated the involvement; the degree of consumer involvement (consultation, collaboration or consumer control); forums for communication (e.g. committees, surveys, focus groups); methods for decision-making; and the practicalities for implementation. We considered context (institutional, geographical and historical setting) and underpinning theories as important variables for analysing examples of consumer involvement. We translated the principles for minimising bias and maximising transparency to reviewing a body of literature that is largely descriptive or reflective rather than based on systematic research methods. We assumed, conventionally, that well-conducted research studies would be less biased and more reliable. In order to draw on other reports where necessary, we assumed that reports where consumers shared authorship with researchers would be less biased, that reports originating in the UK would be more relevant and that findings supported by more reports or by reports originating from both the UK and elsewhere would be more generalisable. Methods We systematically sought literature through databases, handsearching and citation tracking, and also through people in the UK who were (a) known to have worked to identify or prioritise health research topics or (b) recognised consumer specialists or advocates. We included reports if they explicitly mentioned consumer involvement in identifying or prioritising research topics. We also interviewed consumers and research programme managers from some UK examples. We applied the innovative framework to review data from interviews and reports. Results We found 286 documents explicitly mentioning consumer involvement in identifying or prioritising research topics. Of these, 91 were general discussions, some of which included a theoretical analysis or a critique of research agendas from a consumer perspective, 160 reported specific efforts to include consumers in identifying or prioritising research topics and a further 51 reported consumers identifying or prioritising research topics in the course of other work. We found detailed reports of 87 specific examples. These included: >inviting consumer groups to collaborate in setting research agendas (13) >consulting consumer groups (12) >inviting individual consumers to collaborate in identifying and/or >prioritising research topics (17) >consulting individual consumers (13) >responding to consumer action with a collaboration (13) >responding to consumer action by consulting with consumers (3) >responding to consumer action by conducting research without consumer input (6) >consumers independently identifying or prioritising research topics (10). Most of this literature was descriptive reports by researchers who were key actors in involving consumers. A few reports were written by consumer participants. Fewer still were by independent researchers. Our conclusions are therefore not based on rigorous research, but implications for policy are drawn from individual reports and comparative analyses. Conclusions Research programmes have sufficient collective experience of involving consumers to plan their agendas working directly or indirectly with consumers. Appropriate methods depend upon the tasks to be undertaken, the consumers to be involved and the support required. Productive methods for involving consumers require appropriate skills, resources and time to develop and follow appropriate working practices. The more that consumers are involved in determining how this is to be done, the more research programmes will learn from consumers and about how to work with them. More success might be expected if research programmes embarking on collaborations approach well-networked consumers and provide them with information, resources and support to empower them in key roles for consulting their peers and prioritising topics. To be worthwhile, consultations should engage consumer groups directly and repeatedly in facilitated debate; when discussing health services research, more resources and time are required if consumers are drawn from groups whose main focus of interest is not health. Barriers to consumer involvement include: poor representation of consumers; consumers’ unfamiliarity with research and research programmes’ unfamiliarity with consumers; negative attitudes and poor working relationships; difficulties in communication; and time constraints. These barriers can largely be overcome with good leadership, purposeful outreach to consumers, investing time and effort in good communication, training and support and thereby building good working relationships and building on experience. Organised consumer groups capable of identifying research priorities need to find ways of introducing their ideas into research programmes. They should be aware that consumers making efforts to (re)design structures and procedures have had greater influence over research agendas. Consumers are particularly well placed to reflect on their experience of research agenda setting in order to build the evidence about their priorities and methods for involving them.

A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research.

Abstract: Objective To describe the development of a multidimensional conceptual framework capable of drawing out the implications for policy and practice of what is known about public involvement in research agenda setting. Background Public involvement in research is growing in western and developing countries. There is a need to learn from collective experience and a diverse literature of research, policy documents and reflective reports. Methods Systematic searches of research literature, policy and lay networks identified reports of public involvement in research agenda setting. Framework analysis, previously described for primary research, was used to develop the framework, which was then applied to reports of public involvement in order to analyse and compare these. Findings The conceptual framework takes into account the people involved; the people initiating the involvement; the degree of public involvement; the forum for exchange; and methods used for decision making. It also considers context (in terms of the research focus and the historical, geographical or institutional setting), and theoretical basis. Conclusions The framework facilitates learning across diverse experiences, whether reported in policy documents, reflections or formal research, to generate a policy- and practice-relevant overview. A further advantage is that it identifies gaps in the literature which need to be filled in order to inform future research about public involvement

Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Abstract: Impatti, adattamento e vulnerabilita Le cause e le responsabilita dei cambiamenti climatici sono state trattate sul numero di ottobre della rivista Cda. Approfondiamo l’argomento presentando il documento: “Cambiamenti climatici 2007: impatti, adattamento e vulnerabilita” votato ad aprile 2007 dal secondo gruppo di lavoro del Comitato Intergovernativo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Si tratta del secondo di tre documenti che compongono il quarto rapporto sui cambiamenti climatici.

Interventions for preventing obesity in children

Abstract: The current evidence suggests that many diet and exercise interventions to prevent obesity in children are not effective in preventing weight gain, but can be effective in promoting a healthy diet and increased physical activity levels.Being very overweight (obese) can cause health, psychological and social problems for children. Children who are obese are more likely to have weight and health problems as adults. Programmes designed to prevent obesity focus on modifying one or more of the factors considered to promote obesity.This review included 22 studies that tested a variety of intervention programmes, which involved increased physical activity and dietary changes, singly or in combination. Participants were under 18 and living in Asia, South America, Europe or North America. There is not enough evidence from trials to prove that any one particular programme can prevent obesity in children, although comprehensive strategies to address dietary and physical activity change, together with psycho-social support and environmental change may help. There was a trend for newer interventions to involve their respective communities and to include evaluations.Future research might usefully assess changes made on behalf of entire populations, such as improvements in the types of foods available at schools and in the availability of safe places to run and play, and should assess health effects and costs over several years.The programmes in this review used different strategies to prevent obesity so direct comparisons were difficult. Also, the duration of the studies ranged from 12 weeks to three years, but most lasted less than a year.

Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: ContextAntioxidant supplements are used for prevention of several diseases.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of antioxidant supplements on mortality in randomized primary and secondary prevention trials.Data Sources and Trial SelectionWe searched electronic databases and bibliographies published by October 2005. All randomized trials involving adults comparing beta carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C (ascorbic acid), vitamin E, and selenium either singly or combined vs placebo or vs no intervention were included in our analysis. Randomization, blinding, and follow-up were considered markers of bias in the included trials. The effect of antioxidant supplements on all-cause mortality was analyzed with random-effects meta-analyses and reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression was used to assess the effect of covariates across the trials.Data ExtractionWe included 68 randomized trials with 232 606 participants (385 publications).Data SynthesisWhen all low- and high-bias risk trials of antioxidant supplements were pooled together there was no significant effect on mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.06). Multivariate meta-regression analyses showed that low-bias risk trials (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29) and selenium (RR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.9995) were significantly associated with mortality. In 47 low-bias trials with 180 938 participants, the antioxidant supplements significantly increased mortality (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08). In low-bias risk trials, after exclusion of selenium trials, beta carotene (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11), vitamin A (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24), and vitamin E (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.07), singly or combined, significantly increased mortality. Vitamin C and selenium had no significant effect on mortality.ConclusionsTreatment with beta carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E may increase mortality. The potential roles of vitamin C and selenium on mortality need further study.