Cobo E.,Elsevier |
Cobo E.,Polytechnic University of Catalonia |
Cortes J.,Polytechnic University of Catalonia |
Ribera J.M.,Elsevier |
And 27 more authors.
BMJ (Online) | Year: 2011
Objective: To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts. Design: Masked randomised trial. Population: Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication. Intervention: Control group: conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines. Outcomes: Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale. Results: Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).
Reyes C.,Primary Health Care Center Eap Sardenya |
Formiga F.,Hospital Universitari Of Bellvitge |
Coderch M.,Primary Health Care Center Eap Sardenya |
Hoyo J.,Primary Health Care Center Les Corts |
And 6 more authors.
Bone | Year: 2013
Objective: To determine whether there is an increased risk of hip fracture associated with the use of proton pump inhibitors in a Mediterranean area after adjusting for other potential risk factors. Methods: Retrospective multicenter case-control study carried out in 6 primary health care centers in Catalonia, Spain. Cases were patients aged 50. years and over with a fragility hip fracture registered between January 2007 and December 2010, matched with 2 controls by sex and age. Data collected: use of proton pump inhibitors (type, dosage) in the 5. years previous to the hip fracture, socio-demographic data, body mass index, alcohol and tobacco consumption as well as health conditions and drugs associated with an increase risk of fragility hip fracture. Results: 358 cases were matched with 698 controls. The mean age was 82. years old in both groups. Women represented 77.1% in the case group and 76.9% in the control group. Crude association between proton pump inhibitors and hip fracture was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.09-1.89) and adjusted OR was 1.24 (95% CI, 0.93-1.65). No association was found with the continuous or discontinuous use of proton pump inhibitors, OR 1.17 (95% CI, 0.77-1.79), and OR of 1.16 (95% CI, 0.85-1.60) respectively. No association was found when restricting the analysis by sex, OR of 1.19 (95% CI, 0.27-5.14) or by age, younger or older than 80. years, OR of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.24-2.15). Conclusion: The use of proton pump inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of hip fracture after adjusting for other risk factors in a Mediterranean area. This result suggests the existence of protective environmental factors linked to this southern area of Europe that eventually could compensate for the potential harm produced by proton pump inhibitors. © 2012 Elsevier Inc.