British journal of anaesthesia
-
Editorial Comment Meta Analysis
There is (probably) no (meaningful) difference in (most) outcomes between 'spinal' and 'general' anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: time to move forward.
A meta-analysis influenced by two recent large randomised controlled trials (REGAIN and RAGA) concluded that little, if any, difference in commonly measured outcomes exists between patients administered spinal or general anaesthesia for their hip fracture surgery. We explore whether there is genuinely no difference, or what the methodological problems in research might be that prevent any real difference from being observed. We also discuss the need for greater nuance in future research to determine how anaesthetists might deliver perioperative care towards improving postoperative recovery trajectories in patients following hip fracture.
-
Editorial Comment Meta Analysis
Importance of sequential methods in meta-analysis: implications for postoperative mortality, delirium, and stroke management.
Trial sequential analysis is an adaptation of frequentist sequential methods that can be used to improve inferences from meta-analysis. Trial sequential analysis can help preserve type I and type II error rates at desired levels for analyses conducted before the required information size. Through three case studies recently published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia, we show how trial sequential analysis can inform the interpretation of meta-analyses. Limitations of trial sequential analysis, which also include those of the meta-analysis to which it is applied, must be carefully considered alongside its benefits.
-
Reproducibility of research is poor; this may be because many articles report statistically significant findings that are false positives. Two potential solutions are to lower the P-value for statistical significance testing from 0.05 to 0.005 and to report the minimum false-positive risk (minFPR). This study determined these metrics for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in general anaesthesiology journals. ⋯ These proposed metrics aimed at mitigating reproducibility concerns would call a significant portion of the anaesthesiology literature into question. We found a minFPR of 22% and determined that 42% of primary outcomes would not maintain statistical significance if the P-value threshold changed from 0.05 to 0.005. These findings could partially explain the lack of reproducibility of research findings.
-
Editorial Comment
Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy: an imprecise umbrella term to avoid.
'Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy' describes various haemodynamic treatment strategies that have in common that interventions are titrated to achieve predefined haemodynamic targets. However, the treatment strategies differ substantially regarding the underlying haemodynamic target variables and target values, and thus presumably have different effects on outcome. It is an over-simplifying approach to lump complex and substantially differing haemodynamic treatment strategies together under the term 'goal-directed haemodynamic therapy', an imprecise umbrella term that we should thus stop using.
-
Editorial Comment
Incremental advances will improve medical device alarm sounds.
The March issue contains a laboratory study of auditory perception, which is an unusual topic for this journal. A perspective is provided on how the study relates to recent research on clinical auditory alarms and displays. Techniques used in the study are explored and explained, such as enrolment of non-clinician volunteer participants, use of coordinate response measure phrase stimuli, presentation of sound loudness levels using the decibel scale, and analysis using signal detection theory. Such efforts to improve the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of modern medical device alarms are critical for improved patient safety.