Search

Abstract Background Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. Methods As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives: 1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval, b. were registered in trial registries, or c. were presented as abstracts at conferences. 2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication. To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows: a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs; b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries; c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts. Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time). Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication. The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. Discussion Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Background: The delivery and initial resuscitation of a newborn infant are required but rarely practised skills in emergency medicine. Deliveries in the emergency department are high-risk events and deviations from best practices are associated with poor outcomes., Introduction: Telemedicine can provide emergency medicine providers real-time access to a Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP)-trained paediatric specialist. We hypothesised that adherence to NRP guidelines would be higher for participants with access to a remotely located NRP-trained paediatric specialist via telemedicine compared with participants without access., Materials and Methods: Prospective single-centre randomised trial. Emergency Medicine residents were randomised into a telemedicine or standard care group. The participants resuscitated a simulated, apnoeic and bradycardic neonate. In the telemedicine group a remote paediatric specialist participated in the resuscitation. Simulations were video recorded and assessed for adherence to guidelines using four critical actions. The secondary outcome of task load was measured through participants' completion of the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and reviewers completed a detailed NRP checklist., Results: Twelve participants were included. The use of telemedicine was associated with significantly improved adherence to three of the four critical actions reflecting NRP guidelines as well as a significant improvement in the overall score (p<0.001). On the NASA-TLX, no significant difference was seen in overall subjective workload assessment, but of the subscore components, frustration was statistically significantly greater in the control group (p<0.001)., Conclusions: In this study, telemedicine improved adherence to NRP guidelines. Future work is needed to replicate these findings in the clinical environment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)