Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25623603›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2015

The evaluation of a tailored intervention to improve the management of suspected viral encephalitis: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Ruth Backman, Robbie Foy, Peter J Diggle, Rachel Kneen, Sylviane Defres, Benedict Daniel Michael, Antonieta Medina-Lara, Tom Solomon

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth BackmanDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. r.backman@liverpool.ac.uk.
Robbie FoyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Charles Thackrah Building, 101 Clarendon Road, Leeds, LS2 9LJ, United Kingdom. r.foy@leeds.ac.uk.
Peter J DiggleDepartment Epidemiology and Population Health, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. diggle@liverpool.ac.uk.
Rachel KneenDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. rachel.kneen@liverpool.ac.uk.
Sylviane DefresDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. sdefres@liverpool.ac.uk.
Benedict Daniel MichaelDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. Benedict.Michael@liverpool.ac.uk.
Antonieta Medina-LaraHealth Economics Group, University of Exeter Medical School, Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane, Exeter, EX2 4SG, United Kingdom. A.Medina-Lara@exeter.ac.uk.
Tom SolomonDepartment of Clinical Infection, Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Ronald Ross Building, 8 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L69 7BE, United Kingdom. t.solomon@liverpool.ac.uk.
University of Liverpool · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBWalton Centre · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/205/28Department of Health DRF-2010-03-97Department of Health IS-HPU-1112-10117Department of Health RP-PG-0108-10048Medical Research Council G116/194
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundViral encephalitis is a devastating condition for which delayed treatment is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Clinical audits indicate substantial scope for improved detection and treatment. Improvement strategies should ideally be tailored according to identified needs and barriers to change. The aim of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to improve the secondary care management of suspected encephalitis. METHODS/

designThe study is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial with allocation by postgraduate deanery. Participants were identified from 24 hospitals nested within 12 postgraduate deaneries in the United Kingdom (UK). We developed a multifaceted intervention package including core and flexible components with embedded behaviour change techniques selected on the basis of identified needs and barriers to change. The primary outcome will be a composite of the proportion of patients with suspected encephalitis receiving timely and appropriate diagnostic lumbar puncture within 12 h of hospital admission and aciclovir treatment within 6 h. We will gather outcome data pre-intervention and up to 12 months post-intervention from patient records. Statistical analysis at the cluster level will be blind to allocation. An economic evaluation will estimate intervention cost-effectiveness from the health service perspective.

trial registrationControlled Trials: ISRCTN06886935.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAcyclovirAdultChildClinical ProtocolsCost-Benefit AnalysisEncephalitis, ViralHumansSpinal PunctureTime FactorsAcyclovir

Identifiers

PMID25623603
PMCPMC4314797
OpenAlexW2080507625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.