Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29716584›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2018

Clinicians' attitude towards a placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of neuraminidase inhibitors in adults hospitalised with influenza.

Naomi Bradbury, Jonathan Nguyen-Van-Tam, Wei Shen Lim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2018. 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
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Inhibition of sialidase activity as a therapeutic approach.Drug design, development and therapy · 2018
    Review
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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Naomi BradburyZeeman Institute: Systems Biology and Infectious Disease Epidemiology Research (SBIDER), University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Jonathan Nguyen-Van-TamFaculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham. Clinical Sciences Building, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK.
Wei Shen LimDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital Campus, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK. weishen.lim@nuh.nhs.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7694-3051
Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe value of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) in reducing severe clinical outcomes from influenza is debated. A clinical trial to generate better evidence is desirable. However, it is unknown whether UK clinicians would support a placebo-controlled trial. A survey was conducted to determine the attitude of clinicians towards a clinical trial and their current practice in managing adults admitted to hospital with suspected influenza.

methodsSenior clinicians (n = 50) across the UK actively involved in the care of patients hospitalised with severe respiratory infections and/or respiratory infection research were invited to participate in an on-line survey. Participants were asked their opinion on the evidence for benefit of NAIs in influenza, their current practice in relation to: a) testing for influenza; b) treating empirically with NAIs; and c) when influenza infection is virolologically confirmed, prescribing NAIs.

resultsThirty-five (70%) of 50 clinicians completed the survey. Respondents were drawn mainly from infectious diseases, intensive care and respiratory medicine. Only 11 (31%) of 35 respondents agreed that NAIs are effective at reducing influenza mortality; 14 (40%) disagreed, 10 (28.6%) neither agreed nor disagreed. When managing adults admitted to non-ICU wards with a respiratory infection during an influenza season, 15 (51.7%) clinicians indicated they would usually perform a test for influenza in greater than 60% of patients but only 9 (31%) would treat empirically with NAIs in greater than 60% of patients. Few clinicians would either test or empirically treat patients presenting with other (non-respiratory infection related) diagnoses. If influenza infection is confirmed, 17 (64.5%) clinicians would prescribe NAIs in greater than 80% of patients with a respiratory infection treated on non-ICU wards Thirty-one (89%) clinicians agreed that a placebo-controlled clinical trial should be conducted and 29 (85%) would participate in such a trial.

conclusionsThere is strong support from UK clinicians for a placebo-controlled trial of NAI treatment in adults hospitalised with suspected influenza. Current variation in medical opinion and clinical practice demonstrates collective equipoise, supporting ethical justification for a trial. Low use of NAIs in the UK suggests randomisation of treatment would not substantially divert patients towards placebo.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelMedical Staff, HospitalAdultAntiviral AgentsGlycoside Hydrolase InhibitorsHospitalizationHumansInfluenza, HumanNeuraminidaseOseltamivirRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch PersonnelSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomZanamivirAntiviral AgentsGlycoside Hydrolase InhibitorsNeuraminidaseOseltamivirZanamivirClinical practiceEquipoiseEthicsInfluenzaNeuraminidase inhibitorsOseltamivirPandemicSurveyZanamivir

Identifiers

PMID29716584
PMCPMC5930775
OpenAlexW2801496911

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.