Cargando…

Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review

BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). The primary clinical endpoint was time to development of a category ≥2 PU. The current ‘gold standard’ for PU identification is expert clinic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McGinnis, Elizabeth, Smith, Isabelle L, Collier, Howard, Wilson, Lyn, Coleman, Susanne, Stubbs, Nikki, Brown, Sarah, Gilberts, Rachael, Henderson, Valerie, Walker, Kay, Nelson, E. Andrea, Nixon, Jane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33910607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05262-0
_version_ 1783685400518197248
author McGinnis, Elizabeth
Smith, Isabelle L
Collier, Howard
Wilson, Lyn
Coleman, Susanne
Stubbs, Nikki
Brown, Sarah
Gilberts, Rachael
Henderson, Valerie
Walker, Kay
Nelson, E. Andrea
Nixon, Jane
author_facet McGinnis, Elizabeth
Smith, Isabelle L
Collier, Howard
Wilson, Lyn
Coleman, Susanne
Stubbs, Nikki
Brown, Sarah
Gilberts, Rachael
Henderson, Valerie
Walker, Kay
Nelson, E. Andrea
Nixon, Jane
author_sort McGinnis, Elizabeth
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). The primary clinical endpoint was time to development of a category ≥2 PU. The current ‘gold standard’ for PU identification is expert clinical assessment. Due to the mattress appearance, a blinded assessment of the endpoint is not possible. This poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including patients’ consent to photographs, burden of data collection, photograph quality, data completeness and comparison of photographs to the current ‘gold standard’. This paper reports the findings of the PRESSURE 2 photographic validation sub-study. METHOD: Where consent was obtained, photographs were taken of all category ≥2 PUs on the first presentation to assess over-reporting, and for the assessment of under-reporting, a random sample of 10% patients had an assessment by an independent clinical assessor who also photographed two skin sites. The staff were trained in taking and transferring photographs using standardised procedures and equipment. A card included in the photograph recorded participant details and a ‘greyscale’ for correction of white balance during processing. Three blinded reviewers assessed the photographs and rated how confident they were in their assessment. RESULTS: The trial recruited 2029 patients; 85% consented to photography, and 532 photographs were received and used in the blinded central review. The level of confidence varied by skin classification with more confidence observed when the skin was assessed as being less severe than a category ≥2 PU. Overall, there was a very good reliability compared to the gold standard expert clinical assessment (87.8%, kappa 0.82). CONCLUSION: Study findings have usefully informed the scientific and practical issues of blinded assessment of PU status to reducing the risk of bias in medical device trials. The reliability of central blinded expert photography was found to be ‘very good’ (PABAK). Photographs have been found to be an acceptable method of data validation for participants. Methods to improve the quality of photographs would increase the confidence in the assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01151335. Registered on 19 April 2013
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8080319
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80803192021-04-29 Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review McGinnis, Elizabeth Smith, Isabelle L Collier, Howard Wilson, Lyn Coleman, Susanne Stubbs, Nikki Brown, Sarah Gilberts, Rachael Henderson, Valerie Walker, Kay Nelson, E. Andrea Nixon, Jane Trials Research BACKGROUND: PRESSURE 2 is a randomised evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of mattress for the prevention of pressure ulcers (PUs). The primary clinical endpoint was time to development of a category ≥2 PU. The current ‘gold standard’ for PU identification is expert clinical assessment. Due to the mattress appearance, a blinded assessment of the endpoint is not possible. This poses a risk to the internal validity of the study. A possible approach is to use photographs of skin sites, with central blinded review. However, there are practical and scientific concerns including patients’ consent to photographs, burden of data collection, photograph quality, data completeness and comparison of photographs to the current ‘gold standard’. This paper reports the findings of the PRESSURE 2 photographic validation sub-study. METHOD: Where consent was obtained, photographs were taken of all category ≥2 PUs on the first presentation to assess over-reporting, and for the assessment of under-reporting, a random sample of 10% patients had an assessment by an independent clinical assessor who also photographed two skin sites. The staff were trained in taking and transferring photographs using standardised procedures and equipment. A card included in the photograph recorded participant details and a ‘greyscale’ for correction of white balance during processing. Three blinded reviewers assessed the photographs and rated how confident they were in their assessment. RESULTS: The trial recruited 2029 patients; 85% consented to photography, and 532 photographs were received and used in the blinded central review. The level of confidence varied by skin classification with more confidence observed when the skin was assessed as being less severe than a category ≥2 PU. Overall, there was a very good reliability compared to the gold standard expert clinical assessment (87.8%, kappa 0.82). CONCLUSION: Study findings have usefully informed the scientific and practical issues of blinded assessment of PU status to reducing the risk of bias in medical device trials. The reliability of central blinded expert photography was found to be ‘very good’ (PABAK). Photographs have been found to be an acceptable method of data validation for participants. Methods to improve the quality of photographs would increase the confidence in the assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01151335. Registered on 19 April 2013 BioMed Central 2021-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8080319/ /pubmed/33910607 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05262-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
McGinnis, Elizabeth
Smith, Isabelle L
Collier, Howard
Wilson, Lyn
Coleman, Susanne
Stubbs, Nikki
Brown, Sarah
Gilberts, Rachael
Henderson, Valerie
Walker, Kay
Nelson, E. Andrea
Nixon, Jane
Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
title Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
title_full Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
title_fullStr Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
title_full_unstemmed Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
title_short Pressure Relieving Support Surfaces: a Randomised Evaluation 2 (PRESSURE 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
title_sort pressure relieving support surfaces: a randomised evaluation 2 (pressure 2): using photography for blinded central endpoint review
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8080319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33910607
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05262-0
work_keys_str_mv AT mcginniselizabeth pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT smithisabellel pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT collierhoward pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT wilsonlyn pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT colemansusanne pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT stubbsnikki pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT brownsarah pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT gilbertsrachael pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT hendersonvalerie pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT walkerkay pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT nelsoneandrea pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT nixonjane pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview
AT pressurerelievingsupportsurfacesarandomisedevaluation2pressure2usingphotographyforblindedcentralendpointreview