No abstract

Context The misrepresentation and distortion of research findings, known as “spin,” has been shown to affect clinical decision making. Spin has been found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in various fields of medicine. Objective To evaluate the abstracts of RCTs found in the cardiology literature for spin. Methods The authors searched PubMed using a specific string of keywords to identify previously published articles documenting RCTs of cardiovascular treatments in humans. To be included, a cardiology trial had to randomize humans to an intervention, statistically compare 2 or more groups, and have a nonsignificant primary endpoint. Records were excluded if they did not meet these criteria. Data extraction was double-blinded and done using a pilot-tested Google Form. Items extracted from each trial included the title, journal, funding source, comparator arm, primary endpoint, statistical analysis of the primary endpoint, secondary endpoints, statistical analysis of secondary endpoints, and trial registration number (if reported). The 2 authors who screened records for inclusion were then asked whether spin was present in the abstract of the randomized trial. Spin in the title, abstract results, abstract conclusions, and selection of reported endpoints were considered. Results Of the 651 PubMed citations retrieved by our search string, 194 RCTs with a clearly defined primary endpoint were identified. Of these 194 RCTs, 66 trials contained nonsignificant primary endpoints and were evaluated for spin. Of these trials, spin was identified in 18 of the 66 abstracts (27.3%). Conclusions Spin was present in our sample of cardiology RCTs. Spin may influence clinical decision making by creating false impressions of the true validity of a drug or intervention.

Background The topic of natural immunity related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 remains controversial. Although evidence suggests postinfection immunity can be achieved, there have been reported cases of reinfection with similar or milder symptoms. Information on severe disease manifestation during reinfection is not known. We present a case of reinfection with a more severe presentation as compared with the initial infection. Case Report We describe a white male patient from a nursing home who was reinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 with severe disease manifesting as dyspnea, fevers, and encephalopathy with hypoxemic respiratory failure requiring intubation, elevated inflammatory markers, and lung infiltrates on imaging, after initially testing positive with mild symptoms 2 months prior to presentation. Notably, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies were detected, which indicated this was a coronavirus disease 2019 reinfection. After treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma, he was subsequently extubated and discharged home after 2 weeks. Conclusion It is not clear whether an initial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and recovery provides prolonged immunity beyond 2 months. Furthermore, even if antibodies are present, it does not guarantee an attenuated course during reinfection. Therefore, vaccination plays an important role in prevention. Long-term cohort studies will be needed to study the factors behind reinfection.

Background and Objectives: The American Board of Internal Medicine's Choosing Wisely campaign recommends against ordering repetitive complete blood counts (CBC) in the face of clinical and laboratory stability. Methods: Consecutive patients admitted to a teaching team were included. Intervention 1 was an educational lecture outlining costs of and indications for CBC ordering. Intervention 2 added a simplified algorithm to help providers determine the need for a daily CBC. The primary outcome measure was the number of CBCs ordered per number of patients per day. The secondary outcome measure was net cost saved. The process measures were lecture/poster and algorithm utilization rates. The balancing measure was emergency department visits/readmissions within 7 days of discharge. A statistical process control chart was generated to assess special cause variation. Using R software version 3.5.2, a 2-sample t test and Fisher exact test differences between groups in the outcome and balancing measures. Results: One hundred ten patients were included over a 62-day period. The difference between the pre-intervention group and both interventions combined was significant (P = .000317). Special cause variation was observed after institution of both interventions in conjunction. Net costs saved totaled $43 482. Emergency department visits/readmissions within 7 days were similar between the groups (P = .1403). Conclusions: Complete blood count ordering patterns and costs were improved through education and providing a decision support tool in the form of a simplified algorithm, without increasing 7-day emergency department visits/readmissions. The algorithm, far less detailed than that previously published, still resulted in significant improvement without unintended consequences, making for a safe and potentially sustainable intervention.