To assess the comparative effectiveness of educational interventions in neurological disease for healthcare workers and students.

Systematic review.

Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to 1 June 2025.

Studies evaluating neurological disease educational interventions with a comparator group (observational cohort/randomised controlled trial (RCT)) were included.

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42023461838). Knowledge acquisition and educational methodologies were collected from each study. Study outcomes were classified using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick four-level model (learner reaction, knowledge acquisition, behavioural change, clinical outcome).¹ Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs.^{2 3}

A total of 67 studies involving 4728 participants were included. Of these, 36 were RCTs, and 31 were observational studies. Virtual interventions were the most common (67.2%, n=45 studies), primarily targeting either medical students (46.3%, n=31 studies) or specialists (40.3%, n=27 studies). Overall, 70.1% (n=47) of studies demonstrated outcomes in favour of the intervention. However, few studies used K&K level 3/4 outcomes, with two studies evaluating behaviour change (level 3) and three assessing clinical outcomes (level 4 combined with other levels). No study exclusively assessed level 4 outcomes. Meta-analysis of 22 RCTs with calculable standardised mean differences (SMDs) (n=1748) showed a significant benefit of interventions (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.27, p=0.0056).

This review highlights a growing body of research particularly focusing on virtual techniques, specialist audiences and treatment-oriented content. Few studies assessed changes in practice or patient care. Non-specialists remain underrepresented. Future studies should prioritise assessing the clinical impact of educational interventions within non-specialist audiences.

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a broad range of diseases associated with abnormalities/degeneration of retinal cells. We aimed to identify the top 10 Australian research priorities for IRDs to ultimately facilitate more meaningful and potentially cost-effective research.

We conducted a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership that involved two Australian-wide surveys and online workshops.

Australia-wide.

Individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible to participate if they had an IRD, were caregivers of an individual with an IRD or were health professionals providing care to this community.

In Survey 1, we gathered participants’ unanswered questions about IRDs. We grouped these into summary questions and undertook a literature review to verify if they were truly unanswered (ie, evidence uncertainties). In Survey 2, participants voted for the uncertainties that they considered a priority. Top-ranked uncertainties progressed for discussion and final prioritisation in two workshops.

In Survey 1, we collected 223 questions from 69 participants. We grouped these into 42 summary questions and confirmed 41 as evidence uncertainties. In Survey 2, 151 participants voted, with the 16 uncertainties progressing to final prioritisation. The top 10 priorities, set by the 24 workshop participants, represented (1) treatment/cure; (2) symptoms and disease progression; (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) health service delivery. The #1 priority was for treatment to prevent, slow down or stop vision loss, followed by the #2 priority to address the psychological impact of having an IRD.

The top 10 research priorities highlight the need for IRD research that takes a whole-person, systems approach. Collaborations to progress priorities will accelerate the translation of research into real-world benefits.

Guidelines for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) dictate the initiation of conservative treatment (physical therapy, analgesics and intra-articular injections with corticosteroids) as a first line defence. When conservative treatment fails, the golden standard is invasive joint replacement surgery, but for a substantial group of patients who do not respond to the current conservative treatment, this is not (yet) indicated. The RADIOPHENOL study investigates if denervation of knee sensory (genicular) nerves can serve the gap between conservative and invasive treatment for younger patients and for patients who cannot undergo joint replacement surgery due to comorbid health conditions.

The RADIOPHENOL study is a multicentre unblinded randomised controlled trial with three parallel arms (1:1:1). In total, 192 patients with knee OA Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2–4 but not eligible for joint replacement according to the orthopaedic surgeon due to young age, old age and/or comorbidity or technical reasons are eligible and will be randomised to three groups of 64 patients. Group A: traditional radiofrequency ablation, group B: chemical neurolysis with phenol, group C: conservative medical management. Primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, knee pain by numeric rating scale, physical functionality, health-related quality of life, mental health, change in medication use, predictive value of a diagnostic block, procedure time, patient discomfort score during the intervention and adverse events.

The protocol (V.2.0, 15 May 2023), was approved by the Ethics Committee of Amsterdam UMC (NL83410.018.22 – METC2022.0890) on 31 July 2023. We aim to publish our results in international peer-reviewed journals.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06094660, including the WHO Trial Registration data set items. Registered on 20 October 2023, first patient enrolled on 27 November 2023.