Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Randomized trial of dentists' understanding: treatment benefit in absolute numbers vs relative risk reduction

This study aimed to assess whether dentists correctly understand the benefit of a dental treatment when it is presented using absolute numbers or relative risk reduction (RRR). This parallel-group randomized controlled trial recruited dentists from 3 postgraduate courses in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Participants received, in sequentially numbered sealed opaque envelopes, the description of a hypothetical scenario of the benefit (avoidance of multiple tooth loss) of nonsurgical periodontal treatment without or with antibiotics. Treatment benefit was presented in 2 different formats: absolute numbers or RRR. Dentists were given 10 minutes to read the treatment scenario and answer 5 questions. The final sample for analysis included 101 dentists. When asked to estimate the number of patients out of 100 who would avoid multiple tooth loss without antibiotics, 17 dentists (33%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.39). Regarding treatment with antibiotics, 26 dentists (50%) in the absolute numbers group and 14 (29%) in the RRR group provided the correct response (p = 0.04). Only 16 dentists (31%) in the absolute numbers group and 12 (25%) in the RRR group gave correct answers for both questions (p = 0.51). Most dentists did not correctly understand the benefit of the treatment, irrespective of the format it was presented. Slightly more dentists correctly understood the benefit of the treatment when it was presented as absolute numbers than as RRR.

Saturated fat, the estimated absolute risk and certainty of risk for mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of reducing saturated fat or fatty foods, or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes in adults.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and references of included studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in adults published in the past 10 years. Eligible reviews investigated reducing saturated fat or fatty foods or replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat, carbohydrate or protein, on the risk of cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using, for example, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) approach. We assessed the quality of SRMAs using a modified version of AMSTAR-2. Results were summarized as absolute estimates of effect together with the certainty of effects using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

We included 17 SRMAs (13 reviews of observational studies with follow-up 1 to 34 years; 4 reviews of RCTs with follow-up 1 to 17 years). The quality of two-thirds of the SRMAs was critically low to moderate; the main limitations included deficient reporting of study selection, absolute effect estimates, sources of funding, and a priori subgroups to explore heterogeneity. Our included reviews reported > 100 estimates of effect across 11 critically important cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes. High quality SRMAs consistently and predominantly reported low to very low certainty evidence that reducing or replacing saturated fat was associated with a very small risk reduction in cancer and cardiometabolic endpoints. The risk reductions where approximately divided, some being statistically significant and some being not statistically significant. However, based on 2 moderate to high quality reviews, we found moderate certainty evidence for a small but important effect that was statistically significant for two outcomes (total mortality events [20 fewer events per 1000 followed] and combined cardiovascular events [16 fewer per 1000 followed]). Conversely, 4 moderate to high quality reviews showed very small effects on total mortality, with 3 of these reviews showing non-statistically significant mortality effects.

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviews investigating the impact of SFA on mortality and major cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes almost universally suggest very small absolute changes in risk, and the data is based primarily on low and very low certainty evidence.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020172141.

Guidelines for the Neurocritical Care Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

The neurointensive care management of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is one of the most critical components contributing to short-term and long-term patient outcomes. Previous recommendations for the medical management of aSAH comprehensively summarized the evidence based on consensus conference held in 2011. In this report, we provide updated recommendations based on appraisal of the literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

METHODS

The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome (PICO) questions relevant to the medical management of aSAH were prioritized by consensus from the panel members. The panel used a custom-designed survey instrument to prioritize clinically relevant outcomes specific to each PICO question. To be included, the study design qualifying criteria were as follows: prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective observational studies, case-control studies, case series with a sample larger than 20 patients, meta-analyses, restricted to human study participants. Panel members first screened titles and abstracts, and subsequently full text review of selected reports. Data were abstracted in duplicate from reports meeting inclusion criteria. Panelists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Risk of Bias tool for assessment of RCTs and the "Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions" tool for assessment of observational studies. The summary of the evidence for each PICO was presented to the full panel, and then the panel voted on the recommendations.

RESULTS

The initial search retrieved 15,107 unique publications, and 74 were included for data abstraction. Several RCTs were conducted to test pharmacological interventions, and we found that the quality of evidence for nonpharmacological questions was consistently poor. Five PICO questions were supported by strong recommendations, one PICO question was supported by conditional recommendations, and six PICO questions did not have sufficient evidence to provide a recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines provide recommendations for or against interventions proven to be effective, ineffective, or harmful in the medical management of patients with aSAH based on a rigorous review of the available literature. They also serve to highlight gaps in knowledge that should guide future research priorities. Despite improvements in the outcomes of patients with aSAH over time, many important clinical questions remain unanswered.

Reporting of absolute and relative risk measures in oral health and cardiovascular events studies: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To understand the magnitude of risk of health events, such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD), related to poor oral health, both relative and absolute risk measures should be reported. Our aim was to investigate the extent to which absolute and relative measures of risk are reported in longitudinal studies that assess the association between oral health indicators (OHIs) and CVD.

METHODS

A systematic search of longitudinal studies investigating the association of any OHI with CVD was carried out using the Embase, Medline and Cochrane library databases. The search covered each database from its inception date to August 2021. Data about reporting relative and absolute risks of the relationship between CVD and OHI from the abstract were extracted. If the relative risk for OHIs and CVD was reported in the abstract, then the underlying absolute risks were searched from the full text, and it was assessed whether it was similarly adjusted for confounding than was the relative risk in the abstract.

RESULTS

One hundred-six articles were included. From these, 85 (80%) studies reported the association of OHIs and CVD with one or more relative risks in the abstract. Of those 85 studies, the underlying absolute risks were accessible or calculable from the abstract or full text of 60 studies. However, of these 60 studies, in only 10 (12%), the underlying absolute risks were similarly adjusted, as were the relative risks in the abstract. The absolute risks of CVD by OHIs were rarely reported without corresponding relative risks in the abstract (n = 2, 2%). Median absolute risk difference in the CVD risk between exposure levels to which the first relative risk in the abstract referred was 1.8% (interquartile range 0.6-4.6, n = 63).

CONCLUSIONS

Focusing on relative risks over absolute risks was a common practice in literature. Reporting similarly adjusted underlying absolute risks of relative risks was rare in most studies, despite those being helpful for comprehending the magnitude of CVD-risk increase related to poor oral health. Current reporting practices could lead to an overinterpretation of risk increase of CVD related to poor oral health.

Introducing the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS): A Living Database for Methods Guidance

IMPORTANCE

Improving methodological quality is a priority in the health research community. Finding appropriate methods guidance can be challenging due to heterogeneous terminology, poor indexing in medical databases, and variation in formats. The Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS) is a new searchable database for methods guidance articles.

OBSERVATIONS

Journal articles that aim to provide guidance for performing (including planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation), reporting, and assessing the quality of health-related research involving humans or human populations (ie, excluding basic and animal research) are eligible for LIGHTS. A team of health researchers, information specialists, and methodologists continuously identifies and manually indexes eligible guidance documents. The search strategy includes focused searches of specific journals, specialized databases, and suggestions from researchers. A current limitation is that a keyword-based search of MEDLINE (and other general databases) and manual screening of records were not feasible because of the large number of hits (n = 915 523). As of September 20, 2022, LIGHTS included 1246 articles (336 reporting guidelines, 80 quality assessment tools, and 830 other methods guidance articles). The LIGHTS website provides a user-oriented search interface including filters for study type, specific methodological topic, research context, guidance type, and development process of the guidance. Automated matching of alternative methodological expressions (eg, enter loss to follow-up and find articles indexed with missing data) enhances search queries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

LIGHTS is a peer-supported initiative that is intended to increase access to and use of methods guidance relevant to health researchers, statisticians, methods consultants, methods developers, ethics boards, peer reviewers, journal editors, and funding bodies.

Reporting and interpretation of effects in non-randomized nutritional and environmental epidemiology: a methods study

PURPOSE

The presentation of absolute effects, in addition to relative effects, is critical to the optimal interpretation of effect estimates. Failure to present and interpret absolute effects may obscure the magnitude of the effect of an intervention or exposure and mislead evidence users.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we estimate the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) addressing the health effects of nutritional and environmental exposures that report absolute effects.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 2019 through 2021 for SRMAs addressing the health effects of nutritional and environmental exposures and patient-important health outcomes. We included a sample of 200 SRMAs. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search records for eligibility and collected data from SRMAs.

RESULTS

More than two-thirds (153/200; 76.5%) of eligible systematic reviews reported on one or more dichotomous outcomes that could be translated to absolute effects. Only eight (8/153, 5.2%)5.2%), however, reported absolute effects. A similar proportion of reviews published in high-impact journals and in other journals reported absolute effects (4/131; 3.1% vs. 4/69; 5.9%). Among reviews that reported absolute effects, six reviews (6/8; 75%) reported absolute risk differences as fractions (e.g., 2 fewer cases per 1000 people) and two reviews (2/8; 25%) presented the number of cases prevented by modifying the exposure (e.g., 2000 cases prevented in United States annually).

CONCLUSIONS

Reviews addressing the effects of nutritional and environmental exposures on health outcomes rarely report absolute effects, which precludes effective interpretation of magnitudes of effects and their importance. We present guidance for review authors, editors, peer reviewers, and evidence users to calculate and interpret absolute effects.

Efficacy and safety of chinese herbal medicine for treating mild or moderate COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients.

Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system.

Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant.

Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Patients' perspective on supposedly patient-relevant process and outcome parameters: a cross-sectional survey within the 'PRO patients study'

BACKGROUND

To be able to make informed choices based on their individual preferences, patients need to be adequately informed about treatment options and their potential outcomes. This implies that studies measure the effects of care based on parameters that are relevant to patients. In a previous scoping review, we found a wide variety of supposedly patient-relevant parameters that equally addressed processes and outcomes of care. We were unable to identify a consistent understanding of patient relevance and therefore aimed to develop an empirically based concept including a generic set of patient-relevant parameters. As a first step we evaluated the process and outcome parameters identified in the scoping review from the patients' perspective.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among German general practice patients. Ten research practices of Witten/Herdecke University supported the study. During a two-week period in the fall of 2020, patients willing to participate self-administered a short questionnaire. It evaluated the relevance of the 32 parameters identified in the scoping review on a 5-point Likert scale and offered a free-text field for additional parameters. These free-text answers were inductively categorized by two researchers. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Bivariate analyses were performed to determine whether there are any correlations between rating a parameter as highly relevant and patients' characteristics.

RESULTS

Data from 299 patients were eligible for analysis. All outcomes except 'sexuality' and 'frequency of healthcare service utilization' were rated important. 'Confidence in therapy' was rated most important, followed by 'prevention of comorbidity' and 'mobility'. Relevance ratings of five parameters were associated with patients' age and gender, but not with their chronic status. The free-text analysis revealed 15 additional parameters, 12 of which addressed processes of care, i.e., 'enough time in physician consultation'.

CONCLUSION

Patients attach great value to parameters addressing processes of care. It appears as though the way in which patients experience the care process is not less relevant than what comes of it. Relevance ratings were not associated with chronic status, but few parameters were gender- and age-related.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative, registration number: 1685.

Implementation of an evidence-based medicine curriculum in a fellowship program: Can it influence clinical practice?

While evidence-based medicine (EBM) curricula improves knowledge scores, correlation with physician behavior, and patient outcomes are not clear. We established an EBM curriculum for Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine fellows that included didactic teaching, opportunity for deliberate practice and presentation, and coaching and feedback from faculty experts, to determine the impact on self-assessed confidence in teaching EBM, Practice-Based Learning and Improvement (PBLI) competency rating and patient care decisions. Seventeen fellows at a New York City academic medical center participated during 2014-2015 academic year. We analyzed pre-/posttest surveys for self-assessed confidence in teaching EBM concepts, EBM worksheets for content of clinical questions and impact on patient care, and PBLI competency ratings for overall impact. Posttest survey indicated that fellows' self-assessed confidence in teaching EBM increased significantly. While most found Journal Club discussions and EBM case conferences valuable, only 36% of fellows found EBM worksheets completion to be good use of time (average completion time 89 minutes). EBM worksheets helped reinforce or change plan of care in 32 out of 50 cases. There was no impact on end-of-the-year PBLI ratings. This curriculum, integrating didactic, self-directed and peer learning with objective feedback, increased self-assessed confidence in teaching EBM, and influenced patient care plans.

Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews

BACKGROUND

AMSTAR-2 ('A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition.

METHODS

We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116).

RESULTS

We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet's agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers' conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users' wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

Patient-important outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments for COVID-19: a protocol of a META-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIO), limiting research applicability. We aim to investigate if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 pharmacological therapies include PIOs.

METHODS

We will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a living network metanalysis (NMA). The main data sources are the living WHO covid-19 database up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Two reviewers independently will review each citation, full-text article, and abstract data. To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs.

DISCUSSION

The findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS

Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz .

Statements considering intervention effects in Finnish clinical practice guidelines: Recommending interventions with non-numeric effect-sizes or unspecified outcomes

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Representation of benefits and harms associated with specific interventions in an understandable and comparable way is crucial for informed decision making that clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to enhance. Therefore, we investigated how statements concerning the effects of interventions considered and described benefits and harms, magnitude of effect and its uncertainty, numeric and non-numeric information, and outcomes in Finnish CPGs.

METHODS

We selected 10 CPGs on common diseases and risk factors published by The Finnish Medical Society, Duodecim. All the statements which were graded with the level of evidence from high to very low (levels A-D) were included in analyses. From these statements, assessments were made regarding whether the statement considered benefits or harms, whether relative or absolute numeric measures were shown, whether the statement supported or was against the intervention considered, and what outcome was reported.

RESULTS

Of the 10 CPGs, 448 statements were assessed. Most of the statements of effects considered intervention benefits (87%) rather than harms. Half of the statements considering harms were represented in a way that supported the intervention. Most of the statements (94%) did not include numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect. When numeric estimates of magnitude of the effect were present, they were most frequently relative measures and were typically placed in a statement considering (a) intervention benefits with a primary outcome, (b) given the grade of A for level of evidence, and (c) that supported the use of intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Finnish CPGs, the statements were rarely framed with both absolute and relative numeric measures of an intervention's effect. Harms were rarely reported with a grade indicating the level of evidence. The users of CPGs would benefit from more consistent and understandable framing of statements considering both benefits and harms of interventions.

Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text.

RESULTS

27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter.

What outcomes should be evaluated in critically ill patients?

Randomized clinical trials in intensive care prioritize disease-focused outcomes rather than patient-centered outcomes. A paradigm shift considering the evaluation of measures after hospital discharge and measures focused on quality of life and common symptoms, such as pain and dyspnea, could better reflect the wishes of patients and their families. However, barriers related to the systematization of the interpretation of these outcomes, the heterogeneity of measurement instruments and the greater difficulty in performing the studies, to date, seem to hinder this change. In addition, the joint participation of patients, families, researchers, and clinicians in the definition of study outcomes is not yet a reality.

Efficacy in myopia control

There is rapidly expanding interest in interventions to slow myopia progression in children and teenagers, with the intent of reducing risk of myopia-associated complications later in life. Despite many publications dedicated to the topic, little attention has been devoted to understanding 'efficacy' in myopia control and its application. Treatment effect has been expressed in multiple ways, making comparison between therapies and prognosis for an individual patient difficult. Available efficacy data are generally limited to two to three years making long-term treatment effect uncertain. From an evidence-based perspective, efficacy projection should be conservative and not extend beyond that which has been empirically established. Using this principle, review of the literature, data from our own clinical studies, assessment of demonstrated myopia control treatments and allowance for the limitations and context of available data, we arrive at the following important interpretations: (i) axial elongation is the preferred endpoint for assessing myopic progression; (ii) there is insufficient evidence to suggest that faster progressors, or younger myopes, derive greater benefit from treatment; (iii) the initial rate of reduction of axial elongation by myopia control treatments is not sustained; (iv) consequently, using percentage reduction in progression as an index to describe treatment effect can be very misleading and (v) cumulative absolute reduction in axial elongation (CARE) emerges as a preferred efficacy metric; (vi) maximum CARE that has been measured for existing myopia control treatments is 0.44 mm (which equates to about 1 D); (vii) there is no apparent superior method of treatment, although commonly prescribed therapies such as 0.01% atropine and progressive addition spectacles lenses have not consistently provided clinically important effects; (viii) while different treatments have shown divergent efficacy in the first year, they have shown only small differences after this; (ix) rebound should be assumed until proven otherwise; (x) an illusion of inflated efficacy is created by measurement error in refraction, sample bias in only treating 'measured' fast progressors and regression to the mean; (xi) decision to treat should be based on age of onset (or refraction at a given age), not past progression; (xii) the decreased risk of complications later in life provided by even modest reductions in progression suggest treatment is advised for all young myopes and, because of limitations of available interventions, should be aggressive.

Using additive and relative hazards to quantify colorectal survival inequalities for patients with a severe psychiatric illness

PURPOSE

We examine colorectal cancer (CRC) survival for patients with and without severe psychiatric illness (SPI) to demonstrate the use of relative and absolute effects.

METHODS

This included a retrospective cohort study of patients with CRC diagnosed between 01/04/2007 and 31/12/2012. SPI was defined as major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic illnesses occurring six months to five years preceding cancer diagnosis and categorized as inpatient, outpatient, or none. Associations between SPI history and death were examined using Cox proportional hazards regression (hazard ratios (HRs)) and Aalen's semiparametric additive hazards regression (absolute differences).

RESULTS

A total of 24,507 patients with CRC were included. A total of 58.1% of patients with inpatient SPI history died, and 47.1% of patients with outpatient SPI history died. Patients with an outpatient SPI history had a 40% (HR 1.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.59) increased hazard of death, and patients with an inpatient SPI history had a 91% increased hazard of death (HR 1.91, 95% confidence interval: 1.63-2.25), relative to no history of a mental illness. Outpatient SPI history was associated with additional 33 deaths per 1000 person years, and inpatient SPI was associated with additional 82 deaths per 1000 person years.

CONCLUSIONS

We encourage future studies examining inequities with time-to-event data to use this method addressing both relative and absolute effect.

Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes.

METHODS

We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned.

RESULTS

All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved.

CONCLUSIONS

By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

Patient-relevant outcomes: what are we talking about? A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity

Background

With respect to patient-centered care, measuring care effects based on patient-relevant outcomes is becoming increasingly important. There is some uncertainty about what outcomes are particularly relevant to patients and who determines their relevance. To determine this, we conducted a scoping review of the international literature with the aim to improve the conceptual clarity regarding (1) the terminology used for supposedly patient-relevant outcomes, (2) the variety of outcomes considered patient-relevant, and (3) justifications for the choice of these specific outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in Embase, PubMed (including Medline), Cochrane Central, Scopus, and Google Scholar with a special focus on article titles. Search terms included patient-relevant, patient-important, patient-preferred, and outcome(s), endpoint(s), parameter(s), indicator(s). We limited the search period from January 2000 to July 2019. Full-text articles reporting outcomes that were described as patient-relevant met the inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently analyzed all eligible articles applying quantitative and structuring content analysis.

Results

We identified 155 articles, 44 of which met the inclusion criteria. A content analysis revealed 35 different terms used with regard to patient-relevant outcomes. However, authors predominantly referred to patient-important outcomes (23 articles, 52.3%) and patient-relevant outcomes (17 articles, 38.6%). A structuring content analysis of all extracted outcomes revealed a total of 281 codes, pooled in 32 inductive categories. Among these, the following categories dominated: symptoms, adverse events/complications, survival/mortality, pain. In just 16 of the articles (36.4%), authors provided justifications for the choice of the outcome being based either on patient and/or expert opinions. In another 13 articles (29.5%), no justification was provided.

Conclusion

This scoping review on patient-relevant outcomes was driven by the questions (1) what outcomes are particularly relevant to patients, and (2) who determines their relevance. We found a wide range of supposedly patient-relevant outcomes, with only one third of articles involving patients in the justification of the outcome selection. In view of this conceptual uncertainty it appears difficult to determine or even to compare a particular patient benefit of interventions. A set of generic outcomes relevant to patients would be helpful to contribute to a consistent understanding of patient relevance.

Docosahexaenoic acid and bronchopulmonary dysplasia in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a common and serious complication of extremely preterm birth. Given the anti-inflammatory properties, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) supplementation has been proposed as a strategy for the management of BPD. This study aimed to investigate the effects of DHA supplementation on BPD based on a systematic review.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using ClinicalTrials.Gov, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and the WHO ICTRP from their respective dates of inception to June 2017. The studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled preterm infants <33 weeks of gestational age. Trials were included if DHA supplementation was compared with a control.Results: Four RCTs from five reports (1,966 neonates) met our inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of these studies showed that DHA supplementation did not decrease the risk of BPD at 36 weeks of postmenstrual age among preterm infants (low certainty of evidence). DHA supplementation did not significantly reduce the risk of other neonatal morbidities including death (low certainty of evidence), BPD at 28 days of life (moderate certainty of evidence), necrotizing enterocolitis (low certainty of evidence), intraventricular hemorrhage, severe retinopathy of prematurity, or sepsis.Conclusion: DHA supplementation may not exert significant clinical benefits in the treatment of BPD and other neonatal morbidities.

GRADE guidelines 27: how to calculate absolute effects for time-to-event outcomes in summary of findings tables and Evidence Profiles

OBJECTIVES

To provide GRADE guidance on how to prepare Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles for time-to-event outcomes with a focus on the calculation of the corresponding absolute effect estimates.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This guidance was justified by a research project identifying frequent errors and limitations in the presentation of time-to-event outcomes in the Summary of Findings tables. We developed this guidance through an iterative process that included membership consultation, feedback, presentation, and discussion at meetings of the GRADE Working Group.

RESULTS

Review authors need to carefully consider the definition of the outcome of interest; although often the event is used as label for the outcome of interest (e.g., death or mortality), the event-free survival (e.g., overall survival) is reported throughout individual studies. Review authors should calculate the absolute effect correctly, either for the event or absence of the event. We also provide examples on how to calculate the absolute effects for events and the absence of events for various baseline or control group risks and time points.

CONCLUSIONS

This article aids in the development of Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles, including time-to-event outcomes, and addresses the most common scenarios when calculating absolute effects in order to provide an accurate interpretation.

Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Research on Research Study

BACKGROUND

Systematic review (SR) abstracts are frequently relied upon to guide clinical decision-making. However, there is mounting evidence that the quality of abstract reporting in the medical literature is suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise SR abstract reporting quality in neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with improved reporting.

METHODS

This study systematically surveyed SR abstracts published in 8 leading neurosurgical journals between 8 April 2007 and 21 August 2017. Abstracts were identified through a search of the MEDLINE database and their reporting quality was determined in duplicate using a tool derived from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) statement. All SR abstracts that provided comparison between treatment strategies were eligible for inclusion. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 257 abstracts were included in the analysis, with a mean of 22.8 (±25.3) included studies. The overall quality of reporting in included abstracts was suboptimal, with a mean score of 53.05% (±11.18). Reporting scores were higher among abstracts published after the release of the PRISMA-A guidelines (M = 56.52; 21.74-73.91) compared with those published beforehand (M = 47.83; 8.70-69.57; U = 4346.00, z = -4.61, P < .001). Similarly, both word count (r = 0.338, P < .001) and journal impact factor (r = 0.199, P = .001) were associated with an improved reporting score.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the overall reporting quality of abstracts in leading neurosurgical journals requires improvement. Strengths include the large number abstracts assessed, and its weaknesses include the fact that only neurosurgery-specific journals were surveyed. We recommend that attention be turned toward strengthening abstract submission and peer-review processes.

Interventional studies performed in emergency medical communication centres: systematic review

We aimed to both quantitatively and qualitatively describe interventional research performed in emergency medical communication centres. We conducted a systematic review of articles published in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Studies evaluating therapeutic or organizational interventions directed by call centres in the context of emergencies were included. Studies of call centre management for general practice or nonhealthcare agencies were excluded. We assessed general characteristics and methodological information for each study. Quality was evaluated by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Among 3896 articles screened, we retained 59; 41 studies were randomized controlled trials (69%) and 18 (31%) were before-after studies; 41 (69%) took place in a single centre. For 33 (56%), 22 (37%) and 4 (7%) studies, the models used were simulation training, patient-based or experimental, respectively. The main topic was cardiac arrests (n = 45, 76%), with outcome measures of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and dispatch assistance. Among randomized controlled trials, risk of bias was unclear or high for selective reporting for 37 (90%) studies, low for blinding of outcomes for 34 (83%) and low for incomplete outcomes for 31 (76%). Regarding before-after studies, quality was high in 9 (50%) studies. Few interventional studies have been performed in call centres. Studies mainly involved simulation and focussed on cardiac arrest. The quality of studies needs improvement to allow for a better recognition and understanding of emergency medical call control.

Hemophilia trials in the twenty-first century: Defining patient important outcomes

Treatment for hemophilia has advanced dramatically over the past 5 decades. Success of prophylactic therapy in preventing bleeding and decreasing associated complications has established a new standard of care. However, with the advent of gene therapy and treatments that effectively mimic sustained coagulation factor replacement, outcome measures that worked well for assessing factor replacement therapies in past clinical trials need to be reassessed. In addition, while therapies have advanced, so has the science of outcome assessment, including recognition of the importance of patient important and patient reported outcomes. This manuscript reviews strengths and limitations of outcome measures used in hemophilia from both a provider and patient perspective.

Barriers to Education and Shared Decision Making in the Chronic Kidney Disease Population: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Provision of education to inform decision making for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a key component in the management of chronic kidney disease (CKD), yet patients report suboptimal satisfaction with the process of selecting a dialysis modality. Our purpose is to review the influencers of RRT decision making in the CKD population, which will better inform the process of shared decision making between clinicians and patients.

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

PubMed and Google Scholar.

METHODS

A narrative review was performed using the main terms "chronic kidney disease," "CKD," "dialysis," "review," "decision-making," "decision aids," "education," and "barriers." Only articles in English were accessed. The existing literature was critically analyzed from a theoretical and contextual perspective and thematic analysis was performed.

KEY FINDINGS

Eight common themes were identified as influencers for decision making. "Patient-focused" themes including social influence, values and beliefs, comprehension, autonomy and sociodemographics, and "clinician-focused" themes including screening, communication, and engagement. Early predialysis education and decision aids can effectively improve decision making. Patient-valued outcomes need to be more fully integrated into clinical guidelines.

LIMITATIONS

This is not a systematic review; therefore, no formal tool was utilized to evaluate the rigor and quality of studies included and findings may not be generalizable.

IMPLICATIONS

Standardized comprehensive RRT education programs through multidisciplinary health teams can help optimize CKD patient education and shared decision making. Involving patients in the research process itself and implementing patient values and preferences into clinical guidelines can help to achieve a patient-centered model of care.

Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence

Background

Cochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes.

Methods

We performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables.

Results

We included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews).

Conclusions

Many outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes.