Presenting the results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a consumer audience: a qualitative study

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment.

RESULTS

The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Does the format of result presentation and type of conclusion in Cochrane plain language summaries matter? A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate whether the format and type of conclusion in Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) influence readers' perception of treatment benefit and decision-making.

DESIGN

An online parallel group, three-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted.

SETTING

The study was conducted online.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were physiotherapy students.

INTERVENTIONS

The participants read two Cochrane PLSs, one with a positive conclusion (strong evidence of benefit) and another with a negative conclusion (strong evidence of non-benefit). Each participant read the results of both reviews presented in one of three formats: (1) numerical, (2) textual or (3) numerical and textual.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the participants' perception of treatment benefit.

RESULTS

All three groups of participants perceived the treatment to have positive effects when the Cochrane PLS had a positive conclusion, regardless of the format of presentation (mean perception of treatment benefit score: textual 7.7 (SD 2.3), numerical 7.9 (SD 1.8), numerical and textual 7.7 (SD 1.7), p=0.362). However, when the Cochrane PLS had a negative conclusion, all three groups of participants failed to perceive a negative effect (mean perception of treatment benefit score: textual 5.5 (SD 3.3), numerical 5.6 (SD 2.7), numerical and textual 5.9 (SD 2.8), p=0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

The format of Cochrane PLSs does not appear to significantly impact physiotherapy students' perception of treatment benefit, understanding of evidence, persuasiveness or confidence in their decision. However, participants' perception of treatment benefit does not align with the conclusion when the Cochrane PLS indicates strong evidence of non-benefit from the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2022/10/046476.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

GRADE guidance 23: considering cost-effectiveness evidence in moving from evidence to health-related recommendations

BACKGROUND

This is the 23rd in a series of articles describing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and clinical guideline development.

OBJECTIVES

We outline how resource utilization and cost-effectiveness analyses are integrated into health-related recommendations, using the GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Through iterative discussions and refinement, in-person, and online meetings, and through e-mail communication, we developed draft guidance to incorporate economic evidence in the formulation of health-related recommendations. We developed scenarios to operationalize the guidance. We presented a summary of the results to members of the GRADE Economic Evaluation Project Group.

RESULTS

We describe how to estimate the cost of preventing (or achieving) an event to inform assessments of cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments, when there are no published economic evaluations. Evidence profiles and Summary of Findings tables based on systematic reviews of cost-effectiveness analyses can be created to provide top-level summaries of results and quality of multiple published economic evaluations. We also describe how this information could be integrated in GRADE's EtD frameworks to inform health-related recommendations. Three scenarios representing various levels of available cost-effectiveness evidence were used to illustrate the integration process.

CONCLUSION

This GRADE guidance provides practical information for presenting cost-effectiveness data and its integration in the development of health-related recommendations, using the EtD frameworks.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Plain Language vs Standard Format for Youth Understanding of COVID-19 Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

To ensure that youths can make informed decisions about their health, it is important that health recommendations be presented for understanding by youths.

Objective

To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of youths provided with a digital plain language recommendation (PLR) format vs the original standard language version (SLV) of a health recommendation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, allocation-concealed, blinded, superiority randomized clinical trial included individuals from any country who were 15 to 24 years of age, had internet access, and could read and understand English. The trial was conducted from May 27 to July 6, 2022, and included a qualitative component.

Interventions

An online platform was used to randomize youths in a 1:1 ratio to an optimized digital PLR or SLV format of 1 of 2 health recommendations related to the COVID-19 vaccine; youth-friendly PLRs were developed in collaboration with youth partners and advisors.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to 7 comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior. After completion of the survey, participants indicated their interest in completing a 1-on-1 semistructured interview to reflect on their preferred digital format (PLR or SLV) and their outcome assessment survey response.

Results

Of the 268 participants included in the final analysis, 137 were in the PLR group (48.4% female) and 131 were in the SLV group (53.4% female). Most participants (233 [86.9%]) were from North and South America. No significant difference was found in understanding scores between the PLR and SLV groups (mean difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 11.6%; P = .11). Participants found the PLR to be more accessible and usable (mean difference, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63) and satisfying (mean difference, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.06-0.73) and had a stronger preference toward the PLR (mean difference, 4.8; 95% CI, 4.5-5.1 [4.0 indicated a neutral response]) compared with the SLV. No significant difference was found in intended behavior (mean difference, 0.22 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.74). Interviewees (n = 14) agreed that the PLR was easier to understand and generated constructive feedback to further improve the digital PLR.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the SLV, the PLR did not produce statistically significant findings in terms of understanding scores. Youths ranked it higher in terms of accessibility, usability, and satisfaction, suggesting that the PLR may be preferred for communicating health recommendations to youths. The interviews provided suggestions for further improving PLR formats.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05358990.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population.

RESULTS

Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic underlined that guidelines and recommendations must be made more accessible and more understandable to the general public to improve health outcomes. The objective of this study is to evaluate, quantify, and compare the public's understanding, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference for different ways of presenting COVID-19 health recommendations derived from the COVID-19 Living Map of Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization (RecMap).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a protocol for a multi-method study. Through an online survey, we will conduct pragmatic allocation-concealed, blinded superiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in three populations to test alternative formats of presenting health recommendations: adults, parents, and youth, with at least 240 participants in each population. Prior to initiating the RCT, our interventions will have been refined with relevant stakeholder input. The intervention arm will receive a plain language recommendation (PLR) format while the control arm will receive the corresponding original recommendation format as originally published by the guideline organizations (standard language version). Our primary outcome is understanding, and our secondary outcomes are accessibility and usability, satisfaction, intended behavior, and preference for the recommendation formats. Each population's results will be analyzed separately. However, we are planning a meta-analysis of the results across populations. At the end of each survey, participants will be invited to participate in an optional one-on-one, virtual semi-structured interview to explore their user experience. All interviews will be transcribed and analyzed using the principles of thematic analysis and a hybrid inductive and deductive approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Through Clinical Trials Ontario, the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board has reviewed and approved this protocol (Project ID: 3856). The University of Alberta has approved the parent portion of the trial (Project ID:00114894). Findings from this study will be disseminated through open-access publications in peer-reviewed journals and using social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05358990 . Registered on May 3, 2022.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

The effects of physical activity on cortisol and sleep: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Managing stress and having good quality sleep are inter-related factors that are essential for health, and both factors seem to be affected by physical activity. Although there is an established bidirectional relationship between stress and sleep, remarkably few studies have been designed to examine the effects of physical activity on cortisol, a key biomarker for stress, and sleep. Research is particularly scarce in older people despite both sleep and cortisol changing with age. This systematic literature review addresses this gap.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Original, peer-reviewed records of intervention studies such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with relevant control groups were eligible for inclusion. The Participant, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) characteristics were (1) adults or older adults (2) physical activity programmes of any duration, (3) controls receiving no intervention or controls included in a different programme, (4) cortisol measurement, and subjective or objective measures of sleep.

RESULTS

Ten original studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias were included. Findings from this review indicated with moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively, that physical activity was an effective strategy for lowering cortisol levels (SMD [95% CI] = -0.37 [-0.52, -0.21] p < .001) and improving sleep quality (SMD [95% CI] = -0.30 [-0.56, -0.04], p = .02). Caution is needed to generalize these findings to the general population, as included trials were predominantly participants with breast cancer, included few males and no older adults.

CONCLUSION

Cortisol regulation and sleep quality are intertwined, and physical activity programmes could improve both in several ways. Further, physical activity may benefit adults with long term conditions or current poor (mental) health states the most, although more research is needed to support this claim fully. Few intervention studies have examined the inter-relationship between cortisol and sleep outcomes in males or older adults, indicating fruitful enquiry for future research.

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

Plain language summaries (PLSs) have been introduced to communicate research in an understandable way to a nonexpert audience. Guidelines for writing PLSs have been developed and empirical research on PLSs has been conducted, but terminology and research approaches in this comparatively young field vary considerably. This prompted us to review the current state of the art of the theoretical and empirical literature on PLSs. The two main objectives of this review were to develop a conceptual framework for PLS theory, and to synthesize empirical evidence on PLS criteria. We began by searching Web of Science, PubMed, PsycInfo and PSYNDEX (last search 07/2021). In our review, we included empirical investigations of PLSs, reports on PLS development, PLS guidelines, and theoretical articles referring to PLSs. A conceptual framework was developed through content analysis. Empirical studies investigating effects of PLS criteria on defined outcomes were narratively synthesized. We identified 7,714 records, of which 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were used to develop a conceptual framework for PLSs which comprises 12 categories: six of PLS aims and six of PLS characteristics. Thirty-three articles empirically investigated effects of PLSs on several outcomes, but study designs were too heterogeneous to identify definite criteria for high-quality PLSs. Few studies identified effects of various criteria on accessibility, understanding, knowledge, communication of research, and empowerment. We did not find empirical evidence to support most of the criteria we identified in the PLS writing guidelines. We conclude that although considerable work on establishing and investigating PLSs is available, empirical evidence on criteria for high-quality PLSs remains scarce. The conceptual framework developed in this review may provide a valuable starting point for future guideline developers and PLS researchers.

Comparative effectiveness of cardiovascular, renal and safety outcomes of second-line antidiabetic drugs use in people with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

To compare the cardiovascular, renal and safety outcomes of second-line glucose-lowering agents used in the management of people with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 13 July 2021 for randomised controlled trials comparing second-line glucose lowering therapies with placebo, standard care or one another. Primary outcomes included cardiovascular and renal outcomes. Secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular adverse events. Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding confidence intervals (CI) or credible intervals (CrI) were reported within pairwise and network meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed (NNH) to harm were calculated at 5 years using incidence rates and RRs. PROSPERO (CRD42020168322).

RESULTS

We included 38 trials from seven classes of glucose-lowering therapies. Both sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) showed moderate to high certainty in reducing risk of 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events, 3P-MACE (network estimates: SGLT2i [RR 0.90; 95% CrI 0.84-0.96; NNT, 59], GLP1RA [RR 0.88; 95% CrI 0.83-0.93; NNT, 50]), cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, renal composite outcome and macroalbuminuria. SGLT2i also showed high certainty in reducing risk of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF), ESRD, acute kidney injury, doubling in serum creatinine and decline in eGFR. GLP1RA were associated with lower risk of stroke (high certainty) while glitazone use was associated with an increased risk of hHF (very low certainty). The risk of developing ESRD was lower with the use of sulphonylureas (low certainty). For adverse events, sulphonylureas and insulin were associated with increased hypoglycaemic events (very low to low certainty), while GLP1RA increased the risk of gastrointestinal side effects leading to treatment discontinuation (low certainty). DPP-4i increased risk of acute pancreatitis (low certainty). SGLT2i were associated with increased risk of genital infection, volume depletion (high certainty), amputation and ketoacidosis (moderate certainty). Risk of fracture was increased with the use of glitazones (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

SGLT2i and GLP1RA were associated with lower risk for different cardiorenal end points, when used as an adjunct to metformin in people with type 2 diabetes. Additionally, SGLT2i demonstrated benefits in reducing risk for surrogate end points in kidney disease progression. Safety outcomes differ among the available pharmacotherapies.

How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses

Plain language summaries (PLS) aim to communicate research findings to laypersons in an easily understandable manner. Despite the societal relevance of making psychological research findings available to the public, our empirical knowledge on how to write PLS of psychology studies is still scarce. In this article, we present two experimental studies investigating six characteristics of PLS for psychological meta-analyses. We specifically focused on approaches for (1) handling technical terms, (2) communicating the quality of evidence by explaining the methodological approach of meta-analyses, (3) explaining how synthesized studies operationalized their research questions, (4) handling statistical terms, (5) structuring PLS, and (6) explaining complex meta-analytic designs. To develop empirically validated guidelines on writing PLS, two randomized controlled studies including large samples stratified for education status, age, and gender (N Study1=2,288 and N Study2=2,211) were conducted. Eight PLS of meta-analyses from different areas of psychology were investigated as study materials. Main outcome variables were user experience (i.e., perceived accessibility, perceived understanding, and perceived empowerment) and knowledge acquisition, as well as understanding and knowledge of the quality of evidence. Overall, our hypotheses were partially confirmed, with our results underlining, among other things, the importance of explaining or replacing content-related technical terms (i.e., theoretical concepts) and indicating the detrimental effects of providing too many details on statistical concepts on user experience. Drawing on these and further findings, we derive five empirically well-founded rules on the lay-friendly communication of meta-analytic research findings in psychology. Implications for PLS authors and future research on PLS are discussed.

Communicating Uncertainties About the Effects of Medical Interventions Using Different Display Formats

Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30-50% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well-designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed.

The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: Two randomised controlled trials

Background

The quality of evidence about the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical health interventions is often low, but little is known about the effects of communicating indications of evidence quality to the public.

Methods

In two blinded, randomised, controlled, online experiments, US participants (total n = 2140) were shown one of several versions of an infographic illustrating the effectiveness of eye protection in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Their trust in the information, understanding, feelings of effectiveness of eye protection, and the likelihood of them adopting it were measured.

Findings

Compared to those given no quality cues, participants who were told the quality of the evidence on eye protection was ‘low’, rated the evidence less trustworthy (p = .001, d = 0.25), and rated it as subjectively less effective (p = .018, d = 0.19). The same effects emerged compared to those who were told the quality of the evidence was ‘high’, and in one of the two studies, those shown ‘low’ quality of evidence said they were less likely to use eye protection (p = .005, d = 0.18). Participants who were told the quality of the evidence was ‘high’ showed no statistically significant differences on these measures compared to those given no information about evidence quality.

Conclusions

Without quality of evidence cues, participants responded to the evidence about the public health intervention as if it was high quality and this affected their subjective perceptions of its efficacy and trust in the provided information. This raises the ethical dilemma of weighing the importance of transparently stating when the evidence base is actually low quality against evidence that providing such information can decrease trust, perception of intervention efficacy, and likelihood of adopting it.

Effects of communicating uncertainty descriptions in hazard identification, risk characterization, and risk protection

Uncertainty is a crucial issue for any risk assessment. Consequently, it also poses crucial challenges for risk communications. Many guidebooks advise reporting uncertainties in risk assessments, expecting that the audience will appreciate this disclosure. However, the empirical evidence about the effects of uncertainty reporting is sparse and inconclusive. Therefore, based on examples of potential health risks of electromagnetic fields (EMF), three experiments were conducted analysing the effects of communicating uncertainties separately for hazard identification, risk characterisation and risk protection. The setups aimed to explore how reporting and how explaining of uncertainty affects dependent variables such as risk perception, perceived competence of the risk assessors, and trust in risk management. Each of the three experiments used a 2x2 design with a first factor presenting uncertainty descriptions (as used in public controversies on EMF related health effects) or describing a certainty conditions; and a second factor explaining the causes of uncertainties (by pointing at knowledge gaps) or not explaining them. The study results indicate that qualitative uncertainty descriptions regarding hazard identification reduce the confidence in the professional competencies of the assessors. In contrast, a quantitative uncertainty description in risk characterisation-regarding the magnitude of the risk-does not affect any of the dependent variables. Concerning risk protection, trust in exposure limit values is not affected by qualitative uncertainty information. However, the qualitative description of uncertainty regarding the adequacy of protection amplifies fears. Furthermore, explaining this uncertainty results in lower text understandability.

Efficacy and Safety of Using Dual Versus Monotherapy Antiplatelet Agents in Secondary Stroke Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT) with aspirin plus clopidogrel for a limited time is recommended after minor noncardioembolic stroke.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of all major studies that compared the efficacy and safety of DAPT versus monotherapy for the secondary prevention of recurrent stroke or transient ischemic attack. The primary outcomes were stroke and the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, acute coronary syndrome, and death from any cause. The safety outcome was major hemorrhage. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CIs were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² and Cochrane Q statistics.

RESULTS

The analysis included 27 358 patients, the quality of evidence was moderate to low, and the heterogeneity for all the comparisons was low (I²≤25%). Compared with monotherapy, DAPT reduced the risk of recurrent stroke (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.81]) and composite outcome (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.83]) but increased the risk of major bleeding (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.45-3.25]). In the subgroup analysis, ≤30 days of DAPT increased the risk of hemorrhage relative to monotherapy (RR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.08-3.52]). In the sensitivity analysis, the risk for hemorrhage with ≤30 days of DAPT after excluding the combination of aspirin plus ticagrelor was comparable to monotherapy (RR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.77-2.60]). However, the risk for stroke recurrence and composite outcomes in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses remain decreased compared with monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

DAPT decreases the risk of recurrent stroke and composite events compared with monotherapy. DAPT increases the risk of major hemorrhage, except if the treatment is limited to 30 days and does not include the combination of aspirin plus ticagrelor.

Behavior change techniques to promote healthcare professionals' eHealth competency: A systematic review of interventions

INTRODUCTION

The use of eHealth is rapidly -->increasing; however, many healthcare professionals have insufficient eHealth competency. Consequently, interventions addressing eHealth competency might be useful in fostering the effective use of eHealth.

OBJECTIVE

Our systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the behavior change techniques applied in interventions to promote healthcare professionals' eHealth competency.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review following the Joanna Briggs Institute's Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Published quantitative studies were identified through screening PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Two reviewers independently performed full-text and quality assessment. Eligible interventions were targeted to any healthcare professional and aimed at promoting eHealth capability or motivation. We synthesized the interventions narratively using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy v1 and the COM-B model.

RESULTS

This review included 32 studies reporting 34 heterogeneous interventions that incorporated 29 different behavior change techniques. The interventions were most likely to improve the capability to use eHealth and less likely to enhance motivation toward using eHealth. The promising techniques to promote both capability and motivation were action planning and participatory approach. Information about colleagues' approval, emotional social support, monitoring emotions, restructuring or adding objects to the environment, and credible source are techniques worth further investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that interventions tended to focus on promoting capability, although motivation would be as crucial for competent eHealth performance. Our findings indicated that empathy, encouragement, and user-centered changes in the work environment could improve eHealth competency as a whole. Evidence-based techniques should be favored in the development of interventions, and further intervention research should focus on nurses and multifaceted competency required for using different eHealth systems and devices.

The reporting checklist for public versions of guidelines: RIGHT-PVG

BACKGROUND

Public or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that "translate" recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users.

METHODS

First, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients' needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist.

RESULTS

We generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs.

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.

Communicating Uncertainty in Written Consumer Health Information to the Public: Parallel-Group, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Uncertainty is integral to evidence-informed decision making and is of particular importance for preference-sensitive decisions. Communicating uncertainty to patients and the public has long been identified as a goal in the informed and shared decision-making movement. Despite this, there is little quantitative research on how uncertainty in health information is perceived by readers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the impact of different uncertainty descriptions regarding the evidence for a treatment effect in a written research summary for the public.

Methods

We developed 8 versions of a research summary on a fictitious drug for tinnitus with varying degrees (Q1), sources (Q2), and magnitudes of uncertainty (Q3). We recruited 2099 members of the German public from a web-based research panel. Of these, 1727 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly presented with one of these research summaries. Randomization was conducted by using a centralized computer with a random number generator. Web-based recruitment and data collection were fully automated. Participants were not aware of the purpose of the study and alternative presentations. We measured the following outcomes: perception of the treatment effectiveness (primary), certainty in the judgement of treatment effectiveness, perception of the body of evidence, text quality, and intended decision. The outcomes were self-assessed.

Results

For the primary outcome, we did not find a global effect for Q1 and Q2 (P=.25 and P=.73), but we found a global effect for Q3 (P=.048). Pairwise comparisons showed a weaker perception of treatment effectiveness for the research summary with 3 sources of uncertainty compared to the version with 2 sources of uncertainty (P=.04). Specifically, the proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that perceived the drug as possibly beneficial was 9% lower than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (92/195, 47.2% vs 111/197, 56.3%, respectively). The proportion of the participants in the group with 3 sources of uncertainty that considered the drug to be of unclear benefit was 8% higher than that of the participants in the group with 2 sources of uncertainty (72/195, 36.9% vs 57/197, 28.9%, respectively). However, there was no significant difference compared to the version with 1 source of uncertainty (P=.31). We did not find any meaningful differences between the research summaries for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusions

Communicating even a large magnitude of uncertainty for a treatment effect had little impact on the perceived effectiveness. Efforts to improve public understanding of research are needed to improve the understanding of evidence-based health information.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00015911, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00015911

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/13425

Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To make informed decisions about healthcare, patients and the public, health professionals and policymakers need information about the effects of interventions. People need information that is based on the best available evidence; that is presented in a complete and unbiased way; and that is relevant, trustworthy and easy to use and to understand. The aim of this paper is to provide guidance and a checklist to those producing and communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions intended to inform decisions about healthcare.

DESIGN

To inform the development of this checklist, we identified research relevant to communicating evidence-based information about the effects of interventions. We used an iterative, informal consensus process to synthesise our recommendations. We began by discussing and agreeing on some initial recommendations, based on our own experience and research over the past 20-30 years. Subsequent revisions were informed by the literature we examined and feedback. We also compared our recommendations to those made by others. We sought structured feedback from people with relevant expertise, including people who prepare and use information about the effects of interventions for the public, health professionals or policymakers.

RESULTS

We produced a checklist with 10 recommendations. Three recommendations focus on making it easy to quickly determine the relevance of the information and find the key messages. Five recommendations are about helping the reader understand the size of effects and how sure we are about those estimates. Two recommendations are about helping the reader put information about intervention effects in context and understand if and why the information is trustworthy.

CONCLUSIONS

These 10 recommendations summarise lessons we have learnt developing and evaluating ways of helping people to make well-informed decisions by making research evidence more understandable and useful for them. We welcome feedback for how to improve our advice.

The IN-DEEP project "INtegrating and Deriving Evidence, Experiences, Preferences": a web information model on magnetic resonance imaging for people with multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

The IN-DEEP project aims to provide people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS) with evidence-based information on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in diagnosis and monitoring the disease through a website, and to collect their opinions on the clarity of the website's contents and its usefulness.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A multidisciplinary advisory board committee was set up. We investigated the experience, attitude and information needs on MRI through three meetings with 24 PwMS, facilitated by an expert researcher and an observer. We developed the website on the basis of input from PwMS and systematic reviews and guidelines, assessed with AMSTAR and AGREE II. We sought feedback from nine PwMS who pilot-tested the beta-version of the website, during a meeting and through phone interviews and judged whether the contents were clear, understandable and useful, and the website was easily navigable. The website is in Italian.

RESULTS

The website ( https://www.istituto-besta.it/in-deep-risonanza-magnetica2 ) provides two levels of information, different layouts and visualization of data covering MRI diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, contents on how MRI can monitor PwMS over time to determine changes in the condition and evaluate treatment effects, practical information on how to prepare for the exam, educational tools and a glossary. The website was judged clear and useful by a sample of PwMS.

CONCLUSIONS

The website is a tool to address PwMS information needs on the role of MRI. It could be used by neurologists to facilitate communication with PwMS.

Non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications for steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome in children

BACKGROUND

About 80% of children with steroid-sensitive nephrotic syndrome (SSNS) have relapses. Of these children, half relapse frequently, and are at risk of adverse effects from corticosteroids. While non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications prolong periods of remission, they have significant potential adverse effects. Currently, there is no consensus about the most appropriate second-line agent in children who are steroid sensitive, but who continue to relapse. In addition, these medications could be used with corticosteroids in the initial episode of SSNS to prolong the period of remission. This is the fourth update of a review first published in 2001 and updated in 2005, 2008 and 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications in SSNS in children with a relapsing course of SSNS and in children with their first episode of nephrotic syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 10 March 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs were included if they involved children with SSNS and compared non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications with placebo, corticosteroids (prednisone or prednisolone) or no treatment; compared different non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medications or different doses, durations or routes of administration of the same non-corticosteroid immunosuppressive medication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed study eligibility, risk of bias of the included studies and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random-effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 43 studies (91 reports) and included data from 2428 children. Risk of bias assessment indicated that 21 and 24 studies were at low risk of bias for sequence generation and allocation concealment respectively. Nine studies were at low risk of performance bias and 10 were at low risk of detection bias. Thirty-seven and 27 studies were at low risk of incomplete and selective reporting respectively. Rituximab (in combination with calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) and prednisolone) versus CNI and prednisolone probably reduces the number of children who relapse at six months (5 studies, 269 children: RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.43) and 12 months (3 studies, 198 children: RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) (moderate certainty evidence). At six months, rituximab resulted in 126 children/1000 relapsing compared with 548 children/1000 treated with conservative treatments. Rituximab may result in infusion reactions (4 studies, 252 children: RR 5.83, 95% CI 1.34 to 25.29). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and levamisole may have similar effects on the number of children who relapse at 12 months (1 study, 149 children: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.16). MMF may have a similar effect on the number of children relapsing compared to cyclosporin (2 studies, 82 children: RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.66 to 5.46) (low certainty evidence). MMF compared to cyclosporin is probably less likely to result in hypertrichosis (3 studies, 140 children: RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.50) and gum hypertrophy (3 studies, 144 children: RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.42) (low certainty evidence). Levamisole compared with steroids or placebo may reduce the number of children with relapse during treatment (8 studies, 474 children: RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82) (low certainty evidence). Levamisole compared to cyclophosphamide may make little or no difference to the risk for relapse after 6 to 9 months (2 studies, 97 children: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.81) (low certainty evidence). Cyclosporin compared with prednisolone may reduce the number of children who relapse (1 study, 104 children: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.83) (low certainty evidence). Alkylating agents compared with cyclosporin may make little or no difference to the risk of relapse during cyclosporin treatment (2 studies, 95 children: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.48) (low certainty evidence) but may reduce the risk of relapse at 12 to 24 months (2 studies, 95 children: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.74), suggesting that the benefit of the alkylating agents may be sustained beyond the on-treatment period (low certainty evidence). Alkylating agents (cyclophosphamide and chlorambucil) compared with prednisone probably reduce the number of children, who experience relapse at six to 12 months (6 studies, 202 children: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.60) and at 12 to 24 months (4 studies, 59 children: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.46) (moderate certainty evidence). IV cyclophosphamide may reduce the number of children with relapse compared with oral cyclophosphamide at 6 months (2 studies, 83 children: RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88), but not at 12 to 24 months (2 studies, 83 children: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29) and may result in fewer infections (2 studies, 83 children: RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.72) (low certainty evidence). Cyclophosphamide compared to chlorambucil may make little or no difference in the risk of relapse after 12 months (1 study, 50 children: RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.13) (low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

New studies incorporated in this review indicate that rituximab is a valuable additional agent for managing children with steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome. However, the treatment effect is temporary, and many children will require additional courses of rituximab. The long-term adverse effects of this treatment are not known. Comparative studies of CNIs, MMF, levamisole and alkylating agents have demonstrated little or no differences in efficacy but, because of insufficient power; clinically important differences in treatment effects have not been completely excluded.

Grass pollen as a trigger of emergency department presentations and hospital admissions for respiratory conditions in the subtropics: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

It is unknown if high concentration of airborne grass pollen, where subtropical grasses (Chloridoideae and Panicoideae) dominate, is a risk factor for respiratory health. Here we systematically reviewed the association between airborne grass pollen exposure and asthma emergency department (ED) presentations and hospital admissions in subtropical climates.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review was performed to identify and summarise studies that reported on respiratory health (asthma ED presentations and hospital admissions) and airborne grass pollen exposure in subtropical climates.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase and Google Scholar databases (1966-2019). Risk of bias was assessed using a validated quality assessment tool. A meta-analysis was planned, however due to the heterogeneity in study design it was determined inappropriate and instead a narrative synthesis was undertaken.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were identified for inclusion, with a total of 598,931 asthma ED presentation participants and 36,504 asthma hospital admission participants in six countries (Australia, India, Israel, Italy, Spain, USA). The narrative synthesis found airborne grass pollen appears to have a small and inconsistent increase on asthma ED presentations (judged as: probably little effect n = 5, may have little effect n = 4, no effect n = 2 and uncertain if there is an effect n = 4) and hospital admissions (judged as: probably increase slightly n = 2 probably little effect n = 1, may have a little effect n = 1, no effect n = 3 and we are uncertain if there is an effect n = 4) in the subtropics. Furthermore, the reported effect sizes were small and its clinical relevance may be difficult to discern.

CONCLUSION

Exposure to airborne grass pollen appears to have a small and inconsistent increase on asthma ED presentations and hospital admissions in the subtropics. These findings are comparable to reported observations from studies undertaken in temperate regions.

Risk communication in tables versus text: a registered report randomized trial on 'fact boxes'

OBJECTIVES

identifying effective summary formats is fundamental to multiple fields including science communication, systematic reviews, evidence-based policy and medical decision-making. This study tested whether table or text-only formats lead to better comprehension of the potential harms and benefits of different options, here in a medical context.

DESIGN

pre-registered, longitudinal experiment: between-subjects factorial 2 (message format) × 2 topic (therapeutic or preventative intervention) on comprehension and later recall (CONSORT-SPI 2018).

SETTING

longitudinal online survey experiment.

PARTICIPANTS

2305 census-matched UK residents recruited through the survey panel firm YouGov.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

comprehension of harms and benefits and knowledge recall after six weeks.

RESULTS

fact boxes-simple tabular messages-led to more comprehension (d = 0.39) and slightly more knowledge recall after six weeks (d = 0.12) compared to the same information in text. These patterns of results were consistent between the two medical topics and across all levels of objective numeracy and education. Fact boxes were rated as more engaging than text, and there were no differences between formats in treatment decisions, feeling informed or trust.

CONCLUSIONS

the brief table format of the fact box improved the comprehension of harms and benefits relative to the text-only control. Effective communication supports informed consent and decision-making and brings ethical and practical advantages. Fact boxes and other summary formats may be effective in a wide range of communication contexts.

Interventions for chronic pruritus of unknown origin

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is a sensation that leads to the desire to scratch; its origin is unknown in 8% to 15% of affected patients. The prevalence of chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) in individuals with generalised pruritus ranges from 3.6% to 44.5%, with highest prevalence among the elderly. When the origin of pruritus is known, its management may be straightforward if an effective treatment for the causal disease is available. Treatment of CPUO is particularly difficult due to its unknown pathophysiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for CPUO in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following up to July 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for additional references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions for CPUO, as defined in category VI ('Other pruritus of undetermined origin, or chronic pruritus of unknown origin') of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI) classification, in children and adults. Eligible interventions were non-pharmacological or topical or systemic pharmacological interventions, and eligible comparators were another active treatment, placebo, sham procedures, or no treatment or equivalent (e.g. waiting list).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'Patient- or parent-reported pruritus intensity' and 'Adverse events'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Health-related quality of life', 'Sleep disturbances', 'Depression', and 'Patient satisfaction'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We found there was an absence of evidence for the main interventions of interest: emollient creams, cooling lotions, topical corticosteroids, topical antidepressants, systemic antihistamines, systemic antidepressants, systemic anticonvulsants, and phototherapy. We included one study with 257 randomised (253 analysed) participants, aged 18 to 65 years; 60.6% were female. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of three different doses of oral serlopitant (5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg, once daily for six weeks) compared to placebo for severe chronic pruritus; 25 US centres participated (clinical research centres and universities). All outcomes were measured at the end of treatment (six weeks from baseline), except adverse events, which were monitored throughout. A pharmaceutical company funded this study. Fifty-five per cent of participants suffered from CPUO, and approximately 45% presented a dermatological diagnosis (atopic dermatitis/eczema 37.3%, psoriasis 6.7%, acne 3.6%, among other diagnoses). We unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve outcome data from study authors for the subgroup of participants with CPUO. Participants had pruritus for six weeks or longer. Total study duration was 10 weeks. Participants who received serlopitant 5 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS; a reduction in VAS score indicates improvement) compared to placebo (126 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 3.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 5 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.50); health-related quality of life (as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); a higher score indicates greater impairment; 127 participants; mean difference (MD) -4.20, 95% CI -11.68 to 3.28); and sleep disturbances (people with insomnia measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Symptom Questionnaire-Insomnia (PSSQ-I), a dichotomous measure; 128 participants; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.01). Participants who received serlopitant 1 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (126 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.54; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 1 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (128 participants; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.47); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 128 participants; MD -6.90, 95% CI -14.38 to 0.58); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 128 participants; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84). Participants who received serlopitant 0.25 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (127 participants; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.77; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 0.25 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.24); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 127 participants; MD -5.70, 95% CI -13.18 to 1.78); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 127 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.17). The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, diarrhoea, headache, and nasopharyngitis, among others. Our included study did not measure depression or patient satisfaction. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to indirectness (only 55% of study participants had CPUO) and imprecision. We downgraded outcomes other than patient-reported pruritus intensity a further level due to concerns regarding risk of bias in selection of the reported result and some concerns with risk of bias due to missing outcome data (sleep disturbances only). We deemed risk of bias to be generally low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found lack of evidence to address our review question: for most of our interventions of interest, we found no eligible studies. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist serlopitant was the only intervention that we could assess. One study provided low-certainty evidence suggesting that serlopitant may reduce pruritus intensity when compared with placebo. We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant on other outcomes, as certainty of the evidence is very low. More studies with larger sample sizes, focused on patients with CPUO, are needed. Healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders may have to rely on indirect evidence related to other forms of chronic pruritus when deciding between the main interventions currently used for this condition.

Food fortification with multiple micronutrients: impact on health outcomes in general population

BACKGROUND

Vitamins and minerals are essential for growth and maintenance of a healthy body, and have a role in the functioning of almost every organ. Multiple interventions have been designed to improve micronutrient deficiency, and food fortification is one of them.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of food fortification with multiple micronutrients on health outcomes in the general population, including men, women and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases up to 29 August 2018, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register and Cochrane Public Health Specialised Register; MEDLINE; Embase, and 20 other databases, including clinical trial registries. There were no date or language restrictions. We checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for additional papers to be considered for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-randomised trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies that assessed the impact of food fortification with multiple micronutrients (MMNs). Primary outcomes included anaemia, micronutrient deficiencies, anthropometric measures, morbidity, all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality. Secondary outcomes included potential adverse outcomes, serum concentration of specific micronutrients, serum haemoglobin levels and neurodevelopmental and cognitive outcomes. We included food fortification studies from both high-income and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened, extracted and quality-appraised the data from eligible studies. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 software. We used random-effects meta-analysis for combining data, as the characteristics of study participants and interventions differed significantly. We set out the main findings of the review in 'Summary of findings' tables, using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 127 studies as relevant through title/abstract screening, and included 43 studies (48 papers) with 19,585 participants (17,878 children) in the review. All the included studies except three compared MMN fortification with placebo/no intervention. Two studies compared MMN fortification versus iodised salt and one study compared MMN fortification versus calcium fortification alone. Thirty-six studies targeted children; 20 studies were conducted in LMICs. Food vehicles used included staple foods, such as rice and flour; dairy products, including milk and yogurt; non-dairy beverages; biscuits; spreads; and salt. Fourteen of the studies were fully commercially funded, 13 had partial-commercial funding, 14 had non-commercial funding and two studies did not specify the source of funding. We rated all the evidence as of low to very low quality due to study limitations, imprecision, high heterogeneity and small sample size. When compared with placebo/no intervention, MMN fortification may reduce anaemia by 32% (risk ratio (RR) 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.84; 11 studies, 3746 participants; low-quality evidence), iron deficiency anaemia by 72% (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.39; 6 studies, 2189 participants; low-quality evidence), iron deficiency by 56% (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.60; 11 studies, 3289 participants; low-quality evidence); vitamin A deficiency by 58% (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.62; 6 studies, 1482 participants; low-quality evidence), vitamin B2 deficiency by 64% (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.68; 1 study, 296 participants; low-quality evidence), vitamin B6 deficiency by 91% (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.38; 2 studies, 301 participants; low-quality evidence), vitamin B12 deficiency by 58% (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.71; 3 studies, 728 participants; low-quality evidence), weight-for-age z-scores (WAZ) (mean difference (MD) 0.1, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17; 8 studies, 2889 participants; low-quality evidence) and weight-for-height/length z-score (WHZ/WLZ) (MD 0.1, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.18; 6 studies, 1758 participants; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of MMN fortification on zinc deficiency (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.08; 5 studies, 1490 participants; low-quality evidence) and height/length-for-age z-score (HAZ/LAZ) (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.18; 8 studies, 2889 participants; low-quality evidence). Most of the studies in this comparison were conducted in children. Subgroup analyses of funding sources (commercial versus non-commercial) and duration of intervention did not demonstrate any difference in effects, although this was a relatively small number of studies and the possible association between commercial funding and increased effect estimates has been demonstrated in the wider health literature. We could not conduct subgroup analysis by food vehicle and funding; since there were too few studies in each subgroup to draw any meaningful conclusions. When we compared MMNs versus iodised salt, we are uncertain about the effect of MMN fortification on anaemia (R 0.86, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.01; 1 study, 88 participants; very low-quality evidence), iron deficiency anaemia (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.83; 2 studies, 245 participants; very low-quality evidence), iron deficiency (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 1 study, 88 participants; very low-quality evidence) and vitamin A deficiency (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55; 2 studies, 363 participants; very low-quality evidence). Both of the studies were conducted in children. Only one study conducted in children compared MMN fortification versus calcium fortification. None of the primary outcomes were reported in the study. None of the included studies reported on morbidity, adverse events, all-cause or cause-specific mortality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from this review suggests that MMN fortification when compared to placebo/no intervention may reduce anaemia, iron deficiency anaemia and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, vitamin A, vitamin B2 and vitamin B6). We are uncertain of the effect of MMN fortification on anthropometric measures (HAZ/LAZ, WAZ and WHZ/WLZ). There are no data to suggest possible adverse effects of MMN fortification, and we could not draw reliable conclusions from various subgroup analyses due to a limited number of studies in each subgroup. We remain cautious about the level of commercial funding in this field, and the possibility that this may be associated with higher effect estimates, although subgroup analysis in this review did not demonstrate any impact of commercial funding. These findings are subject to study limitations, imprecision, high heterogeneity and small sample sizes, and we rated most of the evidence low to very low quality. and hence no concrete conclusions could be drawn from the findings of this review.

GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions

OBJECTIVES

Clear communication of systematic review findings will help readers and decision makers. We built on previous work to develop an approach that improves the clarity of statements to convey findings and that draws on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted workshops including 80 attendants and a survey of 110 producers and users of systematic reviews. We calculated acceptability of statements and revised the wording of those that were unacceptable to ≥40% of participants.

RESULTS

Most participants agreed statements should be based on size of effect and certainty of evidence. Statements for low, moderate and high certainty evidence were acceptable to >60%. Key guidance, for example, includes statements for high, moderate and low certainty for a large effect on intervention x as: x results in a large reduction…; x likely results in a large reduction…; x may result in a large reduction…, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Producers and users of systematic reviews found statements to communicate findings combining size and certainty of an effect acceptable. This article provides GRADE guidance and a wording template to formulate statements in systematic reviews and other decision tools.

Do à la carte menus serve infertility patients? The ethics and regulation of in vitro fertility add-ons

Add-on treatments are the new black. They are provided (most frequently, sold) to patients undergoing in vitro fertilization on the premise that they will improve the chances of having a baby. However, the regulation of add-ons is consistently minimal, meaning that they are introduced into routine practice before they have been shown to improve the live birth rate. Debate on the adequacy of this light-touch approach rages. Defenders argue that demands for a rigorous approval process are paternalistic, as this would delay access to promising treatments. Critics respond that promising treatments may turn out to have adverse effects on patients and their offspring, contradicting the clinician's responsibility to do no harm. Some add-ons, including earlier versions of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, might even reduce the live birth rate, raising the prospect of desperate patients paying more to worsen their chances. Informed consent represents a solution in principle, but in practice there is a clear tension between impartial information and direct-to-consumer advertising. Because the effects of a treatment cannot be known until it has been robustly evaluated, we argue that strong evidence should be required before add-ons are introduced to the clinic. In the meantime, there is an imperative to identify methods for communicating the associated risks and uncertainties of add-ons to prospective patients.

Pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms. We considered a 25% decrease of NIH-CPSI baseline score or a six-point reduction as MCID.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was July 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available pharmacological interventions compared to placebo or in head-to-head comparisons.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risks of bias of included studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 99 unique studies in 9119 men with CP/CPPS, with assessments of 16 types of pharmacological interventions. Unless stated otherwise, our comparisons were based on short-term follow-up (less than 12 months). Most studies did not specify their funding sources; 21 studies reported funding from pharmaceutical companies.1. Alpha blockers: (24 studies, 2061 participants). We are uncertain about the effects of these drugs on prostatitis symptoms when compared to placebo at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.41 to -2.61; 18 studies, 1524 participants, very low QoE) and at long-term follow-up (MD -5.60, 95% CI -10.89 to -0.32; 4 studies, 235 participants, very low QoE). Alpha blockers may be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as dizziness and postural hypotension (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.34; 19 studies, 1588 participants; low QoE). Alpha blockers probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction, quality of life and anxiety and depression (moderate to low QoE).2. 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARI): (2 studies, 177 participants). Finasteride probably reduces prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -4.60, 95% CI -5.43 to -3.77; 1 study, 64 participants; moderate QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence of adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.3. Antibiotics: (6 studies, 693 participants). Antibiotics (quinolones) may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.43, 95% CI -4.72 to -0.15; 5 studies, 372 participants; low QoE) and are probably not associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (moderate QoE). Antibiotics probably result in little to no difference in sexual dysfunction and quality of life (moderate QoE). There was no information on anxiety or depression.4. Anti-inflammatories: (7 studies, 585 participants). Anti-inflammatories may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.74 to -1.26; 7 studies, 585 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.5. Phytotherapy: (7 studies, 551 participants). Phytotherapy may reduce prostatitis symptoms compared to placebo (NIH-CPSI scores MD -5.02, 95% CI -6.81 to -3.23; 5 studies, 320 participants; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). Phytotherapy may not improve sexual dysfunction (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life or anxiety and depression.6. Botulinum toxin A (BTA): Intraprostatic BTA injection (1 study, 60 participants) may cause a large reduction in prostatitis symptom (NIH-CPSI scores MD -25.80, 95% CI -30.15 to -21.45), whereas pelvic floor muscle BTA injection (1 study, 29 participants) may not reduce prostatitis symptoms (low QoE). Both comparisons used a placebo injection. These interventions may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.7. Allopurinol: (2 studies, 110 participants). Allopurinol may result in little to no difference in prostatitis symptoms and adverse events when compared to placebo (low QoE). There was no information on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression.8. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM): (7 studies, 835 participants); TCM may reduce prostatitis symptoms (NIH-CPSI score, MD -3.13, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.28; low QoE) and may not be associated with an increased incidence in adverse events (low QoE). TCM probably does not improve sexual dysfunction (moderate QoE) and may not improve symptoms of anxiety and depression (low QoE). There was no information on quality of life.The most frequent reasons for downgrading the QoE were study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. We found few trials with active comparators.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to very low-quality evidence that alpha blockers, antibiotics, 5-ARI, anti-inflammatories, phytotherapy, intraprostatic BTA injection, and traditional Chinese medicine may cause a reduction in prostatitis symptoms without an increased incidence of adverse events in the short term, except for alpha blockers which may be associated with an increase in mild adverse events. We found few trials with active comparators and little evidence of the effects of these drugs on sexual dysfunction, quality of life or anxiety and depression. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods, including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes, including potential treatment-related adverse events, and appropriate sample sizes.

Cochrane reviews on acupuncture therapy for pain: A snapshot of the current evidence

Cochrane is an international non-profit organization established in 1993 to produce and disseminate high quality and unbiased systematic reviews of evidence on health care interventions. At the forefront of systematic review methodology, Cochrane is generally accepted to be among the most carefully prepared and rigorous sources of systematic review evidence. There are numerous Cochrane reviews on nonpharmacologic interventions for pain and multiple Cochrane reviews evaluating acupuncture therapy in pain conditions. But how complete and up to date are those reviews relative to other rigorous systematic reviews with meta-analyses of acupuncture therapy for pain published in the literature? In this 'snapshot' overview, we found 22 relevant Cochrane reviews, some concluding that acupuncture therapy is probably useful for treating specific pain conditions. However, many of the conditions for which acupuncture is most commonly used are either not represented in Cochrane reviews or the existing Cochrane reviews are seriously outdated and do not reflect current evidence. This creates confusion with the risks of adverse effects and addiction liability associated with pain medications, the prevalence of chronic pain, the ongoing opioid epidemic and the need for evidence-based options for pain as part of comprehensive pain care. Clinicians and patients want clarification on safe and effective options to treat pain. Issues involving reviewed trials' inadequate use of sham comparators, of acupuncture as a complex intervention with interactive components and a shift in research focus from efficacy trials to real-world pragmatic trials are discussed in relation to updating Cochrane reviews of acupuncture therapy for pain.

Communicating Science in the Digital and Social Media Ecosystem: Scoping Review and Typology of Strategies Used by Health Scientists

Background

The public’s understanding of science can be influential in a wide range of areas related to public health, including policy making and self-care. Through the digital and social media ecosystem, health scientists play a growing role in public science communication (SC).

Objective

This review aimed to (1) synthesize the literature on SC initiated by health scientists targeting the public in the digital and social media ecosystem and (2) describe the SC strategies and communication channels used.

Methods

This scoping review was based on the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Framework. A systematic search was performed in 6 databases (January 2000 to April 2018). Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data charting, and critical appraisal were performed independently by two review authors. Data regarding included studies and communication channels were synthesized descriptively. A typology of SC strategies was developed using a qualitative and inductive method of data synthesis.

Results

Among 960 unique publications identified, 18 met inclusion criteria. A third of publications scored good quality (6/18, 33%), half scored moderate quality (9/18, 50%), and less than a fifth scored low quality (3/18, 16%). Overall, 75 SC strategies used by health scientists were identified. These were grouped into 9 types: content, credibility, engagement, intention, linguistics, planification, presentation, social exchange, and statistics. A total of 5 types of communication channels were identified: social networking platforms (eg, Twitter), content-sharing platforms (eg, YouTube), digital research communities (eg, ResearchGate), personal blogs and websites (eg, WordPress), and social news aggregation and discussion platforms (eg, Reddit).

Conclusions

Evidence suggests that multiple types of SC strategies and communication channels are used by health scientists concurrently. Few empirical studies have been conducted on SC by health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem. Future studies should examine the appropriateness and effectiveness of SC strategies for improving public health–related outcomes and identify the barriers, facilitators, and ethical considerations inherent to the involvement of health scientists in the digital and social media ecosystem.

Post-Editing Neural MT in Medical LSP: Lexico-Grammatical Patterns and Distortion in the Communication of Specialized Knowledge

The recent arrival on the market of high-performing neural MT engines will likely lead to a profound transformation of the translation profession. The purpose of this study is to explore how this paradigm change impacts the post-editing process, with a focus on lexico-grammatical patterns that are used in the communication of specialized knowledge. A corpus of 109 medical abstracts pre-translated from English into French by the neural MT engine DeepL and post-edited by master’s students in translation was used to study potential distortions in the translation of lexico-grammatical patterns. The results suggest that neural MT leads to specific sources of distortion in the translation of these patterns, not unlike what has previously been observed in human translation. These observations highlight the need to pay particular attention to lexico-grammatical patterns when post-editing neural MT in order to achieve functional equivalence in the translation of specialized texts.

Who can you trust? A review of free online sources of "trustworthy" information about treatment effects for patients and the public

BACKGROUND

Information about effects of treatments based on unsystematic reviews of research evidence may be misleading. However, finding trustworthy information about the effects of treatments based on systematic reviews, which is accessible to patients and the public can be difficult. The objectives of this study were to identify and evaluate free sources of health information for patients and the public that provide information about effects of treatments based on systematic reviews.

METHODS

We reviewed websites that we and our colleagues knew of, searched for government sponsored health information websites, and searched for online sources of health information that provide evidence-based information. To be included in our review, a website had to be available in English, freely accessible, and intended for patients and the public. In addition, it had to have a broad scope, not limited to specific conditions or types of treatments. It had to include a description of how the information is prepared and the description had to include a statement about using systematic reviews. We compared the included websites by searching for information about the effects of eight treatments.

RESULTS

Three websites met our inclusion criteria: Cochrane Evidence, Informed Health, and PubMed Health. The first two websites produce content, whereas PubMed Health aggregated content. A fourth website that met our inclusion criteria, CureFacts, was under development. Cochrane Evidence provides plain language summaries of Cochrane Reviews (i.e. summaries that are intended for patients and the public). They are translated to several other languages. No information besides treatment effects is provided. Informed Health provides information about treatment effects together with other information for a wide range of topics. PubMed Health was discontinued in October 2018. It included a large number of systematic reviews of treatment effects with plain language summaries for Cochrane Reviews and some other reviews. None of the three websites included links to ongoing trials, and information about treatment effects was not reported consistently on any of the websites.

CONCLUSION

It is possible for patients and the public to access trustworthy information about the effects of treatments using the two of the websites included in this review.

Implantable cardiac defibrillators for people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention in people with an ischaemic cardiomyopathy improves survival rate. The evidence supporting this intervention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy is not as definitive, with the recently published DANISH trial finding no improvement in survival rate. A systematic review of all eligible studies was needed to evaluate the benefits and harms of using ICDs for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of using compared to not using ICD for primary prevention in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy receiving optimal medical therapy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Web of Science Core Collection on 10 October 2018. For ongoing or unpublished clinical trials, we searched the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry. To identify economic evaluation studies, we conducted a separate search to 31 March 2015 of the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and from March 2015 to October 2018 on MEDLINE and Embase.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials involving adults with chronic non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy due to a left ventricular systolic dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 35% or less (New York Heart Association (NYHA) type I-IV). Participants in the intervention arm should have received ICD in addition to optimal medical therapy, while those in the control arm received optimal medical therapy alone. We included studies with cardiac resynchronisation therapy when it was appropriately balanced in the experimental and control groups.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, sudden cardiac death, and adverse events associated with the intervention. The secondary outcomes were non-cardiovascular death, health-related quality of life, hospitalisation for heart failure, first ICD-related hospitalisation, and cost. We abstracted the log (hazard ratio) and its variance from trial reports for time-to-event survival data. We extracted the raw data necessary to calculate the risk ratio. We summarised data on quality of life and cost-effectiveness narratively. We assessed the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six eligible randomised trials with a total of 3128 participants. The use of ICD plus optimal medical therapy versus optimal medical therapy alone decreases the risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.92; participants = 3128; studies = 6; high-certainty evidence). An average of 24 patients need to be treated with ICD to prevent one additional death from any cause (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 24). Individuals younger than 65 derive more benefit than individuals older than 65 (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; participants = 348; studies = 1) (NNTB = 10). When added to medical therapy, ICDs probably decrease cardiovascular mortality compared to not adding them (risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.21; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was also found to decrease sudden cardiac deaths (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; participants = 1677; studies = 3; high-certainty evidence). An average of 25 patients need to be treated with an ICD to prevent one additional sudden cardiac death (NNTB = 25). We found that ICDs probably increase adverse events (possibility of both plausible harm and benefit), but likely have little or no effect on non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; participants = 1781; studies = 4; moderate-certainty evidence) (possibility of both plausible benefit and no effect). Finally, using ICD therapy probably has little or no effect on quality of life, however shocks from the device cause a deterioration in quality of life. No study reported the outcome of first ICD-related hospitalisations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of ICD in addition to medical therapy in people with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy decreases all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac deaths and probably decreases mortality from cardiovascular causes compared to medical therapy alone. Their use probably increases the risk for adverse events. However, these devices come at a high cost, and shocks from ICDs cause a deterioration in quality of life.

Developing Evidence to Decision Frameworks and an Interactive Evidence to Decision Tool for Making and Using Decisions and Recommendations in Health Care

Evidence-informed health care decisions and recommendations need to be made systematically and transparently. Mediating technology can help manage boundaries between groups making decisions and target audiences, enhancing salience, credibility, and legitimacy for all. This article describes the development of the Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework and an interactive tool to create and use frameworks (iEtD) to support communication in decision making. Methods: Using a human-centered design approach, we created prototypes employing a broad range of methods to iteratively develop EtD framework content and iEtD tool functionality. Results: We developed tailored EtD frameworks for making evidence-informed decisions and recommendations about clinical practice interventions, diagnostic and screening tests, coverage, and health system and public health options. The iEtD tool provides functionality for preparing frameworks, using them in group discussions, and publishing output for implementation or adaption. EtD and iEtD are intuitive and useful for producers and users of frameworks, and flexible for use across different types of topics, decisions, and organizations. They bring valued structure to panel discussions and transparency to published output. Conclusion: EtD and iEtD can resolve some of the challenges inherent in multicriteria, multistakeholder decision systems. They are freely available online for all to use at https://ietd.epistemonikos.org/ and https://gradepro.org.

Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for public health decision-making, but length and technical jargon tend to hinder their use. In non-English speaking countries, inaccessibility of information in the native language often represents an additional barrier. In line with our vision to strengthen evidence-based public health in the German-speaking world, we developed a German language summary format for systematic reviews of public health interventions and undertook user-testing with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

METHODS

We used several guiding principles and core elements identified from the literature to produce a prototype summary format and applied it to a Cochrane review on the impacts of changing portion and package sizes on selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Following a pre-test in each of the three countries, we carried out 18 user tests with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using the 'think-aloud' method. We analysed participants' comments according to the facets credibility, usability, understandability, usefulness, desirability, findability, identification and accessibility. We also identified elements that hindered the facile and satisfying use of the summary format, and revised it based on participants' feedback.

RESULTS

The summary format was well-received; participants particularly appreciated receiving information in their own language. They generally found the summary format useful and a credible source of information, but also signalled several barriers to a positive user experience such as an information-dense structure and difficulties with understanding statistical terms. Many of the identified challenges were addressed through modifications of the summary format, in particular by allowing for flexible length, placing more emphasis on key messages and relevance for public health practice, expanding the interpretation aid for statistical findings, providing a glossary of technical terms, and only including graphical GRADE ratings. Some barriers to uptake, notably the participants' wish for actionable recommendations and contextual information, could not be addressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants welcomed the initiative, but user tests also revealed their problems with understanding and interpreting the findings summarised in our prototype format. The revised summary format will be used to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews of public health interventions.

Dissemination of evidence in paediatric emergency medicine: a quantitative descriptive evaluation of a 16-week social media promotion

OBJECTIVES

TRanslating Emergency Knowledge for Kids (TREKK) and Cochrane Child Health collaborate to develop knowledge products on paediatric emergency medicine topics. Via a targeted social media promotion, we aimed to increase user interaction with the TREKK and Cochrane Child Health Twitter accounts and the uptake of TREKK Bottom Line Recommendations (BLRs) and Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs).

DESIGN

Quantitative descriptive evaluation.

SETTING

We undertook this study and collected data via the internet.

PARTICIPANTS

Our target users included online healthcare providers and health consumers.

INTERVENTION

For 16 weeks, we used Twitter accounts (@TREKKca and @Cochrane_Child) and the Cochrane Child Health blog to promote 6 TREKK BLRs and 16 related Cochrane SRs. We published 1 blog post and 98 image-based tweets per week.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was user interaction with @TREKKca and @Cochrane_Child. Secondary outcomes were visits to TREKK's website and the Cochrane Child Health blog, clicks to and views of the TREKK BLRs, and Altmetric scores and downloads of Cochrane SRs.

RESULTS

Followers to @TREKKca and @Cochrane_Child increased by 24% and 15%, respectively. Monthly users of TREKK's website increased by 29%. Clicks to the TREKK BLRs increased by 22%. The BLRs accrued 59% more views compared with the baseline period. The 16 blog posts accrued 28% more views compared with the 8 previous months when no new posts were published. The Altmetric scores for the Cochrane SRs increased by ≥10 points each. The mean number of full text downloads for the promotion period was higher for nine and lower for seven SRs compared with the 16-week average for the previous year (mean difference (SD), +4.0 (22.0%)).

CONCLUSIONS

There was increased traffic to TREKK knowledge products and Cochrane SRs during the social media promotion. Quantitative evidence supports blogging and tweeting as dissemination strategies for evidence-based knowledge products.

Mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Many individuals who have a diagnosis of schizophrenia experience a range of distressing and debilitating symptoms. These can include positive symptoms (such as delusions, hallucinations, disorganised speech), cognitive symptoms (such as trouble focusing or paying attention or using information to make decisions), and negative symptoms (such as diminished emotional expression, avolition, alogia, and anhedonia). Antipsychotic drugs are often only partially effective, particularly in treating negative symptoms, indicating the need for additional treatment. Mirtazapine is an antidepressant drug that when taken in addition to an antipsychotic may offer some benefit for negative symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the effects of mirtazapine as adjunct treatment for people with schizophrenia.

SEARCH METHODS

The Information Specialist of Cochrane Schizophrenia searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials (including registries of clinical trials) up to May 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) with useable data focusing on mirtazapine adjunct for people with schizophrenia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. For included studies we assessed risk of bias and created 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs with a total of 310 participants. All studies compared mirtazapine adjunct with placebo adjunct and were of short-term duration. We considered five studies to have a high risk of bias for either incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, or other bias.Our main outcomes of interest were clinically important change in mental state (negative and positive symptoms), leaving the study early for any reason, clinically important change in global state, clinically important change in quality of life, number of days in hospital and incidence of serious adverse events.One trial defined a reduction in the Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS) overall score from baseline of at least 20% as no important response for negative symptoms. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the two treatments with similar numbers of participants from each group showing no important response to treatment (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14, 1 RCT, n = 20, very low-quality evidence).Clinically important change in positive symptoms was not reported, however, clinically important change in overall mental state was reported by two trials and data for this outcome showed a favourable effect for mirtazapine (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.92; I² = 75%, 2 RCTs, n = 77, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference for numbers of participants leaving the study early (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.66, 9 RCTs, n = 310, moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of a clear difference in global state Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) severity scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.48, 1 RCT, n = 39, very low-quality evidence). A favourable effect for mirtazapine adjunct was found for the outcome clinically important change in akathisia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52, 2 RCTs, n = 86, low-quality evidence; I² = 61%I). No data were reported for quality life or number of days in hospital.In addition to the main outcomes of interest, there was evidence relating to adverse events that the mirtazapine adjunct groups were associated with an increased risk of weight gain (RR 3.19, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.65, 4 RCTs, n = 127) and sedation/drowsiness (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.68, 7 RCTs, n = 223).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is primarily of very low quality and indicates that mirtazapine adjunct is not clearly associated with an effect for negative symptoms, but there is some indication of a positive effect on overall mental state and akathisia. No effect was found for global state or leaving the study early and data were not available for quality of life or service use. Due to limitations of the quality and applicability of the evidence it is not possible to make any firm conclusions, the role of mirtazapine adjunct in routine clinical practice remains unclear. This underscores the need for new high-quality evidence to further evaluate mirtazapine adjunct for schizophrenia.

Non-pharmacological interventions for treating chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome

BACKGROUND

Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a common disorder in which the two main clinical features are pelvic pain and lower urinary tract symptoms. There are currently many approaches for its management, using both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. The National Institute of Health - Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score is a validated measure commonly used to measure CP/CPPS symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological therapies for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature and conference proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were men with a diagnosis of CP/CPPS. We included all available non-pharmacological interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies, performed statistical analyses and rated quality of evidence (QoE) according to the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 unique studies with 3290 men with CP/CPPS across 23 comparisons.1. Acupuncture: (three studies, 204 participants) based on short-term follow-up, acupuncture probably leads to clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with sham procedure (mean difference (MD) in total NIH-CPSI score -5.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.32 to -4.26, high QoE). Acupuncture may result in little to no difference in adverse events (low QoE). Acupuncture may not reduce sexual dysfunction when compared with sham procedure (MD in the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) Scale -0.50, 95% CI -3.46 to 2.46, low QoE). Acupuncture may also lead to a clinically meaningful reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with standard medical therapy (MD -6.05, 95% CI -7.87 to -4.24, two studies, 78 participants, low QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.2. Lifestyle modifications: (one study, 100 participants) based on short-term follow-up, lifestyle modifications may be associated with a reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (risk ratio (RR) for improvement in NIH-CPSI scores 3.90, 95% CI 2.20 to 6.92, very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.3. Physical activity: (one study, 85 participants) based on short-term follow-up, a physical activity programme may cause a small reduction in prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -4.69 to -0.31, low QoE). This programme may not reduce anxiety or depression (low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction or quality of life.4. Prostatic massage: (two studies, 115 participants) based on short-term follow-up, we are uncertain whether the prostatic massage reduces or increases prostatitis symptoms compared with control (very low QoE). We found no information regarding adverse events, sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.5. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy: (three studies, 157 participants) based on short-term follow-up, extracorporeal shockwave therapy reduces prostatitis symptoms compared with control (NIH-CPSI score MD -6.18, 95% CI -7.46 to -4.89, high QoE). These results may not be sustained at medium-term follow-up (low QoE). This treatment may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse events (low QoE). This treatment probably improves sexual dysfunction (MD in the IIEF Scale MD 3.34, 95% CI 2.68 to 4.00, one study, 60 participants, moderate QoE). We found no information regarding quality of life, depression or anxiety.6. Transrectal thermotherapy compared to medical therapy: (two studies, 237 participants) based on short-term follow-up, transrectal thermotherapy alone or in combination with medical therapy may decrease prostatitis symptoms slightly when compared with medical therapy alone (NIH-CPSI score MD -2.50, 95% CI -3.82 to -1.18, low QoE). One included study reported that participants may experience transient adverse events. We found no information regarding sexual dysfunction, quality of life, depression or anxiety.7. Other interventions: there is uncertainty about the effects of most of the other interventions included in this review. We found no information regarding psychological support or prostatic surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of moderate quality evidence, this review found that some non-pharmacological interventions such as acupuncture and extracorporeal shockwave therapy are likely to result in a decrease in prostatitis symptoms and may not be associated with a greater incidence of adverse event. The QoE for most other comparisons was predominantly low. Future clinical trials should include a full report of their methods including adequate masking, consistent assessment of all patient-important outcomes including potential treatment-related adverse events and appropriate sample sizes.

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders

OBJECTIVE

To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy).

SETTING

International.

PARTICIPANTS

We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both).

DESIGN

Survey.

METHODS

We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes.

RESULTS

Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

Producing an evidence-based treatment information website in partnership with people affected by multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In earlier work, we identified that people affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) can have difficulty finding online treatment information that is up to date, trustworthy, understandable, and applicable to personal circumstances, but does not provoke confusion or negative emotional consequences. The objective was to develop online consumer summaries of MS treatment evidence (derived from Cochrane Reviews) that respond to identified treatment information needs of people affected by MS.

METHODS

A 2-phase mixed-methods project, conducted in partnership with consumers and an MS organisation. Phase 1 included review panels with consumers (Australians affected by MS) and health professionals to test paper-based treatment summaries before development, and pilot testing of the website. Phase 2 involved an online survey after website launch.

RESULTS

Eighty-three participants (85% affected by MS) took part. Phase 1 participants strongly endorsed key review summary components, including layering information, and additional sections to aid personal applicability. Participants additionally suggested questions for health professionals. Participants across both phases were receptive to the idea of being provided with Cochrane Review summaries online but were seeking other types of evidence and information, such as personal experiences and the latest experimental treatments, which could not be provided. While the small survey sample size (n = 58) limits application of the results to a broader population, the website was viewed favourably, as a useful, understandable, and trustworthy information source.

CONCLUSION

We describe a partnership approach to developing online evidence-based treatment information, underpinned by an in-depth understanding of consumers' information needs.