Common barriers and enablers to the use of non-drug interventions for managing common chronic conditions in primary care: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Non-drug interventions are recommended for chronic condition prevention and management yet are underused in clinical practice. Understanding barriers and enablers to using non-drug interventions may help implement non-drug interventions in primary care. We aimed to conduct an overview of reviews to identify and summarise common barriers and enablers for using non-drug interventions for common chronic conditions in primary care.

METHODS

We included qualitative and quantitative reviews that used systematic process or methods to examine barriers and enablers to using non-drug interventions for chronic condition prevention and management in primary care settings. We searched 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL) from inception to September 2022. Two authors independently screened reviews. One author extracted and deductively coded data to Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) (and where relevant, Theoretical Domains Framework [TDF]). A second author validated 10% of extracted data and coding. Data was synthesised thematically using CFIR and TDF. One author assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using a modified AMSTAR 2 tool, with 10% validated by a second author. We assessed overlap between primary studies in included reviews.

RESULTS

From 5324 records, we included 25 reviews, with data predominately from patients. Overall, 130 subthemes (71 barrier and 59 enabler) were identified across 4 CFIR domains (Innovation, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Individuals), and all TDF domains. Common barrier and enabler subthemes were identified for CFIR constructs of Innovation Adaptability, Innovation Cost, Innovation Relative Advantage, Local Attitudes, External Pressure, Local Conditions, Relational Connections, Available Resources, and Access to Knowledge and Information. For TDF domains, important barrier and enabler subthemes were identified for Knowledge, Skills, Environmental Context and Resources, Beliefs about Consequences, Reinforcement, and Emotion.

CONCLUSIONS

We synthesised reviews to provide new insight into common barriers and enablers for using non-drug interventions to prevent and manage chronic conditions in primary care. The factors identified can inform the development of generalisable implementation interventions to enhance uptake of multiple non-drug interventions simultaneously.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022357583).

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary.

DISCUSSION

This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

Effectiveness and safety of injectable PCSK9 inhibitors in dyslipidaemias' treatment and cardiovascular disease prevention: An overview of 86 systematic reviews and a network metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE

Multiple systematic reviews (SR) have been performed on the effects of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i), often providing conflicting findings. This overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to summarize SR findings on the efficacy and safety of PCSK9i and provide an updated NMA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE (Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane, Epistemonikos and Google Scholar were searched from inception to September 21, 2023 for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and from January 1, 2020 to September 21, 2023 for additional RCTs. Double-independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Qualitative analysis was performed for SRs and a frequentist random-effects model NMA was performed for RCTs.

RESULTS

Totally, 86 SRs and 76 RCTs were included. Alirocumab (77/86 [90%]) and evolocumab (73/86 [85%]) were mostly analyzed. Associations from SRs (35/42 [83%]) and the updated NMA indicated PCSK9i benefit on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). Reductions were also noted for cerebrovascular events (47/66 [71%]), coronary revascularization (29/33 [88%]) and myocardial infarction (41/63 [65%]). Alirocumab was associated with reductions on all-cause mortality (RR=0.82, 95%CI [0.72,0.94]). Data on any CV event reduction were conflicting (7/16 [44%]). Inclisiran appeared effective only on MACEs (RR=0.76, 95%CI [0.61,0.94]). No reductions in heart failure were observed (0/16). No increases were identified between PCSK9i and any (0/35) or serious adverse events (0/52). However, PCSK9i were associated with injection-site reactions (20/28 [71%]).

CONCLUSION

PCSK9i appeared to be effective in CV outcomes and their clinical application was generally safe.

On Orthorexia Nervosa: A Systematic Review of Reviews

INTRODUCTION

Orthorexia nervosa (ON), characterized by a pathological preoccupation with "extreme dietary purity," is increasingly observed as a mental health condition among young adults and the general population. However, its diagnosis is not formally recognized and has remained contentious.

OBJECTIVE

In this systematic review, we attempt to overview previous reviews on ON, focusing on the methodological and conceptual issues with ON. This would serve both as a summary and a way to highlight gaps in earlier research.

METHODS

This systematic review took reference from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines, and using combinations of the search terms ("orthorexia" OR "orthorexia nervosa" OR "ON") AND ("review" OR "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis"), a literature search was performed on EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO databases from inception up to October 31, 2023. Articles were included if (1) they were written or translated into English and (2) contained information pertaining to the diagnostic stability or validity of ON, or instruments used to measure ON symptoms and behaviors. Only review articles with a systematic literature search approach were included.

RESULTS

A total of 22 reviews were qualitatively reviewed. Several studies have reported variable prevalence of ON and highlighted the lack of thoroughly evaluated measures of ON with clear psychometric properties, with no reliable estimates. ORTO-15 and its variations such as ORTO-11, ORTO-12 are popularly used, although their use is discouraged. Existing instruments lack specificity for pathology and several disagreements on the conceptualization and hence diagnostic criteria of ON exist.

DISCUSSION

Previous reviews have consistently highlighted the highly variable (and contradictory) prevalence rates with different instruments to measure ON, lack of stable factor structure and psychometrics across ON measures, paucity of data on ON in clinical samples, and a need for a modern re-conceptualization of ON. The diagnosis of ON is challenging as it likely spans a spectrum from "normal" to "abnormal," and "functional" to "dysfunctional." "Non-pathological" orthorexia is not related to psychopathological constructs in the same way that ON is.

Screening for hypertension in adults: protocol for evidence reviews to inform a Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline update

PURPOSE

To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in a primary care setting for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older. This protocol outlines the scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews and one overview of reviews.

METHODS

To evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension, the Task Force will rely on the relevant key questions from the 2021 United States Preventive Services Task Force systematic review. In addition, a series of reviews will be conducted to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence on (1) the association of blood pressure measurement methods and future cardiovascular (CVD)-related outcomes, (2) thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation, and (3) patient acceptability of hypertension screening methods. For the review of blood pressure measurement methods and future CVD-related outcomes, we will perform a de novo review and search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, nested case-control studies, and within-arm analyses of intervention studies. For the thresholds for discussions of treatment initiation review, we will perform an overview of reviews and update results from a relevant 2019 UK NICE review. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews. For the acceptability review, we will perform a de novo systematic review and search MEDLINE, Embase, and APA PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and observational studies with comparison groups. Websites of relevant organizations, gray literature sources, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews will be hand-searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers. Full-text screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers. Results from included studies will be synthesized narratively and pooled via meta-analysis when appropriate. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The results of the evidence reviews will be used to inform Canadian recommendations on screening for hypertension in adults aged 18 years and older.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This protocol is registered on PROSPERO and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/8w4tz).

Overview of Meta-Analyses on Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

We conducted an overview of reviews to determine the effects of naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions (NDBIs; Schreibman et al. (2015) J Autism Dev Disorders 45:2411-2428) on children with autism spectrum disorder under 8 years old. We conducted an electronic database search of Academic Search Premier, CINHAL, ERIC, Medline, and APA PsycINFO in October 2022 and August 2023 and utilized snowball methods to locate relevant reviews of NDBI. We included reviews meeting the following inclusion criteria: (1) review included a meta-analytic synthesis for at least one child outcome; (2) primary studies examined a NDBI; (3) primary studies included children with ASD with a mean pre-treatment age under eight years; (4) primary studies were conducted using a two-group comparison design; and (5) review was published in English. We extracted data on characteristics of the review, participant characteristics from the primary studies, intervention characteristics, and assessed the risk of bias of the included reviews. We conducted a narrative synthesis across outcomes reported in the included reviews. We included five reviews from six reports in this overview. Two reviews included studies that examined the Early Start Denver Model, two reviews included studies that examined the Pivotal Response Treatment, and one review included studies examining NDBIs collectively. We found positive effects of NDBIs on child's communication/language, cognition, and adaptive behavior. We found mixed effects for NDBIs on autism symptomatology and restricted and repetitive behaviors. Examination of moderator analyses reported in the included reviews suggested variables influencing the effects of NDBIs included proximity of outcome to intervention, boundedness of outcome to intervention, and study location. As shown in this overview, positive effects of NDBI for young children with ASD are supported by meta-analytic evidence. While the overall findings for NDBI across reviews are positive, the findings on specific outcomes and influential variables moderating the effects of NDBI are inconsistent. Additional evidence from randomized controlled trials and future meta-analyses are needed to strengthen our knowledge of the effects of NDBI for young children with ASD.Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022353045.

Can Peer-based Interventions Improve Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health Outcomes? An Overview of Reviews

PURPOSE

An overview of reviews was conducted to summarize the evidence and synthesize the results from systematic reviews.

METHODS

The Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews reporting guidelines were followed and the protocol was registered. Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify systematic reviews, published between January 1990 and July 2022. Studies with outcomes relating to all areas of adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) (changes in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, skills, and practices) were considered. The ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool was used to assess quality.

RESULTS

A total 1849 articles were retrieved, and eight reviews met the inclusion criteria. Three of the eight reviews included meta-analyses. All three of these reviews demonstrated a significant improvement in HIV knowledge. One reported improved attitudes toward people living with HIV but none found any statistically significant effect on condom use or other SRH behaviors. The remaining five reviews included reports of positive individual study outcomes related to knowledge and attitudes and provided narrative syntheses with regard to recruitment, training, support, and participation of peers. Five of the eight reviews were judged to have a low risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Our overview demonstrates that peer-based interventions can improve SRH knowledge and attitudes. Evidence of their effectiveness in promoting healthier SRH behaviors is less certain. Any future studies need to investigate which adolescent health outcomes peer-based programs could reasonably be expected to improve using robust methodologies. Additionally, peers need to be meaningfully engaged and acknowledged as experience-based experts.

Determinants of physical activity in community-dwelling older adults: an umbrella review

INTRODUCTION

Physical activity (PA) is critical for disease prevention and maintaining functional ability with aging. Despite this, as many as 50% of older adults in populations worldwide are considered insufficiently active. There is a recognized need to mobilize policies targeted toward modifiable determinants of healthy aging like PA. This umbrella review aimed to summarize the evidence for determinants of PA in community-dwelling older adults.

METHODS

A research librarian searched six databases. Systematic and scoping reviews were included if they investigated community-dwelling people with a mean age of 60 + years and examined a relationship between a determinant and any type of PA. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data from all reviews. JBI methodology and Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses were followed and information on the quality of the evidence was extracted.

RESULTS

From 17,277 records screened,11 reviews representing > 300 unique primary papers were ultimately included. Only 6% of studies included in all reviews had longitudinal designs. Included studies used a large variety of PA measures, with 76% using only self-report, 15% using only direct measures (e.g., accelerometry), 3% using both types, and 6% with no outcome measure reported. Only four reviews provided a definition of PA and there was substantial inconsistency in the way PA was categorised. Community level influences, which only included the physical environment, were the most commonly assessed (6/11) with more than 70% of the summarized relationships demonstrating null associations. Three out of four reviews reported a positive relationship between walkability and PA in general community-dwelling older adults. There was also evidence supporting relationships between presence of social support for PA, younger age, and men having higher PA from a single systematic review. None of the included reviews assessed the quality of evidence but over 60% performed a risk of bias assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Walkability, age, gender, and social support for PA were the most supported PA determinants identified. Further research should focus on interpersonal and intrapersonal influences and incorporate direct measures of PA with clear operational definitions. There is a need for longitudinal study designs to further understand determinants of PA behaviour trajectories.

Applications of artificial intelligence in the analysis of dental panoramic radiographs: an overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

This overview of systematic reviews aimed to establish the current state of knowledge on the suitability of artificial intelligence (AI) in dental panoramic radiograph analysis and illustrate its changes over time.

METHODS

Medical databases covered by the Association for Computing Machinery, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Google Scholar, and PubMed engines were searched. The risk of bias was assessed using ROBIS tool. Ultimately, 12 articles were qualified for the qualitative synthesis. The results were visualized with timelines, tables, and charts.

RESULTS

In the years 1988-2023, a significant development of information technologies for the analysis of DPRs was observed. The latest analyzed AI models achieve high accuracy in detecting caries (91.5%), osteoporosis (89.29%), maxillary sinusitis (87.5%), periodontal bone loss (93.09%), and teeth identification and numbering (93.67%). The detection of periapical lesions is also characterized by high sensitivity (99.95%) and specificity (92%). However, due to the small number of heterogeneous source studies synthesized in systematic reviews, the results of this overview should be interpreted with caution.

CONCLUSION

Currently, AI applications can significantly support dentists in dental panoramic radiograph analysis. As systematic reviews on AI become outdated quickly, their regular updating is recommended. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023416048.

A methodological review finds mismatch between overall and pairwise overlap analysis in a sample of overviews

OBJECTIVES

Overlap of primary studies is a key methodological challenge for overviews. There are limited reports of methods used to address overlap, and there is no detailed assessment of the corrected covered area (CCA) of a representative sample of overviews. To describe the approaches used to address overlap, and to estimate the overall and pairwise CCA.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for overviews published in 2018. Two authors conducted the screening process. We described the strategy used for assessing overlap, and calculated overall and pairwise CCA for each overview.

RESULTS

We analyzed a random sample of 30 out of 89 eligible articles. Eleven did not address the overlap. Of the remainder, most frequent strategies were visual assessment and discussion of overlap as a limitation. Median overall CCA among the included overviews was 6.7%. The pairwise analysis showed that 52.8% of SR pairs had slight overlap, while 28.3% had very high overlap.

CONCLUSION

Reported strategies for addressing overlap vary considerably among overview authors. The pairwise approach for assessing the CCA revealed highly overlapped pairs of SRs in overviews with overall slight overlap and vice versa. We encourage authors to complement the overall CCA assessment with a pairwise approach.

Overviews of reviews in the cardiovascular field underreported critical methodological and transparency characteristics: a methodological study based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, reporting characteristics, and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement of overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 15, 2020. An updated search was performed in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar up to August 25, 2022. Overviews of interventions published in English and primarily considering populations, interventions, and outcomes pertinent to the cardiovascular field were eligible. Study selection, data extraction, and PRIOR adherence assessment were performed by two authors independently.

RESULTS

We analyzed 96 overviews. Almost half (43/96 [45%]) were published between 2020 and 2022 and contained a median of 15 systematic reviews (SRs) (interquartile range, 9-28). The commonest title terminology was "overview of (systematic) reviews" (38/96 [40%]). Methods for handling SR overlap were reported in 24/96 (25%), methods for assessing primary study overlap in 18/96 (19%), handling of discrepant data in 11/96 (11%), and methods for methodological quality or risk of bias assessment of the primary studies within SRs in 23/96 (24%). Authors included data sharing statements in 28/96 (29%), complete funding disclosure in 43/96 (45%), protocol registration in 43/96 (45%), and conflict of interest statement in 82/96 (85%) overviews.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient reporting was identified in methodological characteristics unique in overviews' conduct and most transparency markers. Adoption of PRIOR from the research community could ameliorate overviews' reporting.

Approaching the body of evidence: Key concepts of Overviews

The increasing production of primary research and literature reviews in the last decades has made it necessary to develop a new methodological design to synthesize the evidence: the overviews. An overview is a type of evidence synthesis that uses systematic reviews as the unit of analysis, with the aim of extracting and analyzing the results for a new or broader research question, helping the shared decision-making processes. The aim of this article is to introduce the reader to this type of evidence summaries, highlighting the differences between overviews and other types of synthesis, the unique methodological aspects of overviews, and future challenges. This is the twelfth article from a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology.

Types and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews in health care: a methodological study with published examples

OBJECTIVES

To provide a descriptive insight into the different types of research questions/objectives and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews, supplemented by representative examples from the health care literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched in methodological articles for information on types and methodologies used in overviews and we explored the typology of reviews to identify similar types in literature of overviews. We categorized the types of overviews based on the research question/objective and the methodological approach used. Indicative examples for each category were selected from a sample of 2,121 overviews that were retrieved between 2000 and 2022 from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Based on type of research question, overviews were classified as overviews of reviews of interventions, associations, prediction, diagnostic accuracy, prevalence/incidence, experiences/views, economic evaluation, and measurement properties. Based on the methodological approach, we identified a variety of methods (systematic, living, rapid, scoping, evidence mapping, framework, and methodological) used in overviews.

CONCLUSION

The proposed classification and examples provide an essential starting point for future theory-building research on typologies and study designs of overviews of reviews. It is important for methodologists to make vigorous effort to create consensus-based methodological and reporting guidelines to cover these diverse types and key methodological challenges.

Professionals' adaptive expertise and adaptive performance in educational and workplace settings: an overview of reviews

Professionals will increasingly be confronted with new insights and changes. This raises questions as to what kind of expertise professionals need, and how development of this expertise can be influenced within the contexts of both education and work. The terms adaptive expertise and adaptive performance are well-known concepts in the domains of education and Human Resource Development respectively. The literature, however, lacks a conceptual overview. Our research seeks to provide an overview on how adaptive expertise and adaptive performance are conceptualized. In addition we looked for what individual, task and organizational characteristics relate to adaptive expertise. We mined information drawn from existing reviews in an overview of reviews. Nine reviews met the inclusion criteria. Adaptive performance is best referred to as the visible expression of an adaptive expert and this is triggered by 'change'. The scope of this 'change' lies somewhere between change that is 'new for the learner' and change that is 'new for everyone in the whole world'. The extent to and way in which a learner or professional is able to deal with this change depends on the maturity of the learner or professional. We found numerous individual, task and environmental characteristics related to adaptive expertise and adaptive performance. The nature and relation of these characteristics, and their specificity in relation to adaptive expertise and adaptive performance are visualized in a figure, but also provide several suggestions for future research.

Is equity considered in systematic reviews of interventions for mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults?

BACKGROUND

Social isolation and loneliness affect one in four older adults in many regions around the world. Social isolation and loneliness are shown to be associated with declines in physical and mental health. Intersecting social determinants of health influence both the risk of being socially isolated and lonely as well as the access and uptake of interventions. Our objective is to evaluate what evidence is available within systematic reviews on how to mitigate inequities in access to and effectiveness of interventions.

METHODS

We performed an overview of reviews following methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Overviews of Reviews. We selected systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and loneliness in older adults (aged 60 or above) published in the last 10 years. In addition, we assessed all primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in collaboration with a librarian scientist. We used a structured framework called PROGRESS-Plus to assess the reporting and consideration of equity. PROGRESS-Plus stands for place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socioeconomic status (SES), social capital, while "plus" stands for additional factors associated with discrimination and exclusion such as age, disability, and sexual orientation. We assessed whether PROGRESS-Plus factors were reported in description of the population, examination of differential effects, or discussion of applicability or limitations.

RESULTS

We identified and assessed 17 eligible systematic reviews. We assessed all 23 primary studies from the most recent systematic review with a broad intervention focus. All systematic reviews and primary studies described the population by one or more PROGRESS-Plus factor, most commonly across place of residence and age, respectively. None of the reviews and five primary studies examined differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus dimension. Nine reviews and four primary studies discussed applicability or limitations of their findings by at least one PROGRESS-Plus factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Although we know that social isolation and loneliness are worse for the poorest and most socially disadvantaged older adults, the existing evidence base lacks details on how to tailor interventions for these socially disadvantaged older people.

Guidance on review type selection for health technology assessments: key factors and considerations for deciding when to conduct a de novo systematic review, an update of a systematic review, or an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

A systematic review (SR) helps us make sense of a body of research while minimizing bias and is routinely conducted to evaluate intervention effects in a health technology assessment (HTA). In addition to the traditional de novo SR, which combines the results of multiple primary studies, there are alternative review types that use systematic methods and leverage existing SRs, namely updates of SRs and overviews of SRs. This paper shares guidance that can be used to select the most appropriate review type to conduct when evaluating intervention effects in an HTA, with a goal to leverage existing SRs and reduce research waste where possible.

PROCESS

We identified key factors and considerations that can inform the process of deciding to conduct one review type over the others to answer a research question and organized them into guidance comprising a summary and a corresponding flowchart. This work consisted of three steps. First, a guidance document was drafted by methodologists from two Canadian HTA agencies based on their experience. Next, the draft guidance was supplemented with a literature review. Lastly, broader feedback from HTA researchers across Canada was sought and incorporated into the final guidance.

INSIGHTS

Nine key factors and six considerations were identified to help reviewers select the most appropriate review type to conduct. These fell into one of two categories: the evidentiary needs of the planned review (i.e., to understand the scope, objective, and analytic approach required for the review) and the state of the existing literature (i.e., to know the available literature in terms of its relevance, quality, comprehensiveness, currency, and findings). The accompanying flowchart, which can be used as a decision tool, demonstrates the interdependency between many of the key factors and considerations and aims to balance the potential benefits and challenges of leveraging existing SRs instead of primary study reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Selecting the most appropriate review type to conduct when evaluating intervention effects in an HTA requires a myriad of factors to be considered. We hope this guidance adds clarity to the many competing considerations when deciding which review type to conduct and facilitates that decision-making process.

Outdoor air quality and human health: An overview of reviews of observational studies

The epidemiological evidence supporting putative associations between air pollution and health-related outcomes continues to grow at an accelerated pace with a considerable heterogeneity and with varying consistency based on the outcomes assessed, the examined surveillance system, and the geographic region. We aimed to evaluate the strength of this evidence base, to identify robust associations as well as to evaluate effect variation. An overview of reviews (umbrella review) methodology was implemented. PubMed and Scopus were systematically screened (inception-3/2020) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the association between air pollutants, including CO, NO_X, NO₂, O₃, PM₁₀, PM_2.5, and SO₂ and human health outcomes. The quality of systematic reviews was evaluated using AMSTAR. The strength of evidence was categorized as: strong, highly suggestive, suggestive, or weak. The criteria included statistical significance of the random-effects meta-analytical estimate and of the effect estimate of the largest study in a meta-analysis, heterogeneity between studies, 95% prediction intervals, and bias related to small study effects. Seventy-five systematic reviews of low to moderate methodological quality reported 548 meta-analyses on the associations between outdoor air quality and human health. Of these, 57% (N = 313) were not statistically significant. Strong evidence supported 13 associations (2%) between elevated PM_2.5, PM₁₀, NO₂, and SO₂ concentrations and increased risk of cardiorespiratory or pregnancy/birth-related outcomes. Twenty-three (4%) highly suggestive associations were identified on elevated PM_2.5, PM₁₀, O₃, NO₂, and SO₂ concentrations and increased risk of cardiorespiratory, kidney, autoimmune, neurodegenerative, cancer or pregnancy/birth-related outcomes. Sixty-seven (12%), and 132 (24%) meta-analyses were graded as suggestive, and weak, respectively. Despite the abundance of research on the association between outdoor air quality and human health, the meta-analyses of epidemiological studies in the field provide evidence to support robust associations only for cardiorespiratory or pregnancy/birth-related outcomes.

What do we know about evidence-informed priority setting processes to set population-level health-research agendas: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This overview aimed to synthesize existing systematic reviews to produce a draft framework of evidence-informed health priority setting that supports countries in identifying appropriate steps and methods when developing and implementing national research agendas.

MAIN BODY

We searched Ovid MEDLINE® and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing from 2010 to 2020 for critical or systematic reviews that evaluated research priority setting exercises. We adapted the AMSTAR checklist to assess the quality of included reviews and used adapted frameworks for data extraction and analysis. The search resulted in 2395 titles, of which 31 were included. Populations included in the reviews typically involved patients, families and carers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and research funders. The topics covered in the reviews varied from specific diseases or conditions, approaches for healthcare practice or research priority setting methods itself. All the included systematic reviews were of low or critically low quality. The studies were thematically grouped based on their main focus: identifying and engaging with stakeholders; methods; context; and health area.

CONCLUSION

Our overview of reviews has reconfirmed aspects of existing frameworks, but has also identified new concepts for countries to consider while developing their national research agendas. We propose a preliminary framework for consideration that highlights four key phases: (1) preparatory, (2) priority setting, (3) follow-up phase and (4) sustainability phase, which have thirteen sub-domains to consider.

Efficacy of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors on Cognitive Function in Alzheimer's Disease. Review of Reviews

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia over the age of 65. It is estimated that 115.4 million people will be affected by AD by 2050. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEI) are the only available and approved treatment for AD. The aim of the present study was to analyse the evidence on the efficacy of the AChEI in the treatment of cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. For that purpose, a review of review of the systematic reviews (SRs) on this topic was carried out by Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library, among others, were searched until 24 September 2021. Thirteen of the 1773 articles evaluated the efficacy of AChEI on cognitive function and/or general condition and/or behavioural disturbances of patients with mild to moderate AD. Methodological quality and risk of bias were rated using the ROBIS scale. The quality of the identified studies was high for nine of them, unclear for two, and finally only in two of the 13 studies did we detect low quality. Overall, AChEI showed very low efficacy in improving cognition in patients with mild to moderate AD. Better results were obtained in improving global state, with donepezil being the most effective treatment. No improvements in behavioural disturbances were found. Few high-quality reviews provide clear evidence of the effects of AChEI on cognition, global change, behaviour, and mortality. The data suggest that AChEI stabilize or slow cognitive deterioration, improving global status. In addition, data indicate that the use of AChEI decreases mortality in patients with mild to moderate AD. However, there is no evidence that they improve patient behaviour. Donepezil is the best therapeutic alternative at a dose of 10 mg/day.

The role of patient navigators in ambulatory care: overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Patient navigators have been introduced across various countries to enable timely access to healthcare services and to ensure completion of diagnosis and follow-up of care. There is an increasing evidence on the the role of patient navigation for patients and healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to analyse the evidence on patient navigation interventions in ambulatory care and to evaluate their effects on individuals and health system outcomes.

METHODS

An overview of reviews was conducted, following a prespecified protocol. All patients in ambulatory care or transitional care setting were included in this review as long as it was related to the role of patient navigators. The study analysed patient navigators covering a wide range of health professionals such as physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers and lay health workers or community-based workers with no or very limited training. Studies including patient-related measures and health system-related outcomes were eligible for inclusion. A rigorous search was performed in multiple data bases. After reaching a high inter-rater agreement of 0.86, title and abstract screening was independently performed. Of an initial 14,248 search results and an additional 62 articles identified through the snowballing approach, a total of 7159 hits were eligible for title/abstract screening. 679  articles were included for full-text screening.

RESULTS

Eleven systematic reviews were included covering various patient navigation intervention in cancer care, disease screening, transitional care and for various chronic conditions and multimorbidity. Nine systematic reviews primarily tailored services to ethnic minorities or other disadvantaged groups. Patient navigators performed tasks such as providing education and counselling, translations, home visits, outreach, scheduling of appointments and follow-up. Eight reviews identified positive outcomes in expanding access to care, in particular for vulnerable patient groups. Two reviews on patient navigation in transitional care reported improved patient outcomes, hospital readmission rates and mixed evidence on quality of life and emergency department visits. Two reviews demonstrated improved patient outcomes for persons with various chronic conditions and multimorbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient navigators were shown to expand access to screenings and health services for vulnerable patients or population groups with chronic conditions who tend to underuse health services.

Barriers and facilitators to the participation of subjects in clinical trials: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

The demand for clinical trial participants is today one of the highest it has ever been and continues to increase. At the same time, subject recruitment continues to be problematic and the major reason for clinical trial premature terminations. The literature on clinical trial recruitment, which spans several decades and includes hundreds of studies, has an abundance of findings that can be synthesized by way of an overview to provide a well-informed and complete picture of the factors that determine subject participation.

OBJECTIVES

An overview of the systematic reviews that report barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation was conducted. The extracted data were synthesized, and a thematic framework of the factors that affect subject participation in clinical trials was developed. The overview extended across medical subjects and demographics.

METHODS

Thirty reviews that complied with the inclusion criteria were included. These reviews covered 753 relevant primary studies and reported 881 barriers and facilitators. The barriers and facilitators were thematically synthesized and a thematic framework of 20 themes was developed. The quality of the included reviews was assessed and reported.

MAIN RESULTS

Several opportunities to increase clinical trial participation, by developing interventions and changing the trial design, derived from an analysis of the thematic framework. That analysis also showed that most of the 20 themes operate mainly as a barrier or as a facilitator, and that most have an effect across medical subjects. As to the quality elements assessed, some reviews complied almost fully but most only partially.

The efficacy of balneotherapy, mud therapy and spa therapy in patients with osteoarthritis: an overview of reviews

Osteoarthritis is a degenerative disease considered a leading cause of functional disability. Its treatment is based on a combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, but the role of these latter is still debated. This overview of systematic reviews aimed at evaluating the short-term efficacy of different thermal modalities in patients with osteoarthritis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, CINHAL, Web of Science, ProQuest and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until October 2020, with no language restrictions. We selected the following outcomes a priori: pain, stiffness and quality of life. Seventeen systematic reviews containing 27 unique relevant studies were included. The quality of the reviews ranged from low to critically low. Substantial variations in terms of interventions studied, comparison groups, population, outcomes and follow-up between the included SRs were found. From a re-analysis of primary data, emerged that balneotherapy was effective in reducing pain and improving stiffness and quality of life, mud therapy significantly reduced pain and stiffness, and spa therapy showed pain relief. However, the evidence supporting the efficacy of different thermal modalities could be seriously flawed due to methodological quality and sample size, to the presence of important treatment variations, and to the high level of heterogeneity and the absence of a double-blind design. There is some encouraging evidence that deserves clinicians' consideration, suggesting that thermal modalities are effective on a short-term basis for treating patients with AO.

Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Overviews of reviews (overviews) provide an invaluable resource for healthcare decision-making by combining large volumes of systematic review (SR) data into a single synthesis. The production of high-quality overviews hinges on the availability of practical evidence-based guidance for conduct and reporting.

OBJECTIVES

Within the broad purpose of informing the development of a reporting guideline for overviews, we aimed to provide an up-to-date map of existing guidance related to the conduct of overviews, and to identify common challenges that authors face when undertaking overviews.

METHODS

We updated a scoping review published in 2016 using the search methods that had produced the highest yield: ongoing reference tracking (2014 to March 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), hand-searching conference proceedings and websites, and contacting authors of published overviews. Using a qualitative meta-summary approach, one reviewer extracted, organized, and summarized the guidance and challenges presented within the included documents. A second reviewer verified the data and synthesis.

RESULTS

We located 28 new guidance documents, for a total of 77 documents produced by 34 research groups. The new guidance helps to resolve some earlier identified challenges in the production of overviews. Important developments include strengthened guidance on handling primary study overlap at the study selection and analysis stages. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be hampered by inconsistent or lacking guidance. There is ongoing debate about whether, when, and how supplemental primary studies should be included in overviews. Guidance remains scant on how to extract and use appraisals of quality of the primary studies within the included SRs and how to adapt GRADE methodology to overviews. The challenges that overview authors face are often related to the above-described steps in the process where evidence-based guidance is lacking or conflicting.

CONCLUSION

The rising popularity of overviews has been accompanied by a steady accumulation of new, and sometimes conflicting, guidance. While recent guidance has helped to address some of the challenges that overview authors face, areas of uncertainty remain. Practical tools supported by empirical evidence are needed to assist authors with the many methodological decision points that are encountered in the production of overviews.

Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study

Background

When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews.

Methods

A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking.

Results

Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0–90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2–94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0–99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5–98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1–99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC.

Conclusions

MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma and precancerous conditions (dysplasia and Barrett's esophagus) in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease with or without other risk factors: two systematic reviews and one overview of reviews to inform a guideline of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC)

BACKGROUND

Two reviews and an overview were produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without alarm symptoms. The goal was to systematically review three key questions (KQs): (1) The effectiveness of screening for these conditions; (2) How adults with chronic GERD weigh the benefits and harms of screening, and what factors contribute to their preferences and decision to undergo screening; and (3) Treatment options for Barrett's esophagus (BE), dysplasia or stage 1 EAC (overview of reviews).

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g. Ovid MEDLINE®) were searched for each review in October 2018. We also searched for unpublished literature (e.g. relevant websites). The liberal accelerated approach was used for title and abstract screening. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer (KQ1 and 2). Quality assessments were completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate (KQ3). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We used various risk of bias tools suitable for study design. The GRADE framework was used for rating the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Ten studies evaluated the effectiveness of screening. One retrospective study reported no difference in long-term survival (approximately 6 to 12 years) between those who had a prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy and those who had not (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.50). Though there may be higher odds of a stage 1 diagnosis than a more advanced diagnosis (stage 2-4) if an EGD had been performed in the previous 5 years (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.00-7.67). Seven studies compared different screening modalities, and showed little difference between modalities. Three studies reported on patients' unwillingness to be screened (e.g. due to anxiety, fear of gagging). Eleven systematic reviews evaluated treatment modalities, providing some evidence of early treatment effect for some outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Little evidence exists on the effectiveness of screening and values and preferences to screening. Many treatment modalities have been evaluated, but studies are small. Overall, there is uncertainty in understanding the effectiveness of screening and early treatments.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS

PROSPERO (CRD42017049993 [KQ1], CRD42017050014 [KQ2], CRD42018084825 [KQ3]).

Outpatient psychosocial substance use treatments for young people: An overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (reviews) conflict regarding the efficacy and feasibility of substance disorder treatments for young people (YP). This overview of reviews, synthesizes, and methodologically assesses reviews examining substance disorder interventions for YP in outpatient settings.

METHODS

Reviews published between 1990 and March 2018 were searched using EBM Reviews, PsycINFO, Embase, Ovid Medline, and Campbell Collaboration. Reviews investigating efficacy and/or feasibility of YP substance disorder treatments in outpatient settings were included.

FORTY-THREE REVIEWS MET ALL INCLUSION CRITERIA

To appraise methodological biases, 40 reviews were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) and 3 were narratively assessed. One reviewer (NS) extracted study data and evaluated all 43 reviews. For inter-rater reliability, 13 (30%) reviews were extracted and appraised in duplicate by a second reviewer (JA, RC or ES). Agreement on AMSTAR2 ratings reached 100%. Agreement was moderate; κ = .52 (p < .05), 95% CI (.20, .84).

RESULTS

All high quality methodological reviews (n = 6) focused on intervention efficacy and none on treatment feasibility. One (n = 1) high quality review reported evidence for an intervention. Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) has possible efficacy in reducing YP substance use when compared to treatment as usual, Cognitive Behavior Therapy, Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach and Multifamily Educational Therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological and reporting quality of reviews require improvement. High quality reviews focused on intervention efficacy but treatments commonly lacked evidence. One high quality review found MDFT demonstrated promising outcomes. Reviews examining feasibility of interventions were of low methodological quality.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for insomnia: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal.

RESULTS

A total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n = 40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (< 16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017072527.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for insomnia: an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

This review aimed to assess the existing evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in adults with insomnia and identify where research or policy development is needed.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception until June 14, 2017, along with relevant gray literature sites. Two reviewers independently screened titles/abstracts and full-text articles, and a single reviewer with an independent verifier completed charting, data abstraction, and quality appraisal.

RESULTS

A total of 64 systematic reviews (35 with meta-analysis) were included after screening 5024 titles and abstracts and 525 full-text articles. Eight of the included reviews were rated as high quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) tool, and over half of the included articles (n = 40) were rated as low or critically low quality. Consistent evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on more than one high- or moderate quality review with meta-analysis was found for zolpidem, suvorexant, doxepin, melatonin, and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), and evidence of effectiveness across multiple outcomes based on one high-quality review with meta-analysis was found for temazepam, triazolam, zopiclone, trazodone, and behavioral interventions. These interventions were mostly evaluated in the short term (< 16 weeks), and there was very little harms data available for the pharmacological interventions making it difficult to evaluate their risk-benefit ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

Assuming non-pharmacological interventions are preferable from a safety perspective CBT can be considered an effective first-line therapy for adults with insomnia followed by other behavioral interventions. Short courses of pharmacological interventions can be supplements to CBT or behavioral therapy; however, no evidence regarding the appropriate duration of pharmacological therapy is available from these reviews.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017072527.

Epilepsy-related and other causes of mortality in people with epilepsy: A systematic review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

This systematic review of epilepsy mortality systematic reviews evaluates comparative risks, causes, and risk factors for all-cause mortality in people with epilepsy (PWE) to specifically establish the burden of epilepsy-related deaths.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched from conception to 26/12/2018 for systematic reviews evaluating all-cause mortality in PWE of any age. Independent study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Deaths were separated into epilepsy-related and unrelated using a recently published classification system. Outcomes included standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and mortality rate (MR) in a primary analysis of comparative risks, causes, and risk factors for all-cause and epilepsy-related mortality. A narrative synthesis of review findings was used to present results, including from a secondary analysis of individual epilepsy-related death risk factors.

RESULTS

Six moderate or high-quality systematic reviews were included in the primary analysis, evaluating 103 observational studies. All-cause mortality remained similarly high between 1950 and present (median SMR range 2.2-3.4). Africa had the highest SMR (median 5.4, range 2.6-7.2). SMRs were also higher for children <18 years (median 7.5, range 3.1-22.4) than adults (median 2.6, range 1.3-8.7), and for epilepsy-related (median 3.8, range 0.0-82.4,) than unrelated causes (median 1.7, range 0.7-17.6). Structural brain disease conferred the greatest risk for all-cause mortality (SMR range 24.0-41.5). Common epilepsy-related causes included alcohol, drowning, pneumonia, and suicide. In secondary analysis of nine additional systematic reviews, epilepsy-related death risk factors were reported for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP), drowning and suicide.

CONCLUSIONS

Premature all-cause mortality remains a major problem in PWE globally, particularly in children and young adults, with most being epilepsy-related and potentially preventable. SUDEP is only one of several other common and important epilepsy-related causes of death.

Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cause of cancer death in the world and associated with significant economic burden. We conducted a review of published literature to identify prognostic factors associated with LC survival and determine which may be modifiable and could be targeted to improve outcomes.

METHODS

The exceptionally large volume of LC prognostic research required a new staged approach to reviewing the literature. This comprised an initial mapping review of existing reviews or meta-analyses, based on titles and abstracts, followed by an overview of systematic reviews evaluating factors that independently contribute to lung cancer survival. The overview of reviews was based on full text papers and incorporated a more in-depth assessment of reviews evaluating modifiable factors.

RESULTS

A large volume of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, but very few focused on modifiable factors for LC survival. Several modifiable factors were identified, which are potential candidates for targeted interventions aiming to improve cancer outcomes. The mapping review included 398 reviews, of which 207 investigated the independent effect of prognostic factors on lung cancer survival. The most frequently evaluated factors were novel biomarkers (86 biomarkers in 138 reviews). Only 15 modifiable factors were investigated in 20 reviews. Those associated with significant survival improvement included normal BMI/less weight loss, good performance status, not smoking/quitting after diagnosis, good pre-treatment quality of life, small gross volume tumour, early-stage tumour, lung resection undertaken by a thoracic/cardiothoracic surgeon, care being discussed by a multidisciplinary team, and timeliness of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The study utilised a novel approach for reviewing an extensive and complicated body of research evidence. It enabled us to address a broad research question and focus on a specific area of priority. The staged approach ensured the review remained relevant to the stakeholders throughout, whilst maintaining the use of objective and transparent methods. It also provided important information on the needs of future research. However, it required extensive planning, management, and ongoing reviewer training.

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

BACKGROUND

Overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (overviews) integrate information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Overviews may identify multiple SRs that examine the same intervention for the same condition and include some, but not all, of the same primary studies. Different researchers use different approaches to manage these "overlapping SRs," but each approach has advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed to develop an evidence-based decision tool to help researchers make informed inclusion decisions when conducting overviews of healthcare interventions.

METHODS

We used a two-stage process to develop the decision tool. First, we conducted a multiple case study to obtain empirical evidence upon which the tool is based. We systematically conducted seven overviews five times each, making five different decisions about which SRs to include in the overviews, for a total of 35 overviews; we then examined the impact of the five inclusion decisions on the overviews' comprehensiveness and challenges, within and across the seven overview cases. Second, we used a structured, iterative process to transform the evidence obtained from the multiple case study into an empirically based decision tool with accompanying descriptive text.

RESULTS

The resulting decision tool contains four questions: (1) Do Cochrane SRs likely examine all relevant intervention comparisons and available data? (2) Do the Cochrane SRs overlap? (3) Do the non-Cochrane SRs overlap? (4) Are researchers prepared and able to avoid double-counting outcome data from overlapping SRs, by ensuring that each primary study's outcome data are extracted from overlapping SRs only once? Guidance is provided to help researchers answer each question, and empirical evidence is provided regarding the advantages, disadvantages, and potential trade-offs of the different inclusion decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence-based decision tool is designed to provide researchers with the knowledge and means to make informed inclusion decisions in overviews. The tool can provide practical guidance and support for overview authors by helping them consider questions that could affect the comprehensiveness and complexity of their overviews. We hope this tool will be a useful resource for researchers conducting overviews, and we welcome discussion, testing, and refinement of the proposed tool.

The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

BACKGROUND

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Overviews may identify multiple SRs that examine the same intervention for the same condition and include some, but not all, of the same primary studies. There is currently limited guidance on whether and how to include these overlapping SRs in overviews. Our objectives were to assess how different inclusion decisions in overviews of healthcare interventions affect their comprehensiveness and results, and document challenges encountered when making different inclusion decisions in overviews.

METHODS

We used five inclusion decisions to conduct overviews across seven topic areas, resulting in 35 overviews. The inclusion decisions were (1) include all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, (2) include only Cochrane SRs, or consider all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but include only non-overlapping SRs, and in the case of overlapping SRs, select (3) the Cochrane SR, (4) the most recent SR (by publication or search date), or (5) the highest quality SR (assessed using AMSTAR). For each topic area and inclusion scenario, we documented the amount of outcome data lost and changed and the challenges involved.

RESULTS

When conducting overviews, including only Cochrane SRs, instead of all SRs, often led to loss/change of outcome data (median 31% of outcomes lost/changed; range 0-100%). Considering all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but including only non-overlapping SRs and selecting the Cochrane SR for groups of overlapping SRs (instead of the most recent or highest quality SRs) allowed the most outcome data to be recaptured (median 42% of lost/changed outcome recaptured; range 28-86%). Across all inclusion scenarios, challenges were encountered when extracting data from overlapping SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overlapping SRs present a methodological challenge for overview authors. This study demonstrates that different inclusion decisions affect the comprehensiveness and results of overviews in different ways, depending in part on whether Cochrane SRs examine all intervention comparisons relevant to the overview. Study results were used to develop an evidence-based decision tool that provides practical guidance for overview authors.

Health outcomes of maternal smoking during pregnancy and postpartum period for the mother and infant: protocol for an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Internationally, tobacco smoking is a leading cause of mortality, morbidity and health inequality. In England, despite increasing awareness about importance of public health interventions to reduce smoking, about 10% of pregnant women are known to be smokers at the time of delivery. There are many systematic reviews investigating the impact of maternal smoking during pregnancy on particular health conditions. Hence, this overview of systematic reviews, which aims to include all health conditions for mother and infant caused by smoking during pregnancy, is timely.

METHODS

CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CRD Database (includes DARE, NHSEED and HTA) and HMIC databases will be searched for systematic reviews investigating the effects of smoking during pregnancy. Only reviews written in English and published by 31/12/17 will be included. Studies focussed on low-income countries will be excluded. Study selection and quality assessment will be completed by two reviewers independently. To assess the quality of included studies, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination checklist for systematic reviews will be utilised.

DISCUSSION

Existing systematic reviews focus on the impact of smoking during pregnancy on a specific health condition. This review aims to analyse current evidence on the overall health outcomes associated with smoking whilst pregnant by providing an overview of evidence from systematic reviews.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018086350 .

Balancing feasibility and comprehensiveness: examining medications for reducing emergency hospital admissions

Emergency hospital admissions are common, with several interventions having been developed to reduce their rates. Bobrovitz et al. summarized the available body of evidence regarding pharmacologic therapies aimed at reducing emergency hospital admissions, and identified 28 medications for which high- or moderate-quality evidence supports their use, 11 of which were identified as being supported by current guideline recommendations. Additionally, the authors identified 28 medications supported by low- or very low-quality evidence, which can serve as targets for future research. The article by Bobrovitz et al. presents a good summary of the evidence, albeit with limitations in the search strategy that cannot guarantee the review as comprehensive. Despite this, the review has important implications for policymakers, guideline panels, researchers, clinicians, and funders since the identified medications can either be targets for quality improvement initiatives or for future research. Bobrovitz et al.'s review highlights the challenge that systematic reviewers face when balancing feasibility and comprehensiveness.Please see related article: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1104-9.

Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases of KS approaches: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Data in the five published databases were abstracted by two reviewers independently, any missing data for this retrospective analysis were abstracted by one experienced reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Reporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMAs. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% of NMAs, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMAs. NMAs had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1-Q3:45-73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1-Q3:13-38%).

CONCLUSION

NMAs consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012-2016: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews (overviews) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarize the results of multiple systematic reviews (SRs) for a given condition or public health problem. Two prior descriptive analyses of overviews found substantial variation in the methodological approaches used in overviews, and deficiencies in reporting of key methodological steps. Since then, new methods have been developed so it is timely to update the prior descriptive analyses. The objectives are to: (1) investigate the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 100 overviews published from 2012 to 2016 and (2) compare these recently published overviews (2012-2016) to those published prior to 2012 (based on the prior descriptive analyses).

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, and CDSR will be searched for overviews published 2012-2016, using a validated search filter for overviews. Only overviews written in English will be included. All titles and abstracts will be screened by one review author; those deemed not relevant will be verified by a second person for exclusion. Full-texts will be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers independently. Of those deemed relevant, a random sample of 100 overviews will be selected for inclusion. Data extraction will be either performed by one reviewer with verification by a second reviewer or by one reviewer only depending on the complexity of the item. Discrepancies at any stage will be resolved by consensus or consulting a third person. Data will be extracted on the epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics of each overview. Data will be analyzed descriptively. When data are available for both time points (up to 2011 vs. 2012-2016), we will compare characteristics by calculating risk ratios or applying the Mann-Whitney test.

DISCUSSION

Overviews are becoming increasingly valuable evidence syntheses, and the number of published overviews is increasing. However, former analyses found limitations in the conduct and reporting of overviews. This update of a recent sample of overviews will inform whether this has changed, while also identifying areas for further improvement.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The review will not be registered in PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with health-related outcomes.

Evaluation of AMSTAR to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

Background

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews—for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews.

Methods

We selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview’s inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions.

Results

Ninety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; “almost perfect” vs. “substantial” using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions.

Conclusions

Results indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0325-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Many elders struggle with the decision to remain at home or to move to an alternative location of care. A person’s location of care can influence health and wellbeing. Healthcare organizations and policy makers are increasingly challenged to better support elders’ dwelling and health care needs. A summary of the evidence that examines home care compared to other care locations can inform decision making. We surveyed and summarized the evidence evaluating the impact of home care versus alternative locations of care on elder health outcomes.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. Data sources included MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL. Eligible reviews included adults 65+ years, elder home care, alternative care locations, and elder health outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened citations. We extracted data and appraised review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist. Results were synthesized narratively.

Results

The search yielded 2575 citations, of which 19 systematic reviews were eligible. Three hundred and forty studies with 271,660 participants were synthesized across the systematic reviews. The categories of comparisons included: home with support versus independent living at home (n = 11 reviews), home care versus institutional care (n = 3 reviews), and rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services (n = 7 reviews). Two reviews had data relevant to two categories. Most reviews favoured home with support to independent living at home. Findings comparing home care to institutional care were mixed. Most reviews found no differences in health outcomes between rehabilitation at home versus conventional rehabilitation services. Systematic review quality was moderate, with a median AMSTAR score of 6 (range 4 - 10 out of 11).

Conclusions

The evidence on the impact of home care compared to alternative care locations on elder health outcomes is heterogeneous. Our findings support positive health impacts of home support interventions for community dwelling elders compared to independent living at home. There is insufficient evidence to determine the impact of alternative care locations on elders’ health. Additional research targeting housing and care options for the elderly is needed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-016-0395-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Incidence, causes, and consequences of preventable adverse drug events: protocol for an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Medication errors represent a noteworthy source of harm to patients. In recent years, several systematic reviews have assessed the frequency and causes of these events, as well as other factors such as commonly associated drugs, their incidence in different specialties, and their consequences to patients. Despite this past literature, there remains a need to study discrepancies between these reviews and establish the current state of the evidence. The planned review will bring together, compare, and contract existing evidence related to the occurrence of medication errors in acute and continuing/long-term care settings.

METHODS

A systematic review of reviews will be performed. A literature search designed by an experienced information specialist will be carried out in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We will seek systematic reviews and meta-analyses of primary research studies that evaluate one or more of the following aspects of the occurrence of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals and long-term care centers: the incidence of preventable adverse drug events, either overall or within subgroups of interest related to setting; drug or patient characteristics; cited consequences of these events to patients, including death, emergency room visits, or other outcomes; and established causes of the preventable adverse drug events. Two researchers will independently screen all abstracts and full texts for study selection and subsequently perform data extraction from all included studies. Quality of the reviews will be assessed using the assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Where objectives from two or more reviews overlap, we will employ the Jadad framework to assess the causes of any noted discrepancies between reviews. An overall summary of results will be performed using tabular and graphical approaches and will be supplemented by narrative description.

DISCUSSION

This overview will help synthesize the broad degree of information available on this important topic. This review is being performed by members of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network along with collaboration from Health Canada, and its findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results may also inform future research in this area.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016043220.

What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary

BACKGROUND

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there is limited methodological guidance available for researchers wishing to conduct overviews. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and collate all published and unpublished documents containing guidance for conducting overviews examining the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of healthcare interventions. Our aims were to provide a map of existing guidance documents; identify similarities, differences, and gaps in the guidance contained within these documents; and identify common challenges involved in conducting overviews.

METHODS

We conducted an iterative and extensive search to ensure breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage. The search involved reference tracking, database and web searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Scopus, Cochrane Methods Studies Database, Google Scholar), handsearching of websites and conference proceedings, and contacting overview producers. Relevant guidance statements and challenges encountered were extracted, edited, grouped, abstracted, and presented using a qualitative metasummary approach.

RESULTS

We identified 52 guidance documents produced by 19 research groups. Relatively consistent guidance was available for the first stages of the overview process (deciding when and why to conduct an overview, specifying the scope, and searching for and including systematic reviews). In contrast, there was limited or conflicting guidance for the latter stages of the overview process (quality assessment of systematic reviews and their primary studies, collecting and analyzing data, and assessing quality of evidence), and many of the challenges identified were also related to these stages. An additional, overarching challenge identified was that overviews are limited by the methods, reporting, and coverage of their included systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

This compilation of methodological guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions will facilitate the production of future overviews and can help authors address key challenges they are likely to encounter. The results of this project have been used to identify areas where future methodological research is required to generate empirical evidence for overview methods. Additionally, these results have been used to update the chapter on overviews in the next edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Use of existing systematic reviews for evidence assessments in infectious disease prevention: a comparative case study

BACKGROUND

Given limited resources and time constraints, the use of existing systematic reviews (SR) for the development of evidence-based public health recommendations has become increasingly important. Recently, a five-step approach for identifying, analyzing, appraising and using existing SRs based on recent guidance by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was proposed within the Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT). However, case studies are needed to test whether this approach is useful, what challenges arise and how problems can be solved.

METHODS

In two case studies, the five-step approach was applied to integrate existing SRs in the development of evidence-based public health recommendations. Case study A focused on the role of neonatal sepsis as a risk factor for adverse neurodevelopmental outcome. Case study B examined the efficacy, effectiveness and safety of influenza vaccination during pregnancy. For each step, we report the approach of the review team, discuss challenges and describe solutions.

RESULTS

For case study A, one existing SR was identified, while in case study B four SRs were eligible for analysis. We found that comparison of inclusion criteria alone was sufficient to judge on relevance of SRs in case study A, but not B. Although methodological quality of all identified SRs was acceptable, risk of bias assessments of individual studies included in the SRs had to be repeated in both case studies. Particular challenges appeared in case study B where multiple SRs addressed the same research question. With the help of spreadsheets comparing the characteristics of the existing SR we decided to use the most comprehensive one for our evidence synthesis and supplemented the results with those from the other SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

In both case studies using the complete SR was not possible. The five-step approach provided useful and structured guidance and should be routinely applied when using existing SRs as a basis for evidence-based recommendations in public health. In situations where more than one SR has to be considered, the development of spreadsheets comparing characteristics, inclusion criteria, risk of bias, included studies and outcomes seems useful.

Probiotics as adjunctive therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection: An overview of meta-analyses

AIM: To evaluate the relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses that focused on probiotics as adjunctive therapy for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection.

METHODS: The systematic reviews/meta-analyses on probiotics as adjunctive therapy for H. pylori infection were searched in CBM, CNKI, Wanfang database, VIP Database, the Cochrane library, PubMed and Embase from inception to October 2014. Two reviewers screened the literature according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and the GRADE system was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS: A total of 11 relevant meta-analyses were included, all of which evaluated the rate of H. pylori eradication and incidence of overall side effects (three evaluated the anti-H. pylori therapy-related side effects in detail). The mean OQAQ score was 3.82. Based on the GRADE system, the evidence quality was generally low.

CONCLUSION: Probiotics as adjunctive therapy for H. pylori infection have certain advantages, however, the overall quality of meta-analyses is poor, and the evidence level is low. Physicians should make an evidence-based decision according to the real condition.

Nonpharmacologic Interventions to Heal Pressure Ulcers in Older Patients: An Overview of Systematic Reviews (The SENATOR-ONTOP Series)

BACKGROUND

Pressure ulcers (PUs) are more frequent in older patients, and the healing process is usually challenging. Nonpharmacologic interventions may play a role in the treatment of older people with PUs, but most systematic reviews (SRs) have not addressed this specific population using convincing outcome measures.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and critically appraise the evidence from SRs of the primary studies on nonpharmacologic interventions to treat PUs in older patients.

DESIGN

SR and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINHAL (from inception to October 2013) were searched. A new search for updates in the Cochrane Database was launched in July 2014. SRs that included at least 1 comparative study evaluating any nonpharmacologic intervention to treat PUs in older patients, in any health care setting, were included. Any primary study with experimental design was then identified and included. From each primary study, quality assessment was undertaken as specified by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. Interventions were identified and compared among different studies to explore the possibility of performing a meta-analysis, using complete ulcer healing as the outcome measure.

RESULTS

One hundred ten SRs with 45 primary studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. The most frequent interventions explored in these trials were support surfaces (13 studies), nutrition (8), and electrotherapy (6). High or moderate quality of evidence was found in none of the interventions, mainly because of the very serious risk of bias of most studies and imprecision in the treatment effect. Evidence grade is very low or insufficient to support the use of any support surface, nutrition intervention, multicomponent interventions, repositioning or other adjunctive therapy (ultrasound, negative pressure, laser, electromagnetic, light, shock wave, hydrotherapy, radiofrequency, or vibration therapy) to increase the rates of PU healing in older patients. Electrotherapy showed some beneficial effect in the treatment of PUs, although the quality of evidence is low.

CONCLUSIONS

In older patients with PUs, evidence to use any nonpharmacologic therapy to increase the rates of wound healing is inconclusive, except for low quality evidence that supports the use of electrotherapy. This situation is especially alarming for interventions that are usually standard clinical practice (repositioning, support surfaces). Although there is some evidence in younger populations and other types of ulcers, studies in older populations with PUs using sound methodology are needed.