Telerehabilitation Versus Standard Care for Improving Cognitive Function and Quality of Life for Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury: a Systematic Review

ABSTRACT Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most significant cause of death and severe disability following major trauma within Australia. Populations at risk include young adults aged 15 to 34, older adults, and military personnel. The main form of intervention following traumatic brain injury is rehabilitation, which places a large demand on the healthcare system. Telerehabilitation involves interventions delivered via telecommunication, which can improve accessibility and reduce this burden. There have been no systematic reviews conducted on the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in treating traumatic brain injury. Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of telerehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, The Cochrane Library, OTSeeker and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies were included with participants aged 18 to 64 with traumatic brain injury and receiving telerehabilitation interventions. Methodological quality was assessed using the critical appraisal tools: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for randomised controlled trials, and McMaster Critical Review for Quantitative Studies for non-randomised studies. Results: Three randomised controlled trials, one pseudo-randomised controlled trial, one case-control trial and one pre-post case series were included in this systematic review. Critical appraisal of the included studies revealed overall methodological quality to be moderate. A range of interventions with differing parameters were used as part of telerehabilitation. Collectively, there is some consistent evidence to indicate that telerehabilitation may be equally effective as other forms of care in the delivery of cognitive and psychological interventions, in addressing memory and depressive symptoms for adults with mild to severe traumatic brain injury. However, it is unclear if it is superior to other forms of care. Conclusions: A small number of studies have investigated the effect of telerehabilitation for adults with traumatic brain injury. The current evidence base is limited due to lack of standardised intervention parameters, outcomes measures and robust sample size. Despite these limitations, telerehabilitation may offer a complementary model of care for adults with traumatic brain injury, especially in instances where traditional models of care may not be readily accessible (such as those in rural and remote areas)

How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are expected to critically appraise included studies and privilege those at lowest risk of bias (RoB) in the synthesis. This study examines if and how critical appraisals inform the synthesis and interpretation of evidence in SRs.<p></p> Methods: All SRs published in March–May 2012 in 14 high-ranked medical journals and a sample from the Cochrane library were systematically assessed by two reviewers to determine if and how: critical appraisal was conducted; RoB was summarised at study, domain and review levels; and RoB appraisals informed the synthesis process.<p></p> Results: Of the 59 SRs studied, all except six (90%) conducted a critical appraisal of the included studies, with most using or adapting existing tools. Almost half of the SRs reported critical appraisal in a manner that did not allow readers to determine which studies included in a review were most robust. RoB assessments were not incorporated into synthesis in one-third (20) of the SRs, with their consideration more likely when reviews focused on randomised controlled trials. Common methods for incorporating critical appraisals into the synthesis process were sensitivity analysis, narrative discussion and exclusion of studies at high RoB. Nearly half of the reviews which investigated multiple outcomes and carried out study-level RoB summaries did not consider the potential for RoB to vary across outcomes.<p></p> Conclusions: The conclusions of the SRs, published in major journals, are frequently uninformed by the critical appraisal process, even when conducted. This may be particularly problematic for SRs of public health topics that often draw on diverse study designs

An assessment of the quality of randomised controlled trials conducted in China

Background: Despite the rapid increase in research in China, little is known about the quality of clinical trials conducted there.Methods: A systematic review and critical appraisal of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in China and published in 2004 was undertaken to describe their characteristics, assess the quality of their reporting, and where possible, the quality of their conduct. Randomised controlled trials in all disease areas and types of interventions, which took place in China and included Chinese citizens were identified using PubMed and hand searching the Journal Series of the Chinese Medical Association. Quality was assessed against a subset of criteria adapted from the CONSORT statement.Results: Three hundred and seven RCTs were included. One hundred and ninety-nine (64.8%) failed to report methods of randomization and 254 (82.4%) did not mention blinding of either participants or investigators. Reporting of baseline characteristics, primary outcome and length of follow-up was inadequate in a substantial proportion of studies. Fewer than 11% of RCTs mentioned ethical approval and only 18.0% adequately discussed informed consent. However, dropout rates were very favourable with nearly 44% of trials reporting a zero dropout rate.Conclusion: Reporting of RCTs in China requires substantial improvement to meet the targets of the CONSORT statement. The conduct of Chinese RCTs cannot be directly inferred from the standard of reporting; however without good reporting the methods of the trials cannot be clearly ascertained

Is it premature to formulate recommendations for policy and practice, based on culture and health research? A robust critique of the CultureForHealth (2022) report

Introduction: Arts and health practice and research has expanded rapidly since the turn of the millennium. A World Health Organization scoping review of a large body of evidence claims positive health benefits from arts participation and makes recommendations for policy and implementation of arts for health initiatives. A more recent scoping review (CultureForHealth) also claims that current evidence is sufficient to form recommendations for policy and practice. However, scoping reviews of arts and health research—without critical appraisal of included studies—do not provide a sound basis for recommendations on the wider implantation of healthcare interventions. Methods: We performed a detailed assessment of 18 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) on arts-based interventions included in Section 1 of the CultureForHealth report using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool for RCTs (2023). Results: The 18 RCTs included demonstrated considerable risks of bias regarding internal and statistical conclusion validity. Moreover, the trials are substantially heterogeneous with respect to settings, health-issues, interventions, and outcomes, which limits their external validity, reliability, and generalisability. Conclusions: The absence of a critical appraisal of studies included in the CultureForHealth report leads to an overinterpretation and overstatement of the health outcomes of arts-based interventions. As such, the CultureForHealth review is not a suitable foundation for policy recommendations, nor for formulating guidance on implementation of arts-based interventions for health

Prognostic variables and scores identifying the last year of life in COPD: a systematic review protocol

Introduction People living with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) suffer from significant morbidity, reduced quality of life and high mortality, and are likely to benefit from many aspects of a palliative care approach. Prognostic estimates are a meaningful part of decision-making and better evidence for such estimates would facilitate advance care planning. We aim to provide quality evidence on known prognostic variables and scores which predict a prognosis in COPD of <12 months for use in the community. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case–control studies on prognostic variables, multivariate scores or models for COPD. The search will cover the period up to April 2016. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with data extraction using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariate models, and study quality will be assessed using a modified version of the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Ethics and dissemination The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conference presentations

Are chondroitin and glucosamine in combination effective in the treatment of osteoarthritic pain?

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs today are contraindicated for osteoarthritic pain in elderly patients with cardiovascular disease due to adverse effects. An internet review of the evidence regarding the use in osteoarthritis of oral chondroitin and glucosamine in combination produced three relevant randomised controlled trials with valid results. After critical appraisal for reliability and applicability, chondroitin-glucosamine was found to significantly reduce pain in moderate knee osteoarthritis, while significantly improving disability in mild to moderate cases. If the results are generalisable to osteoarthritis of all joints, combined chondroitinglucosamine in purified therapeutic doses should help care for osteoarthritis patients safely and at moderate expense.peer-reviewe

Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts in assessing the effects of health interventions: a systematic review

Abstract Background Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people’s health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people’s understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions. Methods/Design We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people’s understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis. Results Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent. Conclusions Educational interventions to improve people’s understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people’s knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people’s understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201603310

A systematic review of how studies describe educational interventions for evidence-based practice:Stage 1 of the development of a reporting guideline

Abstract Background The aim of this systematic review was to identify which information is included when reporting educational interventions used to facilitate foundational skills and knowledge of evidence-based practice (EBP) training for health professionals. This systematic review comprised the first stage in the three stage development process for a reporting guideline for educational interventions for EBP. Methods The review question was ‘What information has been reported when describing educational interventions targeting foundational evidence-based practice knowledge and skills?’ MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Informit health, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until October - December 2011. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials reporting original data on educational interventions specific to developing foundational knowledge and skills of evidence-based practice were included. Studies were not appraised for methodological bias, however, reporting frequency and item commonality were compared between a random selection of studies included in the systematic review and a random selection of studies excluded as they were not controlled trials. Twenty-five data items were extracted by two independent reviewers (consistency > 90%). Results Sixty-one studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 29 randomised, n = 32 non-randomised). The most consistently reported items were the learner’s stage of training, professional discipline and the evaluation methods used (100%). The least consistently reported items were the instructor(s) previous teaching experience (n = 8, 13%), and student effort outside face to face contact (n = 1, 2%). Conclusion This systematic review demonstrates inconsistencies in describing educational interventions for EBP in randomised and non-randomised trials. To enable educational interventions to be replicable and comparable, improvements in the reporting for educational interventions for EBP are required. In the absence of a specific reporting guideline, there are a range of items which are reported with variable frequency. Identifying the important items for describing educational interventions for facilitating foundational knowledge and skills in EBP remains to be determined. The findings of this systematic review will be used to inform the next stage in the development of a reporting guideline for educational interventions for EBP

Lumbar facet joint injections for the management of chronic low back pain

Background: Low back pain is a leading cause of disability worldwide and has a significant economic burden. Targeted lumbar facet joint injections may be used to relieve this pain and aid rehabilitation, but high quality clinical evidence to support their use is lacking. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) does not recommend spinal injections for the management of chronic low back pain. Critical appraisal of systematic reviews: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials concluded that the existing evidence to support the use of facet joint injections in low back pain management is equivocal, with methodological variability detected across the studies and reviews. FACET feasibility study: The FACET feasibility study was a blinded parallel two-arm pilot randomised controlled trial to assess the feasibility of carrying out a definitive study evaluating the effectiveness of lumbar facet joint injections compared with a sham procedure, in patients with non-specific low back pain of more than three months’ duration. The study recruited from the pain and spinal orthopaedic clinics at Barts Health NHS Trust only, although a multicentre study was planned. Adult patients referred to the specialist clinics with non-specific low back pain despite NICE-recommended best non-invasive care were randomised and blinded to receive either intra-articular lumbar facet joint injections with steroid or a sham procedure, following a positive response to diagnostic medial branch nerve blocks. Both groups were invited to attend a combined physical and psychological programme. Measures of feasibility included the recruitment and retention rate, and adherence to the study protocol. Questionnaires were used to assess a range of pain- and disability-related issues. Of 628 participants screened for eligibility, nine were randomised to receive the study intervention and eight participants completed the study. Failure to recruit sufficient participants led to early closure of the study by the funder, and no conclusions were drawn on the clinical effectiveness of lumbar facet joint injections for the management of non-specific low back pain in this sub-group of patients. Although the target recruitment rate was not achieved, a robust study protocol was developed and the intended interventions delivered safely, thus addressing many of the feasibility objectives. Conclusions: Further high quality randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews are required to inform decision makers, with implications for both clinical practice and policy. Stronger collaborations with primary care may improve the recruitment of patients earlier in their pain trajectory, suitable for inclusion in a future trial. Study registration: EudraCT 2014-003187-20 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12191542. Funding details: The FACET feasibility study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (reference number HTA 11/31/02)

Self-management and peer support interventions for people with Severe Mental Illness

This thesis investigates the effectiveness of self-management interventions for people with severe mental illness. Part one is a systematic review and meta-analysis of self-management interventions for those with severe mental illness. Part two reports on resilience outcomes in a randomised controlled trial of a peer-delivered self-management program for people recently discharged from crisis care (ISRCTN registration: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN01027104). It also investigates baseline predictors of resilience. Part three, the critical appraisal, examines the concepts of self-management and resilience. It also considers the methodological and conceptual challenges of conducting randomised controlled trials of complex mental health interventions, particularly in populations where outcomes are largely socially determined