Options for early breast cancer follow-up in primary and secondary care : a systematic review

Background Both incidence of breast cancer and survival have increased in recent years and there is a need to review follow up strategies. This study aims to assess the evidence for benefits of follow-up in different settings for women who have had treatment for early breast cancer. Method A systematic review to identify key criteria for follow up and then address research questions. Key criteria were: 1) Risk of second breast cancer over time - incidence compared to general population. 2) Incidence and method of detection of local recurrence and second ipsi and contra-lateral breast cancer. 3) Level 1–4 evidence of the benefits of hospital or alternative setting follow-up for survival and well-being. Data sources to identify criteria were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PSYCHINFO, ZETOC, Health Management Information Consortium, Science Direct. For the systematic review to address research questions searches were performed using MEDLINE (2011). Studies included were population studies using cancer registry data for incidence of new cancers, cohort studies with long term follow up for recurrence and detection of new primaries and RCTs not restricted to special populations for trials of alternative follow up and lifestyle interventions. Results Women who have had breast cancer have an increased risk of a second primary breast cancer for at least 20 years compared to the general population. Mammographically detected local recurrences or those detected by women themselves gave better survival than those detected by clinical examination. Follow up in alternative settings to the specialist clinic is acceptable to women but trials are underpowered for survival. Conclusions Long term support, surveillance mammography and fast access to medical treatment at point of need may be better than hospital based surveillance limited to five years but further large, randomised controlled trials are needed

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types.

BackgroundComplex wounds present a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems, costing billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The prevalence of complex wounds is a significant patient and societal healthcare concern and cost-effective wound care management remains unclear. This article summarizes the cost-effectiveness of interventions for complex wound care through a systematic review of the evidence base.MethodsWe searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) for cost-effectiveness studies that examined adults treated for complex wounds. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed methodological quality using the Drummond 10-item methodological quality tool. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported, or, if not reported, calculated and converted to United States Dollars for the year 2013.ResultsOverall, 59 cost-effectiveness analyses were included; 71% (42 out of 59) of the included studies scored 8 or more points on the Drummond 10-item checklist tool. Based on these, 22 interventions were found to be more effective and less costly (i.e., dominant) compared to the study comparators: 9 for diabetic ulcers, 8 for venous ulcers, 3 for pressure ulcers, 1 for mixed venous and venous/arterial ulcers, and 1 for mixed complex wound types.ConclusionsOur results can be used by decision-makers in maximizing the deployment of clinically effective and resource efficient wound care interventions. Our analysis also highlights specific treatments that are not cost-effective, thereby indicating areas of resource savings. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

A systematic review of speech recognition technology in health care

BACKGROUND To undertake a systematic review of existing literature relating to speech recognition technology and its application within health care. METHODS A systematic review of existing literature from 2000 was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were: all papers that referred to speech recognition (SR) in health care settings, used by health professionals (allied health, medicine, nursing, technical or support staff), with an evaluation or patient or staff outcomes. Experimental and non-experimental designs were considered. Six databases (Ebscohost including CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OVID Technologies, PreMED-LINE, PsycINFO) were searched by a qualified health librarian trained in systematic review searches initially capturing 1,730 references. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were retained. RESULTS The heterogeneity of the studies made comparative analysis and synthesis of the data challenging resulting in a narrative presentation of the results. SR, although not as accurate as human transcription, does deliver reduced turnaround times for reporting and cost-effective reporting, although equivocal evidence of improved workflow processes. CONCLUSIONS SR systems have substantial benefits and should be considered in light of the cost and selection of the SR system, training requirements, length of the transcription task, potential use of macros and templates, the presence of accented voices or experienced and in-experienced typists, and workflow patterns.Funding for this study was provided by the University of Western Sydney. NICTA is funded by the Australian Government through the Department of Communications and the Australian Research Council through the ICT Centre of Excellence Program. NICTA is also funded and supported by the Australian Capital Territory, the New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian Governments, the Australian National University, the University of New South Wales, the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland, the University of Sydney, Griffith University, Queensland University of Technology, Monash University and other university partners

Systematic review of communication technologies to promote access and engagement of young people with diabetes into healthcare

Background: Research has investigated whether communication technologies (e.g. mobile telephony, forums, email) can be used to transfer digital information between healthcare professionals and young people who live with diabetes. The systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and impact of these technologies on communication. Methods: Nine electronic databases were searched. Technologies were described and a narrative synthesis of all studies was undertaken. Results: Of 20,925 publications identified, 19 met the inclusion criteria, with 18 technologies assessed. Five categories of communication technologies were identified: video-and tele-conferencing (n = 2); mobile telephony (n = 3); telephone support (n = 3); novel electronic communication devices for transferring clinical information (n = 10); and web-based discussion boards (n = 1). Ten studies showed a positive improvement in HbA1c following the intervention with four studies reporting detrimental increases in HbA1c levels. In fifteen studies communication technologies increased the frequency of contact between patient and healthcare professional. Findings were inconsistent of an association between improvements in HbA1c and increased contact. Limited evidence was available concerning behavioural and care coordination outcomes, although improvement in quality of life, patientcaregiver interaction, self-care and metabolic transmission were reported for some communication technologies. Conclusions: The breadth of study design and types of technologies reported make the magnitude of benefit and their effects on health difficult to determine. While communication technologies may increase the frequency of contact between patient and health care professional, it remains unclear whether this results in improved outcomes and is often the basis of the intervention itself. Further research is needed to explore the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of increasing the use of communication technologies between young people and healthcare professionals

Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments : Working Group 4 report

[Executive Summary] The aim of Working Group 4 has been to develop and disseminate best practice in undertaking and reporting assessments, and to identify needs for methodologic development. Health technology assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary activity that systematically examines the technical performance, safety, clinical efficacy, and effectiveness, cost, costeffectiveness, organizational implications, social consequences, legal, and ethical considerations of the application of a health technology (18). HTA activity has been continuously increasing over the last few years. Numerous HTA agencies and other institutions (termed in this report “HTA doers”) across Europe are producing an important and growing amount of HTA information. The objectives of HTA vary considerably between HTA agencies and other actors, from a strictly political decision making–oriented approach regarding advice on market licensure, coverage in benefits catalogue, or investment planning to information directed to providers or to the public. Although there seems to be broad agreement on the general elements that belong to the HTA process, and although HTA doers in Europe use similar principles (41), this is often difficult to see because of differences in language and terminology. In addition, the reporting of the findings from the assessments differs considerably. This reduces comparability and makes it difficult for those undertaking HTA assessments to integrate previous findings from other HTA doers in a subsequent evaluation of the same technology. Transparent and clear reporting is an important step toward disseminating the findings of a HTA; thus, standards that ensure high quality reporting may contribute to a wider dissemination of results. The EUR-ASSESS methodologic subgroup already proposed a framework for conducting and reporting HTA (18), which served as the basis for the current working group. New developments in the last 5 years necessitate revisiting that framework and providing a solid structure for future updates. Giving due attention to these methodologic developments, this report describes the current “best practice” in both undertaking and reporting HTA and identifies the needs for methodologic development. It concludes with specific recommendations and tools for implementing them, e.g., by providing the structure for English-language scientific summary reports and a checklist to assess the methodologic and reporting quality of HTA reports