Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>A review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the use of research in clinical practice. A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted of Medline and the Cochrane Database of Reviews 1998-2009. 13 systematic reviews containing 313 primary studies were included. Four strategy types are identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multifaceted interventions. Nine of the reviews reported on multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. Systematic reviews of multifaceted interventions claim an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. This review found that a number of published systematic reviews fail to state whether the recommended practice change is based on the best available research evidence.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This overview of systematic reviews updates the body of knowledge relating to the effectiveness of key mechanisms for improving clinical practice and service development. Multifaceted interventions are more likely to improve practice than single interventions such as audit and feedback. This review identified a small literature focusing explicitly on getting research evidence into clinical practice. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that primary studies and systematic reviews are precise about the extent to which the reported interventions focus on changing practice based on research evidence (as opposed to other information codified in guidelines and education materials).</p

How to Conduct a Qualitative Systematic Review to Guide Evidence-Based Practice in Radiography

In recent years, there has been emphasis on evidence-based practice. Traditionally, systematic reviews of quantitative evidence on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the effectiveness of technology in radiography provided the evidence on which to base decisions for patients and policies. However, there has been a recognition that to have in-depth understanding into human behaviour, opinions and experiences also requires evidence-based literature from systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Unfortunately, there is limited educational literature on how to conduct systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. Therefore, this article provides this information to radiographers, radiography students and other healthcare professionals. This information is applicable in both clinical and educational settings

Overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges : methodologies and recommendations for practice

BACKGROUND: Many medicines are dosed to achieve a particular therapeutic range, and monitored using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The evidence base for a therapeutic range can be evaluated using systematic reviews, to ensure it continues to reflect current indications, doses, routes and formulations, as well as updated adverse effect data. There is no consensus on the optimal methodology for systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges. METHODS: An overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges was undertaken. The following databases were used: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE) and MEDLINE. The published methodologies used when systematically reviewing the therapeutic range of a drug were analyzed. Step by step recommendations to optimize such systematic reviews are proposed. RESULTS: Ten systematic reviews that investigated the correlation between serum concentrations and clinical outcomes encompassing a variety of medicines and indications were assessed. There were significant variations in the methodologies used (including the search terms used, data extraction methods, assessment of bias, and statistical analyses undertaken). Therapeutic ranges should be population and indication specific and based on clinically relevant outcomes. Recommendations for future systematic reviews based on these findings have been developed. CONCLUSION: Evidence based therapeutic ranges have the potential to improve TDM practice. Current systematic reviews investigating therapeutic ranges have highly variable methodologies and there is no consensus of best practice when undertaking systematic reviews in this field. These recommendations meet a need not addressed by standard protocols

Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke

Background: Improving upper limb function is a core element of stroke rehabilitation needed to maximise patient outcomes and reduce disability. Evidence about effects of individual treatment techniques and modalities is synthesised within many reviews. For selection of effective rehabilitation treatment, the relative effectiveness of interventions must be known. However, a comprehensive overview of systematic reviews in this area is currently lacking. Objectives: To carry out a Cochrane overview by synthesising systematic reviews of interventions provided to improve upper limb function after stroke. Methods: Search methods: We comprehensively searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; the Database of Reviews of Effects; and PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews) (June 2013). We also contacted review authors in an effort to identify further relevant reviews. Selection criteria: We included Cochrane and non‐Cochrane reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with stroke comparing upper limb interventions with no treatment, usual care or alternative treatments. Our primary outcome of interest was upper limb function; secondary outcomes included motor impairment and performance of activities of daily living. When we identified overlapping reviews, we systematically identified the most up‐to‐date and comprehensive review and excluded reviews that overlapped with this. Data collection and analysis: Two overview authors independently applied the selection criteria, excluding reviews that were superseded by more up‐to‐date reviews including the same (or similar) studies. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of reviews (using a modified version of the AMSTAR tool) and extracted data. Quality of evidence within each comparison in each review was determined using objective criteria (based on numbers of participants, risk of bias, heterogeneity and review quality) to apply GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) levels of evidence. We resolved disagreements through discussion. We systematically tabulated the effects of interventions and used quality of evidence to determine implications for clinical practice and to make recommendations for future research. Main results: Our searches identified 1840 records, from which we included 40 completed reviews (19 Cochrane; 21 non‐Cochrane), covering 18 individual interventions and dose and setting of interventions. The 40 reviews contain 503 studies (18,078 participants). We extracted pooled data from 31 reviews related to 127 comparisons. We judged the quality of evidence to be high for 1/127 comparisons (transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) demonstrating no benefit for outcomes of activities of daily living (ADLs)); moderate for 49/127 comparisons (covering seven individual interventions) and low or very low for 77/127 comparisons. Moderate‐quality evidence showed a beneficial effect of constraint‐induced movement therapy (CIMT), mental practice, mirror therapy, interventions for sensory impairment, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice, suggesting that these may be effective interventions; moderate‐quality evidence also indicated that unilateral arm training may be more effective than bilateral arm training. Information was insufficient to reveal the relative effectiveness of different interventions. Moderate‐quality evidence from subgroup analyses comparing greater and lesser doses of mental practice, repetitive task training and virtual reality demonstrates a beneficial effect for the group given the greater dose, although not for the group given the smaller dose; however tests for subgroup differences do not suggest a statistically significant difference between these groups. Future research related to dose is essential. Specific recommendations for future research are derived from current evidence. These recommendations include but are not limited to adequately powered, high‐quality RCTs to confirm the benefit of CIMT, mental practice, mirror therapy, virtual reality and a relatively high dose of repetitive task practice; high‐quality RCTs to explore the effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), tDCS, hands‐on therapy, music therapy, pharmacological interventions and interventions for sensory impairment; and up‐to‐date reviews related to biofeedback, Bobath therapy, electrical stimulation, reach‐to‐grasp exercise, repetitive task training, strength training and stretching and positioning. Authors' conclusions: Large numbers of overlapping reviews related to interventions to improve upper limb function following stroke have been identified, and this overview serves to signpost clinicians and policy makers toward relevant systematic reviews to support clinical decisions, providing one accessible, comprehensive document, which should support clinicians and policy makers in clinical decision making for stroke rehabilitation. Currently, no high‐quality evidence can be found for any interventions that are currently used as part of routine practice, and evidence is insufficient to enable comparison of the relative effectiveness of interventions. Effective collaboration is urgently needed to support large, robust RCTs of interventions currently used routinely within clinical practice. Evidence related to dose of interventions is particularly needed, as this information has widespread clinical and research implications

Dissemination of evidence-based standards of care.

Standards of care pertain to crafting and implementing patient-centered treatment interventions. Standards of care must take into consideration the patient's gender, ethnicity, medical and dental history, insurance coverage (or socioeconomic level, if a private patient), and the timeliness of the targeted scientific evidence. This resolves into a process by which clinical decision-making about the optimal patient-centered treatment relies on the best available research evidence, and all other necessary inputs and factors to provide the best possible treatment. Standards of care must be evidence-based, and not merely based on the evidence - the dichotomy being critical in contemporary health services research and practice. Evidence-based standards of care must rest on the best available evidence that emerges from a concerted hypothesis-driven process of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Health information technology needs to become an every-day reality in health services research and practice to ensure evidence-based standards of care. Current trends indicate that user-friendly methodologies, for the dissemination of evidence-based standards of care, must be developed, tested and distributed. They should include approaches for the quantification and analysis of the textual content of systematic reviews and of their summaries in the form of critical reviews and lay-language summaries

Guidance on Conducting and Reviewing Systematic Reviews (and Meta-Analyses) in Work and Organizational Psychology

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are means of summarizing and synthesizing research evidence in a given topic area. They can be used to define the current state of knowledge and how confident we can be in that knowledge, to identify evidence gaps, and to provide recommendations for policy and practice based on the best available evidence. At European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, our editorial stance is explicitly to encourage the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The purpose of this editorial is to provide some guidance to authors and journal referees on the (technical) features of good systematic reviews

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions

Measuring physiotherapy performance in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A prospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with knee osteoarthritis [OA] are commonly treated by physiotherapists in primary care. Measuring physiotherapy performance is important before developing strategies to improve quality. The purpose of this study was to measure physiotherapy performance in patients with knee OA by comparing clinical practice to evidence from systematic reviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We developed a data-collection form and invited all private practitioners in Norway [n = 2798] to prospectively collect data on the management of one patient with knee OA through 12 treatment session. Actual practice was compared to findings from an overview of systematic reviews summarising the effect of physiotherapy interventions for knee OA.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 297 physiotherapists reported their management for patients with knee OA. Exercise was the most common treatment used, provided by 98% of the physiotherapists. There is evidence of high quality that exercise reduces pain and improves function in patients with knee OA. Thirty-five percent of physiotherapists used acupuncture, low-level laser therapy or transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. There is evidence of moderate quality that these treatments reduce pain in knee OA. Patient education, supported by moderate quality evidence for improving psychological outcomes, was provided by 68%. Physiotherapists used a median of four different treatment modalities for each patient. They offered many treatment modalities based on evidence of low quality or without evidence from systematic reviews, e.g. traction and mobilisation, massage and stretching.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Exercise was used in almost all treatment sessions in the management of knee OA. This practice is desirable since it is supported by high quality evidence. Physiotherapists also provide several other treatment modalities based on evidence of moderate or low quality, or no evidence from systematic reviews. Ways to promote high quality evidence into physiotherapy practice should be identified and evaluated.</p

Physical Activity Interventions That Address Motor and Balance Impairments and Skills for Adults With Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) (2012-2021)

Systematic Review Briefs provide a summary of the findings from systematic reviews developed in conjunction with the American Occupational Therapy Association’s (AOTA’s) Evidence-Based Practice Program. Each Systematic Review Brief summarizes the evidence on a theme related to a systematic review topic. The systematic review is on interventions to address motor and balance impairments to improve occupational performance for adults with TBI, the theme reported in this Systematic Review Brief is physical activity interventions