Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide – the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Randomized trials are essential in assessing the effects of healthcare interventions and are a key component in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Searching for reports of randomized trials in databases is problematic due to the absence of appropriate indexing terms until the 1990s and inconsistent application of these indexing terms thereafter.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this study are to devise a search strategy for identifying reports of randomized trials in EMBASE which are not already indexed as trials in MEDLINE and to make these reports easily accessible by including them in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in <it>The Cochrane Library</it>, with the permission of Elsevier, the publishers of EMBASE.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A highly sensitive search strategy was designed for EMBASE based on free-text and thesaurus terms which occurred frequently in the titles, abstracts, EMTREE terms (or some combination of these) of reports of trials indexed in EMBASE. This search strategy was run against EMBASE from 1980 to 2005 (1974 to 2005 for four of the terms) and records retrieved by the search, which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, were downloaded from EMBASE, printed and read. An analysis of the language of publication was conducted for the reports of trials published in 2005 (the most recent year completed at the time of this study).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two search terms were used (including nine which were later rejected due to poor cumulative precision). More than a third of a million records were downloaded and scanned and approximately 80,000 reports of trials were identified which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE. These are now easily identifiable in CENTRAL, in <it>The Cochrane Library</it>. Cumulative sensitivity ranged from 0.1% to 60% and cumulative precision ranged from 8% to 61%. The truncated term 'random$' identified 60% of the total number of reports of trials but only 35% of the more than 130,000 records retrieved by this term were reports of trials. The language analysis for the sample year 2005 indicated that of the 18,427 reports indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, 959 (5%) were in languages other than English. The EMBASE search identified an additional 658 reports in languages other than English, of which the highest number were in Chinese (320).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of the search to date have greatly increased access to reports of trials in EMBASE, especially in some languages other than English. The search strategy used was subjectively derived from a small 'gold standard' set of test records and was not validated in an independent test set. We intend to design an objectively-derived validated search strategy using logistic regression based on the frequency of occurrence of terms in the approximately 80,000 reports of randomized trials identified compared with the frequency of these terms across the entire EMBASE database.</p

A review of mentorship measurement tools

© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Objectives: To review mentorship measurement tools in various fields to inform nursing educators on selection, application, and developing of mentoring instruments. Design: A literature review informed by PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Data Sources: Six databases: CINHAL, Medline, PsycINFO, Academic Search Premier, ERIC, Business premier resource. Review Methods: Search terms and strategies used: mentor* N3 (behav* or skill? or role? or activit? or function* or relation*) and (scale or tool or instrument or questionnaire or inventory). The time limiter was set from January 1985 to June 2015. Extracted data were content of instruments, samples, psychometrics, theoretical framework, and utility. An integrative review method was used. Results: Twenty-eight papers linked to 22 scales were located, seven from business and industry, 11 from education, 3 from health science, and 1 focused on research mentoring. Mentorship measurement was pioneered by business with a universally accepted theoretical framework, i.e. career function and psychosocial function, and the trend of scale development is developing: from focusing on the positive side of mentorship shifting to negative mentoring experiences and challenges. Nursing educators mainly used instruments from business to assess mentorship among nursing teachers. In education and nursing, measurement has taken to a more specialised focus: researchers in different contexts have developed scales to measure different specific aspects of mentorship. Most tools show psychometric evidence of content homogeneity and construct validity but lack more comprehensive and advanced tests. Conclusion: Mentorship is widely used and conceptualised differently in different fields and is less mature in nursing than in business. Measurement of mentorship is heading to a more specialised and comprehensive process. Business and education provided measurement tools to nursing educators to assess mentorship among staff, but a robust instrument to measure nursing students' mentorship is needed

Oral rehydration versus intravenous therapy for treating dehydration due to gastroenteritis in children: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Despite treatment recommendations from various organizations, oral rehydration therapy (ORT) continues to be underused, particularly by physicians in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare ORT and intravenous therapy (IVT) for the treatment of dehydration secondary to acute gastroenteritis in children. METHODS: RCTs were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, authors and references of included trials, pharmaceutical companies, and relevant organizations. Screening and inclusion were performed independently by two reviewers in order to identify randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing ORT and IVT in children with acute diarrhea and dehydration. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using the Jadad scale and allocation concealment. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. The primary outcome measure was failure of rehydration. We analyzed data using standard meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: The quality of the 14 included trials ranged from 0 to 3 (Jadad score); allocation concealment was unclear in all but one study. Using a random effects model, there was no significant difference in treatment failures (risk difference [RD] 3%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0, 6). The Mantel-Haenzsel fixed effects model gave a significant difference between treatment groups (RD 4%; 95% CI: 2, 5) favoring IVT. Based on the four studies that reported deaths, there were six in the IVT groups and two in ORT. There were no significant differences in total fluid intake at six and 24 hours, weight gain, duration of diarrhea, or hypo/hypernatremia. Length of stay was significantly shorter for the ORT group (weighted mean difference [WMD] -1.2 days; 95% CI: -2.4,-0.02). Phlebitis occurred significantly more often with IVT (number needed to treat [NNT] 33; 95% CI: 25,100); paralytic ileus occurred more often with ORT (NNT 33; 95% CI: 20,100). These results may not be generalizable to children with persistent vomiting. CONCLUSION: There were no clinically important differences between ORT and IVT in terms of efficacy and safety. For every 25 children (95% CI: 20, 50) treated with ORT, one would fail and require IVT. The results support existing practice guidelines recommending ORT as the first course of treatment in appropriate children with dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis

Optimal search strategies for detecting cost and economic studies in EMBASE

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations in the medical literature compare competing diagnosis or treatment methods for their use of resources and their expected outcomes. The best evidence currently available from research regarding both cost and economic comparisons will continue to expand as this type of information becomes more important in today's clinical practice. Researchers and clinicians need quick, reliable ways to access this information. A key source of this type of information is large bibliographic databases such as EMBASE. The objective of this study was to develop search strategies that optimize the retrieval of health costs and economics studies from EMBASE. METHODS: We conducted an analytic survey, comparing hand searches of journals with retrievals from EMBASE for candidate search terms and combinations. 6 research assistants read all issues of 55 journals indexed by EMBASE for the publishing year 2000. We rated all articles using purpose and quality indicators and categorized them into clinically relevant original studies, review articles, general papers, or case reports. The original and review articles were then categorized for purpose (i.e., cost and economics and other clinical topics) and depending on the purpose as 'pass' or 'fail' for methodologic rigor. Candidate search strategies were developed for economic and cost studies, then run in the 55 EMBASE journals, the retrievals being compared with the hand search data. The sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of the search strategies were calculated. RESULTS: Combinations of search terms for detecting both cost and economic studies attained levels of 100% sensitivity with specificity levels of 92.9% and 92.3% respectively. When maximizing for both sensitivity and specificity, the combination of terms for detecting cost studies (sensitivity) increased 2.2% over the single term but at a slight decrease in specificity of 0.9%. The maximized combination of terms for economic studies saw no change in sensitivity from the single term and only a 0.1% increase in specificity. CONCLUSION: Selected terms have excellent performance in the retrieval of studies of health costs and economics from EMBASE

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>How to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.</p

Communication and support from health-care professionals to families, with dependent children, following the diagnosis of parental life-limiting illness : a systematic review

Background: Communication between parents and their children about parental life-limiting illness is stressful. Parents want support from health-care professionals; however, the extent of this support is not known. Awareness of family’s needs would help ensure appropriate support. Aim: To find the current literature exploring (1) how parents with a life-limiting illness, who have dependent children, perceive health-care professionals’ communication with them about the illness, diagnosis and treatments, including how social, practical and emotional support is offered to them and (2) how this contributes to the parents’ feelings of supporting their children. Design: A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Data sources: Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ASSIA ProQuest were searched in November 2015 for studies assessing communication between health-care professionals and parents about how to talk with their children about the parent’s illness. Results: There were 1342 records identified, five qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria (55 ill parents, 11 spouses/carers, 26 children and 16 health-care professionals). Parents wanted information from health-care professionals about how to talk to their children about the illness; this was not routinely offered. Children also want to talk with a health-care professional about their parents’ illness. Health-care professionals are concerned that conversations with parents and their children will be too difficult and time-consuming. Conclusion: Parents with a life-limiting illness want support from their health-care professionals about how to communicate with their children about the illness. Their children look to health-care professionals for information about their parent’s illness. Health-care professionals, have an important role but appear reluctant to address these concerns because of fears of insufficient time and expertise

Interventions that improve maternity care for immigrant women in the UK: protocol for a narrative synthesis systematic review

Introduction: A quarter of all births in the UK are to mothers born outside the UK. There is also evidence that immigrant women have higher maternal and infant death rates and of inequalities in the provision and uptake of maternity services/birth centres. The topic is of great significance to the National Health Service (NHS) because of directives that address inequalities and the changing patterns of migration to the UK. Our main question for the systematic review is “what interventions exist that are specifically focused on improving maternity care for immigrant women in the UK”? The primary objective of this synthesis is to generate new interpretations of research evidence. Secondly, the synthesis will provide substantive base to guide developments and implementation of maternity services/birth centres which are acceptable and effective for immigrant women in the UK. Methods and analysis: We are using a narrative synthesis (NS) approach to identify, assess scientific quality and rigour, and synthesise empirical data focused on access and interventions that enhance quality of maternity care/birth centres for the UK immigrant women. The inclusion criteria include: publication date 1990 to present, English language, empirical research and findings are focused on women who live in the United Kingdom, participants of the study are immigrant women, is related to maternity care/birth centres access or interventions or experiences of maternity. In order to ensure the robustness of the NS, the methodological quality of key evidence will be appraised using the Center for Evidence Based Management tools and review confidence with CERQual. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract relevant evidence. We will synthesise evidence studying relationships between included studies using a range of tools. Dissemination: Dissemination plan include: an e-workshop for policy makers, collaborative practitioner workshops, YouTube video and APP, scientific papers and conference presentations

Real-world ethics in palliative care: Protocol for a systematic review of the ethical challenges reported by specialist palliative care practitioners in their clinical practice

IntroductionEthical issues arise daily in the delivery of palliative care. Despite much (largely theoretical) literature, evidence from specialist palliative care practitioners (SPCPs) about real-world ethical challenges has not previously been synthesised. This evidence is crucial to inform education and training and adequately support staff. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the evidence regarding the ethical challenges which SPCPs encounter during clinical practice.Methods and AnalysisWe will conduct a systematic review with narrative synthesis of empirical studies that use inductive methods to describe the ethical challenges reported by SPCPs. We will search multiple databases (MEDLINE, Philosopher’s Index, EMBASE, PsycINFO, LILACS, WHOLIS, Web of Science and CINAHL) without time, language or geographical restrictions. Keywords will be developed from scoping searches, consultation with information specialists, and reference to key systematic reviews in palliative care and bioethics. Reference lists of included studies will be hand-searched. 10% of retrieved titles and abstracts will be independently dual screened, as will all full text papers. Quality will be dual assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (2018). Narrative synthesis following Popay et al (2006) will be used to synthesise findings. The strength of resulting recommendations will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for qualitative evidence (GRADE-CERQual).Ethics and DisseminationAs this review will include only published data, no specific ethical approval is required.We anticipate that the systematic review will be of interest to palliative care practitioners of all backgrounds, and educators in palliative care and medical ethics. Findings will be presented at conferences and published open access in a peer-reviewed journal