Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by eight health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time. This statement was published jointly in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Medical Decision Making, PharmacoEconomics, and Quality of Life Research

Reviewing the review:a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals

Abstract Background Despite rapid growth of the scientific literature, no consensus guidelines have emerged to define the optimal criteria for editors to grade submitted manuscripts. The purpose of this project was to assess the peer reviewer metrics currently used in the surgical literature to evaluate original manuscript submissions. Methods Manuscript grading forms for 14 of the highest circulation general surgery-related journals were evaluated for content, including the type and number of quantitative and qualitative questions asked of peer reviewers. Reviewer grading forms for the seven surgical journals with the higher impact factors were compared to the seven surgical journals with lower impact factors using Fisher’s exact tests. Results Impact factors of the studied journals ranged from 1.73 to 8.57, with a median impact factor of 4.26 in the higher group and 2.81 in the lower group. The content of the grading forms was found to vary considerably. Relatively few journals asked reviewers to grade specific components of a manuscript. Higher impact factor journal manuscript grading forms more frequently addressed statistical analysis, ethical considerations, and conflict of interest. In contrast, lower impact factor journals more commonly requested reviewers to make qualitative assessments of novelty/originality, scientific validity, and scientific importance. Conclusion Substantial variation exists in the grading criteria used to evaluate original manuscripts submitted to the surgical literature for peer review, with differential emphasis placed on certain criteria correlated to journal impact factors

Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations. CONCLUSIONS: There are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance and bone health outcomes: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is a common condition in the elderly. A number of studies have investigated the relationship between MGUS and bone health outcomes including bone mineral density (BMD), osteoporosis and fractures, but no meta-analysis exists. We conducted a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis comparing bone health outcomes in patients with MGUS. Two independent authors searched PubMed and Scopus from inception until 19 October 2016. A meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies investigating fractures and BMD was conducted. Standardised mean differences (SMD) ± 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for BMD, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for prevalent and incident fractures. Of 174 initial hits, 10 studies of moderate methodological quality were eligible, including 8711 individuals with MGUS vs. 52,865 controls. Compared to controls, subjects with MGUS showed significantly lower values for radial cortical volumetric BMD (1 study; SMD = -5.45, 95% CI: -7.24 to -3.66), but not at the lumbar spine, femoral neck or hip. The incidence of fractures was higher in people with MGUS (n = 7466) vs. controls (n = 52,304) (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.28-1.44, I 2 = 0%) over a median of 12.5-year follow-up. The incidence of vertebral fractures was particularly elevated (RR = 2.50, 95% CI 1.53-4.06) although limited to two studies. In conclusion, although with limitations, our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that patients with MGUS are at higher risk of fractures despite evidence for differences in BMD being equivocal. Future longitudinal research is required to confirm our findings and determine if fracture prevention interventions are warranted in people with MGUS

A systematic review of frameworks for the interrelationships of mental health evidence and policy in low- and middle-income countries

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence–policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out ‘agenda-setting’, we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs

Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines

David Moher and colleagues from the EQUATOR network offer guidance and recommended steps for developing health research reporting guidelines

Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several studies analyzed whether conventional journals in general medicine or specialties such as pediatrics endorse recommendations aiming to improve publication practice. Despite evidence showing benefits of these recommendations, the proportion of endorsing journals has been moderate to low and varied considerably for different recommendations. About half of pediatric journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report referred to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) but only about a quarter recommended registration of trials. We aimed to investigate to what extent pediatric open-access (OA) journals endorse these recommendations. We hypothesized that a high proportion of these journals have adopted recommendations on good publication practice since OA electronic publishing has been associated with a number of editorial innovations aiming at improved access and transparency.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We identified 41 journals publishing original research in the subject category "Health Sciences, Medicine (General), Pediatrics" of the Directory of Open Access Journals <url>http://www.doaj.org</url>. From the journals' online author instructions we extracted information regarding endorsement of four domains of editorial policy: the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, trial registration, disclosure of conflicts of interest and five major reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Two investigators collected data independently.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The Uniform Requirements were mentioned by 27 (66%) pediatric OA journals. Thirteen (32%) required or recommended trial registration prior to publication of a trial report. Conflict of interest policies were stated by 25 journals (61%). Advice about reporting guidelines was less frequent: CONSORT was referred to by 12 journals (29%) followed by other reporting guidelines (MOOSE, PRISMA or STARD) (8 journals, 20%) and STROBE (3 journals, 7%). The EQUATOR network, a platform of several guideline initiatives, was acknowledged by 4 journals (10%).</p> <p>Journals published by OA publishing houses gave more guidance than journals published by professional societies or other publishers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Pediatric OA journals mentioned certain recommendations such as the Uniform Requirements or trial registration more frequently than conventional journals; however, endorsement is still only moderate. Further research should confirm these exploratory findings in other medical fields and should clarify what the motivations and barriers are in implementing such policies.</p

To hit or not to hit, that is the question -genome-wide structure-based druggability predictions for <i>pseudomonas aeruginosa </i>proteins

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a Gram-negative bacterium known to cause opportunistic infections in immune-compromised or immunosuppressed individuals that often prove fatal. New drugs to combat this organism are therefore sought after. To this end, we subjected the gene products of predicted perturbative genes to structure-based druggability predictions using DrugPred. Making this approach suitable for large-scale predictions required the introduction of new methods for calculation of descriptors, development of a workflow to identify suitable pockets in homologous proteins and establishment of criteria to obtain valid druggability predictions based on homologs. We were able to identify 29 perturbative proteins of P. aeruginosa that may contain druggable pockets, including some of them with no or no drug-like inhibitors deposited in ChEMBL. These proteins form promising novel targets for drug discovery against P. aeruginosa

The influence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol used for pain control of orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review

ABSTRACT The present study aimed to perform a systematic literature review to determine if there is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that interferes less within tooth movement. This research was performed according to the PRISMA statement. Articles were searched in eight electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, LILACS, SciELO, Google Scholar, and Open Grey). Only experimental studies on male Wistar rats were selected, which included experiments related to the influence of NSAIDs on orthodontic movement. Studies in animals with pathological conditions, literature review articles, letters to the editor and/or editorials, case reports, abstracts, books, and book chapters were excluded. Each of the steps of this systematic literature review was performed by two examiners independently. Results: the total sample consisted of 505 articles, from which 6 studies were eligible after a qualitative analysis. From the drugs assessed, paracetamol was unanimous for not interfering within orthodontic movement when compared to the control group. However, drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen, sodium diclofenac, and selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors caused a reduction in tooth movement when compared to the control group. Conclusion: paracetamol could be considered the drug of choice for pain relief because it interferes less within tooth movement

The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for anxiety in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Anxiety is a common problem in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the evidence for the use of psychosocial interventions to manage anxiety in this population. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was the primary intervention modality studied. A comprehensive systematic search and study selection process was conducted. Separate statistical analyses were carried out for clinician-, parent-, and self-reported outcome measures. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by removing any outlying studies and any studies that did not use a CBT intervention. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare individual and group delivery of treatment. Ten randomised control trials involving a total of 470 participants were included. The overall SMD was d = 1.05 (95 % CI 0.45, 1.65; z = 3.45, p = 0.0006) for clinician- reported outcome measures; d = 1.00 (95%CI 0.21, 1.80; z = 2.47, p = 0.01) for parent-reported outcome measures; and d = 0.65 (95%CI -0.10, 1.07; z = 1.63, p = 0.10) for self-reported outcome measures. Clinician- and parent-reported outcome measures showed that psychosocial interventions were superior to waitlist and treatment-as-usual control conditions at post-treatment. However, the results of self-reported outcome measures failed to reach significance. The sensitivity analyses did not significantly change these results and the subgroup analysis indicated that individual treatment was more effective than group treatment. The main limitations of this review were the small number of included studies as well as the clinical and methodological variability between studies