Presenting evidence-based health information for people with multiple sclerosis : the IN-DEEP project protocol

Background - Increasingly, evidence-based health information, in particular evidence from systematic reviews, is being made available to lay audiences, in addition to health professionals. Research efforts have focused on different formats for the lay presentation of health information. However, there is a paucity of data on how patients integrate evidence-based health information with other factors such as their preferences for information and experiences with information-seeking. The aim of this project is to explore how people with multiple sclerosis (MS) integrate health information with their needs, experiences, preferences and values and how these factors can be incorporated into an online resource of evidence-based health information provision for people with MS and their families.Methods - This project is an Australian-Italian collaboration between researchers, MS societies and people with MS. Using a four-stage mixed methods design, a model will be developed for presenting evidence-based health information on the Internet for people with MS and their families. This evidence-based health information will draw upon systematic reviews of MS interventions from The Cochrane Library. Each stage of the project will build on the last. After conducting focus groups with people with MS and their family members (Stage 1), we will develop a model for summarising and presenting Cochrane MS reviews that is integrated with supporting information to aid understanding and decision making. This will be reviewed and finalised with people with MS, family members, health professionals and MS Society staff (Stage 2), before being uploaded to the Internet and evaluated (Stages 3 and 4).Discussion - This project aims to produce accessible and meaningful evidence-based health information about MS for use in the varied decision making and management situations people encounter in everyday life. It is expected that the findings will be relevant to broader efforts to provide evidence-based health information for patients and the general public. The international collaboration also permits exploration of cultural differences that could inform international practice.<br /

Cerebral Perfusion Pressure Targets Individualized to Pressure-Reactivity Index in Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) frequently triggers a disruption of cerebral autoregulation. The cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) at which autoregulation is optimal ("CPPopt") varies between individuals, and can be calculated based on fluctuations between arterial blood pressure and intracranial pressure. This review assesses the effect of individualizing CPP targets to pressure reactivity index (a measure of autoregulation) in patients with TBI. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched in March 2015 for studies assessing the effect of targeting CPPopt in TBI. We included all studies that assessed the impact of targeting CPPopt on outcomes including mortality, neurological outcome, and physiological changes. Risk of bias was assessed using the RTI Item Bank and evidence quality was considered using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Eight cohort studies (based on six distinct data sets) assessing the association between CPPopt and mortality, Glasgow Outcome Scale and physiological measures in TBI were included. The quality of evidence was deemed very low based on the GRADE criteria. Although the data suggest an association between variation from CPPopt and poor clinical outcome at 6 months, the quality of evidence prevents firm conclusions, particularly regarding causality, from being drawn. Available data suggest that targeting CPPopt might represent a technique to improve outcomes following TBI, but currently there is insufficient high-quality data to support a recommendation for use in clinical practice. Further prospective, randomized controlled studies should be undertaken to clarify its role in the acute management of TBI.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from MAry Ann Liebert via http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/neu.2016.445

A New Approach to Evidence Synthesis in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are online summaries of health care research that are updated as new research becomes available. This new development in evidence synthesis is being trialled as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) project. We will develop and sustain an international TBI knowledge community that maintains up-to-date, high quality LSRs of the current state of knowledge in the most important questions in TBI. Automatic search updates will be run three-monthly, and newly identified studies incorporated into the review. Review teams will seek to publish journal updates at regular intervals, with abridged updates available more frequently online. Future project stages include the integration of LSR and other study findings into "living" clinical practice guidance. It is hoped these efforts will go some way to bridging current temporal disconnects between evidence, guidelines, and practice in TBI

Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

Objectives Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews. Methods We developed a framework using methods previously described in the development of conceptual frameworks relating to other areas of public involvement, including: literature searching, data extraction, analysis, and categorisation. A draft ACTIVE framework was developed and then refined after presentation at a conference workshop, before being applied to a series of example systematic reviews. Data extracted from 32 systematic reviews, identified in a systematic scoping review, were categorised against pre-defined constructs, including: who was involved, how stakeholder were recruited, the mode of involvement, at what stage there was involvement and the level of control or influence. Results The final ACTIVE framework described whether patients, carers and/or families, and/or other stakeholders (including health professionals, health decision makers and funders) were involved. We defined: recruitment as either open or closed; the approach to involvement as either onetime, continuous or combined; and the method of involvement as either direct or indirect. The stage of involvement in reviews was defined using the Cochrane Ecosystem stages of a review. The level of control or influence was defined according to the roles and activities of stakeholders in the review process, and described as the ACTIVE continuum of involvement. Conclusions The ACTIVE framework provides a structure with which to describe key components of stakeholder involvement within a systematic review, and we have used this to summarise how stakeholders have been involved in a subset of varied systematic reviews. The ACTIVE continuum of involvement provides a new model that uses tasks and roles to detail the level of stakeholder involvement. This work has contributed to the development of learning resources aimed at supporting systematic review authors and editors to involve stakeholders in their systematic reviews. This framework may support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve stakeholders in future review

Apolipoprotein E4 Polymorphism and Outcomes from Traumatic Brain Injury : A Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The mortality of traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been largely static despite advances in monitoring and imaging techniques. Substantial variance exists in outcome, not fully accounted for by baseline characteristics or injury severity, and genetic factors likely play a role in this variance. The aims of this systematic review were to examine the evidence for a link between the apolipoprotein E4 (APOE4) polymorphism and TBI outcomes and where possible, to quantify the effect size via meta-analysis. We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and gray literature in December 2017. We included studies of APOE genotype in relation to functional adult TBI outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies Risk of Bias Assessment Instrument and the prognostic studies adaptation of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool. In addition, we contacted investigators and included an additional 160 patients whose data had not been made available for previous analyses, giving a total sample size of 2593 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated higher odds of a favorable outcome following TBI in those not possessing an ApoE e4 allele compared with e4 carriers and homozygotes (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.84; p = 0.02). The influence of APOE4 on neuropsychological functioning following TBI remained uncertain, with multiple conflicting studies. We conclude that the ApoE e4 allele confers a small risk of poor outcome following TBI, with analysis by TBI severity not possible based on the currently available published data. Further research into the long-term neuropsychological impact and risk of dementia is warranted.Peer reviewe

Presenting evidence-based health information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project protocol.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, evidence-based health information, in particular evidence from systematic reviews, is being made available to lay audiences, in addition to health professionals. Research efforts have focused on different formats for the lay presentation of health information. However, there is a paucity of data on how patients integrate evidence-based health information with other factors such as their preferences for information and experiences with information-seeking. The aim of this project is to explore how people with multiple sclerosis (MS) integrate health information with their needs, experiences, preferences and values and how these factors can be incorporated into an online resource of evidence-based health information provision for people with MS and their families. METHODS: This project is an Australian-Italian collaboration between researchers, MS societies and people with MS. Using a four-stage mixed methods design, a model will be developed for presenting evidence-based health information on the Internet for people with MS and their families. This evidence-based health information will draw upon systematic reviews of MS interventions from The Cochrane Library. Each stage of the project will build on the last. After conducting focus groups with people with MS and their family members (Stage 1), we will develop a model for summarising and presenting Cochrane MS reviews that is integrated with supporting information to aid understanding and decision making. This will be reviewed and finalised with people with MS, family members, health professionals and MS Society staff (Stage 2), before being uploaded to the Internet and evaluated (Stages 3 and 4). DISCUSSION: This project aims to produce accessible and meaningful evidence-based health information about MS for use in the varied decision making and management situations people encounter in everyday life. It is expected that the findings will be relevant to broader efforts to provide evidence-based health information for patients and the general public. The international collaboration also permits exploration of cultural differences that could inform international practice

Genetic Influences on Patient-Oriented Outcomes in Traumatic Brain Injury : A Living Systematic Review of Non-Apolipoprotein E Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms

There is a growing literature on the impact of genetic variation on outcome in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Whereas a substantial proportion of these publications have focused on the apolipoprotein E (APOE) gene, several have explored the influence of other polymorphisms. We undertook a systematic review of the impact of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in non-apolipoprotein E (non-APOE) genes associated with patient outcomes in adult TBI). We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and gray literature from inception to the beginning of August 2017 for studies of genetic variance in relation to patient outcomes in adult TBI. Sixty-eight articles were deemed eligible for inclusion into the systematic review. The SNPs described were in the following categories: neurotransmitter (NT) in 23, cytokine in nine, brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) in 12, mitochondrial genes in three, and miscellaneous SNPs in 21. All studies were based on small patient cohorts and suffered from potential bias. A range of SNPs associated with genes coding for monoamine NTs, BDNF, cytokines, and mitochondrial proteins have been reported to be associated with variation in global, neuropsychiatric, and behavioral outcomes. An analysis of the tissue, cellular, and subcellular location of the genes that harbored the SNPs studied showed that they could be clustered into blood-brain barrier associated, neuroprotective/regulatory, and neuropsychiatric/degenerative groups. Several small studies report that various NT, cytokine, and BDNF-related SNPs are associated with variations in global outcome at 6-12 months post-TBI. The association of these SNPs with neuropsychiatric and behavioral outcomes is less clear. A definitive assessment of role and effect size of genetic variation in these genes on outcome remains uncertain, but could be clarified by an adequately powered genome-wide association study with appropriate recording of outcomes.Peer reviewe

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation

Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health

Producing an evidence‐based treatment information website in partnership with people affected by multiple sclerosis

Background and Aims: In earlier work, we identified that people affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) can have difficulty finding online treatment information that is up to date, trustworthy, understandable, and applicable to personal circumstances, but does not provoke confusion or negative emotional consequences. The objective was to develop online consumer summaries of MS treatment evidence (derived from Cochrane Reviews) that respond to identified treatment information needs of people affected by MS. Methods: A 2-phase mixed-methods project, conducted in partnership with consumers and an MS organisation. Phase 1 included review panels with consumers (Australians affected by MS) and health professionals to test paper-based treatment summaries before development, and pilot testing of the website. Phase 2 involved an online survey after website launch. Results: Eighty-three participants (85% affected by MS) took part. Phase 1 participants strongly endorsed key review summary components, including layering information, and additional sections to aid personal applicability. Participants additionally suggested questions for health professionals. Participants across both phases were receptive to the idea of being provided with Cochrane Review summaries online but were seeking other types of evidence and information, such as personal experiences and the latest experimental treatments, which could not be provided. While the small survey sample size (n = 58) limits application of the results to a broader population, the website was viewed favourably, as a useful, understandable, and trustworthy information source. Conclusion: We describe a partnership approach to developing online evidence-based treatment information, underpinned by an in-depth understanding of consumers' information needs