Treatment outcomes in patients with opioid use disorder initiated by prescription: a systematic review protocol

Abstract Background In North America, opioid use has become a public health crisis with policy makers declaring it a state of emergency. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) is a harm-reduction method used in treating opioid use disorder. While OST has shown to be successful in improving treatment outcomes, there is still a great degree of variability among patients. This cohort of patients has shifted from young males using heroin to a greater number of older people and women using prescription opioids. The primary objective of this review is to examine the literature on the association between the first exposure to opioids through prescription versus illicit use and OST treatment outcomes. Method An electronic search will be conducted on the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Reviewers will then conduct full-text data extraction using a pilot-tested data extraction form in duplicate. A third author will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted along with a sensitivity analysis for all included studies. Qualitative summary of the evidence will be provided, and when possible, a meta-analysis will be conducted, along with heterogeneity calculation. The reporting of this protocol follows the PRISMA-P. Discussion We expect that this review will help determine whether patients that were initially exposed to opioids through a prescription differ in OST treatment outcomes in comparison to people who used opioids through illicit means. We hope that this review will provide evidence related to prescription opioids exposure and future treatment outcomes, which will aid clinicians in their decisions to prescribe opioids or not for specific populations at risk. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD4201705814

Additional File 1:

Data extraction form in. This form includes all the information we intend to extract from the included studies. (PDF 54 kb

Additional File 2:

PRISMA-P checklist. These are the guidelines that this protocol was reported by. (PDF 92 kb

A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research

Abstract Background Evidence shows that research abstracts are commonly inconsistent with their corresponding full reports, and may mislead readers. In this scoping review, which is part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical research, we summarized the evidence from systematic reviews and surveys, to investigate the current state of inconsistent abstract reporting, and to evaluate factors associated with improved reporting by comparing abstracts and their full reports. Methods We searched EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and CINAHL from January 1st 1996 to September 30th 2016 to retrieve eligible systematic reviews and surveys. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency between abstracts and corresponding full reports, which was expressed as a percentage (with a lower percentage indicating better reporting) or categorized rating (such as major/minor difference, high/medium/low inconsistency), as reported by the authors. We used medians and interquartile ranges to describe the level of inconsistency across studies. No quantitative syntheses were conducted. Data from the included systematic reviews or surveys was summarized qualitatively. Results Seventeen studies that addressed this topic were included. The level of inconsistency was reported to have a median of 39% (interquartile range: 14% - 54%), and to range from 4% to 78%. In some studies that separated major from minor inconsistency, the level of major inconsistency ranged from 5% to 45% (median: 19%, interquartile range: 7% - 31%), which included discrepancies in specifying the study design or sample size, designating a primary outcome measure, presenting main results, and drawing a conclusion. A longer time interval between conference abstracts and the publication of full reports was found to be the only factor which was marginally or significantly associated with increased likelihood of reporting inconsistencies. Conclusions This scoping review revealed that abstracts are frequently inconsistent with full reports, and efforts are needed to improve the consistency of abstract reporting in the primary biomedical community

A systematic review of comparisons between protocols or registrations and full reports in primary biomedical research

Abstract Background Prospective study protocols and registrations can play a significant role in reducing incomplete or selective reporting of primary biomedical research, because they are pre-specified blueprints which are available for the evaluation of, and comparison with, full reports. However, inconsistencies between protocols or registrations and full reports have been frequently documented. In this systematic review, which forms part of our series on the state of reporting of primary biomedical, we aimed to survey the existing evidence of inconsistencies between protocols or registrations (i.e., what was planned to be done and/or what was actually done) and full reports (i.e., what was reported in the literature); this was based on findings from systematic reviews and surveys in the literature. Methods Electronic databases, including CINAHL, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE, were searched to identify eligible surveys and systematic reviews. Our primary outcome was the level of inconsistency (expressed as a percentage, with higher percentages indicating greater inconsistency) between protocols or registration and full reports. We summarized the findings from the included systematic reviews and surveys qualitatively. Results There were 37 studies (33 surveys and 4 systematic reviews) included in our analyses. Most studies (n = 36) compared protocols or registrations with full reports in clinical trials, while a single survey focused on primary studies of clinical trials and observational research. High inconsistency levels were found in outcome reporting (ranging from 14% to 100%), subgroup reporting (from 12% to 100%), statistical analyses (from 9% to 47%), and other measure comparisons. Some factors, such as outcomes with significant results, sponsorship, type of outcome and disease speciality were reported to be significantly related to inconsistent reporting. Conclusions We found that inconsistent reporting between protocols or registrations and full reports of primary biomedical research is frequent, prevalent and suboptimal. We also identified methodological issues such as the need for consensus on measuring inconsistency across sources for trial reports, and more studies evaluating transparency and reproducibility in reporting all aspects of study design and analysis. A joint effort involving authors, journals, sponsors, regulators and research ethics committees is required to solve this problem

Supplemental Material, Appendix_2 - Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials

<p>Supplemental Material, Appendix_2 for Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials by Meha Bhatt, Laura Zielinski, Nitika Sanger, Ieta Shams, Candice Luo, Bianca Bantoto, Hamnah Shahid, Guowei Li, Luciana P. F. Abbade, Ikunna Nwosu, Yanling Jin, Mei Wang, Yaping Chang, Guangwen Sun, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mitchell A. H. Levine, Jonathan D. Adachi, Lehana Thabane, and Zainab Samaan in Research on Social Work Practice</p

Supplemental Material, Appendix_1 - Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials

<p>Supplemental Material, Appendix_1 for Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials by Meha Bhatt, Laura Zielinski, Nitika Sanger, Ieta Shams, Candice Luo, Bianca Bantoto, Hamnah Shahid, Guowei Li, Luciana P. F. Abbade, Ikunna Nwosu, Yanling Jin, Mei Wang, Yaping Chang, Guangwen Sun, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mitchell A. H. Levine, Jonathan D. Adachi, Lehana Thabane, and Zainab Samaan in Research on Social Work Practice</p

Supplemental Material, Appendix_3 - Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials

<p>Supplemental Material, Appendix_3 for Evaluating Completeness of Reporting in Behavioral Interventions Pilot Trials by Meha Bhatt, Laura Zielinski, Nitika Sanger, Ieta Shams, Candice Luo, Bianca Bantoto, Hamnah Shahid, Guowei Li, Luciana P. F. Abbade, Ikunna Nwosu, Yanling Jin, Mei Wang, Yaping Chang, Guangwen Sun, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mitchell A. H. Levine, Jonathan D. Adachi, Lehana Thabane, and Zainab Samaan in Research on Social Work Practice</p

Supplemental Material, Supplementary_Material - A Systematic Survey of Control Groups in Behavioral and Social Science Trials

<p>Supplemental Material, Supplementary_Material for A Systematic Survey of Control Groups in Behavioral and Social Science Trials by Mei Wang, Guangwen Sun, Yaping Chang, Yanling Jin, Alvin Leenus, Muhammad Maaz, Guowei Li, Meha Bhatt, Luciana P. F. Abbade, Ikunna Nwosu, Laura Zielinski, Nitika Sanger, Bianca Bantoto, Candice Luo, Ieta Shams, Hamnah Shahid, Jonathan Adachi, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Mitchell Levine, Zainab Samaan, and Lehana Thabane in Research on Social Work Practice</p