Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews:a scoping review

Abstract Background There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. Methods We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. Results We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. Discussion/conclusion We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. Systematic review registration The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4

Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND The Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer has brought together and reanalysed the worldwide epidemiological evidence on the relation between breast cancer risk and use of hormonal contraceptives. METHODS Individual data on 53 297 women with breast cancer and 100 239 women without breast cancer from 54 studies conducted in 25 countries were collected, checked, and analysed centrally. Estimates of the relative risk for breast cancer were obtained by a modification of the Mantel-Haenszel method. All analyses were stratified by study, age at diagnosis, parity, and, where appropriate, the age a woman was when her first child was born, and the age she was when her risk of conception ceased. FINDINGS The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed (relative risk [95 percent CI] in current users 1.24 [1.15-1.33], 2p<0.00001; 1-4 years after stopping 1.16 [1.08-1.23], 2p=0.00001; 5-9 years after stopping 1.07 [1.02-1.13], 2p=0.009). Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use (relative risk 1.01 [0.96-1.05], NS). The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives for ever-users compared with never-users, the relative risk for tumours that had spread beyond the breast compared with localised tumours was 0.88 (0.81-0.95; 2p=0.002). There was no pronounced variation in the results for recency of use between women with different background risks of breast cancer, including women from different countries and ethnic groups, women with different reproductive histories, and those with or without a family history of breast cancer. The studies included in this collaboration represent about 90 percent of the epidemiological information on the topic, and what is known about the other studies suggests that their omission has not materially affected the main conclusions. Other features of hormonal contraceptive use such as duration of use, age at first use, and the dose and type of hormone within the contraceptives had little additional effect on breast cancer risk, once recency of use had been taken into account. Women who began use before age 20 had higher relative risks of having breast cancer diagnosed while they were using combined oral contraceptives and in the 5 years after stopping than women who began use at older ages, but the higher relative risks apply at ages when breast cancer is rare and, for a given duration of use, earlier use does not result in more cancers being diagnosed than use beginning at older ages. Because breast cancer incidence rises steeply with age, the estimated excess number of cancers diagnosed in the period between starting use and 10 years after stopping increases with age at last use: for example, among 10 000 women from Europe or North America who used oral contraceptives from age 16 to 19, from age 20 to 24, and from age 25 to 29, respectively, the estimated excess number of cancers diagnosed up to 10 years after stopping use is 0.5 (95 percent CI 0.3-0.7), 1.5 (0.7-2.3), and 4.7 (2.7-6.7). Up to 20 years after cessation of use the difference between ever-users and never-users is not so much in the total number of cancers diagnosed, but in their clinical presentation, with the breast cancers diagnosed in ever-users being less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in never-users. The relation observed between breast cancer risk and hormone exposure is unusual, and it is not possible to infer from these data whether it is due to an earlier diagnosis of breast cancer in ever-users, the biological effects of hormonal contraceptives, or a combination of reasons..

Seismological studies of ZZ Ceti stars

10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08233-0Lancet35090841047-1059LANC