Traumatic brain injury rehabilitation: an overview of systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness. A pre-published protocol

INTRODUCTION. Many authors are in favour of using systematic reviews as a method for evidence synthesis in rehabilitation and the last decade has introduced several guidelines to help with their implementation in rehabilitation contexts. At present, however, there is little clear information about the quantity and quality of systematic reviews on TBI rehabilitation interventions. AIM. We aim to conduct an overview of systematic reviews published on TBI rehabilitation interventions in order to summarise the current state of evidence in this area of clinical practice. In addition to providing information on strength of evidence for intervention effectiveness, our goal is to research and summarise two additional domains: reviews’ characteristics and evidence gaps. METHODS. We will carry out a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library database (including Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness) MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, PDQ-evidence, and PubMed to find relevant systematic reviews. We also will make efforts to identify ongoing reviews by searching for protocols in the Cochrane Library database and in PROSPERO. We are not going to search grey literature. We will use Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/home) to manage review selection. Two review team members will independently select the reviews to be included to the overview. A third researcher will be consulted for resolving disagreements. We will use Knack software (https://www.knack.com/), to extract data on review characteristics and review findings. We will include the systematic reviews on the adult TBI population (regardless of severity, stage of recovery, or other aspects of clinical presentation), any kind of rehabilitation interventions (regardless of setting, uni- or multidisciplinarity etc) to describe review characteristics. From those systematic reviews the ones with comparisons with no treatment, placebo or sham treatment, and usual care; and with outcomes such as quality of life, activity and participation – as per International Classification of Functioning, Disability & Health –residential status, family burden, and adverse effects will provide basis for intervention effectiveness analysis. We will assess the quality of reporting with updated PRISMA (Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) by making a judgement of “yes/no/unclear” without further descriptions. We will assess the methodological quality of included reviews with AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument. SYNTHESIS. We will provide a report on the characteristics of all included reviews using simple statistical analyses and narrative accounts and the main summary of results based on intervention effectiveness. Also, we aim to present conclusions specific to each intervention in terms of the current evidence base: statistical and/or narrative descriptions of effects and the evidence quality, relevant contextual factors, population, rehabilitation setting, and comparisons researched. We will not perform meta-analysis. In order to example gaps in the current evidence of TBI rehabilitation, we will separately summarise the information on ICF categorizations covered with low or very-low quality evidence or no evidence at all from existing systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS. To support knowledge translation, we will organise the overview of reviews’ findings as comprehensive evidence maps

Factors influencing referral to and uptake and attendance of pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a qualitative evidence synthesis of the experiences of service users, their families, and healthcare providers (Protocol)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Qualitative). The object ives are as follows: • To identify factors that influence referral to pulmonary rehab ilitation for COPD from the perspective of service users, thei r family/carers, and healthcare providers. • To identify factors that influence uptake of pulmonary rehabil itation for COPD (i.e. at least one attendance of an assessment or first programme session) from the perspective of service users , their family/carers, and healthcare providers. • To identify factors that influence attendance at pulmonary reha bilitation programmes for COPD from the perspective of servi ce users, their family/carers, and healthcare providers. • To develop an inductive explanatory framework for how these f actors may interact to contribute to better or poorer uptake or completion of pulmonary rehabilitation in order to guide acti ons of healthcare decision-makers to improve opportunities fo r people with COPD to benefit from pulmonary rehabilitation

Consensus on exercise reporting template (Cert): Modified delphi study

© 2016 American Physical Therapy Association. Background. Exercise interventions are often incompletely described in reports of clinical trials, hampering evaluation of results and replication and implementation into practice. Objective. The aim of this study was to develop a standardized method for reporting exercise programs in clinical trials: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT). Design and Methods. Using the EQUATOR Network’s methodological framework, 137 exercise experts were invited to participate in a Delphi consensus study. A list of 41 items was identified from a meta-epidemiologic study of 73 systematic reviews of exercise. For each item, participants indicated agreement on an 11-point rating scale. Consensus for item inclusion was defined a priori as greater than 70% agreement of respondents rating an item 7 or above. Three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires and a Delphi workshop were used. Results. There were 57 (response rate=42%), 54 (response rate=95%), and 49 (response rate=91%) respondents to rounds 1 through 3, respectively, from 11 countries and a range of disciplines. In round 1, 2 items were excluded; 24 items reached consensus for inclusion (8 items accepted in original format), and 16 items were revised in response to participant suggestions. Of 14 items in round 2, 3 were excluded, 11 reached consensus for inclusion (4 items accepted in original format), and 7 were reworded. Sixteen items were included in round 3, and all items reached greater than 70% consensus for inclusion. Limitations. The views of included Delphi panelists may differ from those of experts who declined participation and may not fully represent the views of all exercise experts. Conclusions. The CERT, a 16-item checklist developed by an international panel of exercise experts, is designed to improve the reporting of exercise programs in all evaluative study designs and contains 7 categories: materials, provider, delivery, location, dosage, tailoring, and compliance. The CERT will encourage transparency, improve trial interpretation and replication, and facilitate implementation of effective exercise interventions into practice

The Detection of an Extremely Bright Fast Radio Burst in a Phased Array Feed Survey

We report the detection of an ultra-bright fast radio burst FRB)from a modest, 3.4-day pilot survey with the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder. The survey was conducted in a wide- field fly’s-eye configuration using the phased-array-feed technology deployed on the array to instantaneously observe an effective area of 160 deg2, and achieve an exposure totalling 13200 deg2 hr. We constrain the position of FRB 170107 to a region 8 ́ x 8 ́ in size(90% containment)and its fluence to be 58 ± 6 Jy ms. The spectrum of the burst shows a sharp cutoff above 1400 MHz, which could be due to either scintillation or an intrinsic feature of the burst. This confirms the existence of an ultra-bright (> 20 Jy ms) population of FRBs

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362