Improving the utility of evidence synthesis for decision makers in the face of insufficient evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and suggest strategies to make insufficient evidence ratings in systematic reviews more actionable. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A workgroup comprising members from the Evidence-Based Practice (EPC) Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality convened throughout 2020. We conducted iterative discussions considering information from three data sources: a literature review for relevant publications and frameworks, a review of a convenience sample of past systematic reviews conducted by the EPCs, and an audit of methods used in past EPC technical briefs. RESULTS: We identified five strategies for supplementing systematic review findings when evidence on benefits or harms is expected to be, or found to be, insufficient: 1) reconsider eligible study designs, 2) summarize indirect evidence, 3) summarize contextual and implementation evidence, 4) consider modelling, and 5) incorporate unpublished health system data in the evidence synthesis. While these strategies may not increase the strength of evidence, they may improve the utility of reports for decision makers. Adopting these strategies depends on feasibility, timeline, funding, and expertise of the systematic reviewers. CONCLUSION: Throughout the process of evidence synthesis of early scoping, protocol development, review conduct, and review presentation, authors can consider these five strategies to supplement evidence with insufficient rating to make it more actionable for end-users

Quality improvement in small office settings: an examination of successful practices

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physicians in small to moderate primary care practices in the United States (U.S.) (<25 physicians) face unique challenges in implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, including limited resources, small staffs, and inadequate information technology systems 23,36. This qualitative study sought to identify and understand the characteristics and organizational cultures of physicians working in smaller practices who are actively engaged in measurement and quality improvement initiatives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We undertook a qualitative study, based on semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted with practices (N = 39) that used performance data to drive quality improvement activities.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Physicians indicated that benefits to performing measurement and QI included greater practice efficiency, patient and staff retention, and higher staff and clinician satisfaction with practice. Internal facilitators included the designation of a practice champion, cooperation of other physicians and staff, and the involvement of practice leaders. Time constraints, cost of activities, problems with information management and or technology, lack of motivated staff, and a lack of financial incentives were commonly reported as barriers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These findings shed light on how physicians engage in quality improvement activities, and may help raise awareness of and aid in the implementation of future initiatives in small practices more generally.</p

Effect size reporting among prominent health journals: a case study of odds ratios

The accuracy of statistical reporting that informs medical and public health practice has generated extensive debate, but no studies have evaluated the frequency or accuracy of effect size (the magnitude of change in outcome as a function of change in predictor) reporting in prominent health journals. To evaluate effect size reporting practices in prominent health journals using the case study of ORs. Articles published in the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and PLOS One from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2019 mentioning the term 'odds ratio' in all searchable fields were obtained using PubMed. One hundred randomly selected articles that reported original research using ORs were sampled per journal for in-depth analysis. We report prevalence of articles using ORs, reporting effect sizes from ORs (reporting the magnitude of change in outcome as a function of change in predictor) and reporting correct effect sizes. The proportion of articles using ORs in the past decade declined in JAMA and AJPH, remained similar in NEJM and increased in PLOS One, with 6124 articles in total. Twenty-four per cent (95% CI 20% to 28%) of articles reported the at least one effect size arising from an OR. Among articles reporting any effect size, 57% (95% CI 47% to 67%) did so incorrectly. Taken together, 10% (95% CI 7% to 13%) of articles included a correct effect size interpretation of an OR. Articles that used ORs in AJPH more frequently reported the effect size (36%, 95% CI 27% to 45%), when compared with NEJM (26%, 95% CI 17.5% to 34.7%), PLOS One (22%, 95% CI 13.9% to 30.2%) and JAMA (10%, 95% CI 3.9% to 16.0%), but the probability of a correct interpretation did not statistically differ between the four journals (χ2=0.56, p=0.90). Articles that used ORs in prominent journals frequently omitted presenting the effect size of their predictor variables. When reported, the presented effect size was usually incorrect. When used, ORs should be paired with accurate effect size interpretations. New editorial and research reporting standards to improve effect size reporting and its accuracy should be considered

Quality of care measures for migraine: a comprehensive review

Migraine headache is a highly prevalent, chronic, episodic disorder that is associated with high direct and indirect costs. Migraine headache impacts not only patients, but also their employers due to substantial decreases in workplace productivity. Despite the prevalence and clinical and economic burdens of migraine, no national efforts to develop and implement standardized measures of quality of care have been made. The objective of this study was to collect and report on existing quality of care measures for migraine that could be suitable for quality measurement at the health-plan level. Published literature, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality\u27s National Quality Measure Clearinghouse, and resources available from quality organizations (eg, the National Committee for Quality Assurance) were examined to identify existing quality indicators that can be used to assess the quality of care delivered to migraine sufferers at the health-plan level. Among the results of the study were the following: Quality of care measures for migraine include patient-reported measures and non-patient reported, diagnosis-related, prevention-related, and treatment-related indicators. Most existing measures have been developed by the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement or summarized and reported by the RAND Corporation. Few of these measures can be used to assess migraine quality of care at the health-plan level. In conclusion, many measures exist, but they are not intended for use at the health-plan level. Incorporation of valid and reliable quality of care measures may increase the ability of migraine disease management programs to conform to clinical care guidelines. Significant effort is needed to determine what and how to measure quality among health plans to improve the quality of care delivered to individuals with migraine

Spread of Misinformation About Face Masks and COVID-19 by Automated Software on Facebook.

This cross-sectional study examines the spread of misinformation regarding the Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection on Facebook

Spread of Misinformation About Face Masks and COVID-19 by Automated Software on Facebook.

This cross-sectional study examines the spread of misinformation regarding the Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection on Facebook