How to develop a focused research question for a rapid evidence review

Rapid reviews are emerging as an alternative to systematic reviews, and they are now widely used to inform decision-making in healthcare. During COVID-19 pandemic, rapid reviews became more widespread. Some teams prepare reviews in a matter of days, instead of several weeks using streamlined systematic review methods. There are multiple roles for librarians within the evidence review process. As an expert searcher, the librarian must interact with the researchers, clinicians, and decision makers. A well-defined research question needs extreme specificity and preciseness which guides rest of the review.  Developing a focused question   workshop provided an overview of rapid review methods. Discussion and activities on developing a focused research question. How to start with broad topic and narrow it down to a question that is clear, relevant and answerable

Methods of assessing late radiotherapy effects on bowel function

Purpose of review Pelvic radiation disease in the form of chronic radiation-induced consequences of treatment is under recognized by healthcare professionals and under reported by patients. Gastrointestinal symptoms are not routinely assessed, and may not be causally associated with previous radiotherapy. These symptoms are therefore often under treated.Recent findings A literature search was conducted in Ovid Medline, which included Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid Embase for articles published between 2016 and April 2018. A total of 11 articles were selected for review. A wide range of patient reported outcome measure instruments are used in research and practice. Clinical symptom grading is restricted to a fewer number of tools but may not always capture issues, such as urgency, that are important to the patient. Clinician and patient concordance in the assessment of outcomes is limited. Initiatives to prompt communication of the relative risks of the late consequences of treatment and comparative effectiveness of treatments decisions are developing, as are new techniques to limit irradiation of healthy tissue.Summary Nonstandardized outcome measurement reduces the ability to aggregate toxicity and patient outcomes across clinical trials. The development of standardized screening and treatment algorithms for gastrointestinal symptoms can systematically locate and treat gastrointestinal late effects of treatment

A systematic review of publicity interventions to increase awareness amongst healthcare professionals and the public to promote earlier diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children and young people

Read the full text ePDF PDF ePDFPDF PDF Tools Share Abstract Background Children with new onset type 1 diabetes (T1D) are at risk of developing the life‐threatening condition ketoacidosis if they have a delayed diagnosis. The rate of children presenting in ketoacidosis remains high in a number of countries worldwide. To ensure interventions to raise awareness of symptoms are effective a systematic review was conducted to evaluate previous publicity campaigns. Methods A range of databases was searched using search terms relating to T1D, publicity campaigns, and symptom awareness. Identified articles were checked against the inclusion criteria, ensuring interventions were designed to target individuals prior to diagnosis of T1D. Papers were independently assessed under the criteria specified within the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Results The initial search retrieved 1537 papers and following screening 20 were identified for full consideration. Thirteen did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving 7 to be assessed. Of these 7, 2 observational case‐control studies reported a reduction in the rate of ketoacidosis following a publicity campaign using posters and providing glucose testing equipment to primary healthcare professionals. Four observational cohort studies, utilized posters, and media campaigns; 2 reported a reduction in the rate of ketoacidosis and 2 reported no difference following their interventions. A feasibility study, not designed to evaluate effectiveness, reported some anecdotal evidence of a more timely diagnosis. Conclusion Due to the methodological limitations of the studies identified, it is not possible to make a definitive conclusion on the effectiveness of the interventions reported

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of first aid interventions for burns given to caregivers of children: A systematic review

Objectives: the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of burns first-aid educational interventions given to caregivers of children. Methods: Systematic review of eligible studies from seven databases, international journals, trials repositories and contacted international experts. Results: Of 985 potential studies, four met the inclusion criteria. All had high risk of bias and weak global rating. Two studies identified a statistically significant increase in knowledge after of a media campaign. King et al. (41.7% vs 63.2%, p<0.0001), Skinner et al. (59% vs 40%, p=0.004). Skinner et al. also identified fewer admissions (64.4% vs 35.8%, p<0.001) and surgical procedures (25.6% vs 11.4%, p<0.001). Kua et al. identified a significant improvement in caregiver’s knowledge (22.9% vs 78.3%, 95% CI 49.2, 61.4) after face-to-face education intervention. Ozyazicioglu et al. evaluated the effect of a first-aid training program and showed a reduction in use of harmful traditional methods for burns in children (29% vs 16.1%, p<0.001). No data on cost-effectiveness was identified. Conclusion: There is a paucity of high quality research in this field and considerable heterogeneity across the included studies. Delivery and content of interventions varied. However, studies showed a positive effect on knowledge. No study evaluated the direct effect of the intervention on first aid administration. High quality clinical trials are needed

Can shared decision making reduce medical malpractice litigation? : A systematic review

© 2015 Durand et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise statedTo explore the likely influence and impact of shared decision-making on medical malpractice litigation and patients’ intentions to initiate litigation. We included all observational, interventional and qualitative studies published in all languages, which assessed the effect or likely influence of shared decision-making or shared decision-making interventions on medical malpractice litigation or on patients’ intentions to litigate. The following databases were searched from inception until January 2014: CINAHL, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, HMIC, Lexis library, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Open SIGLE, PsycINFO and Web of Knowledge. We also hand searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. Downs & Black quality assessment checklist, the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme qualitative tool, and the Critical Appraisal Guidelines for single case study research were used to assess the quality of included studiePeer reviewedFinal Published versio