Preferred reporting items for studies mapping onto preference-based outcome measures: The MAPS statement

'Mapping' onto generic preference-based outcome measures is increasingly being used as a means of generating health utilities for use within health economic evaluations. Despite publication of technical guides for the conduct of mapping research, guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a new checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting of mapping studies. The primary audiences for the MAPS statement are researchers reporting mapping studies, the funders of the research, and peer reviewers and editors involved in assessing mapping studies for publication. A de novo list of 29 candidate reporting items and accompanying explanations was created by a working group comprised of six health economists and one Delphi methodologist. Following a two-round, modified Delphi survey with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, a final set of 23 items deemed essential for transparent reporting, and accompanying explanations, was developed. The items are contained in a user friendly 23 item checklist. They are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely: (i) title and abstract; (ii) introduction; (iii) methods; (iv) results; (v) discussion; and (vi) other. The MAPS statement is best applied in conjunction with the accompanying MAPS explanation and elaboration document. It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will improve the clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. To facilitate dissemination and uptake, the MAPS statement is being co-published by eight health economics and quality of life journals, and broader endorsement is encouraged. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in five years' time. This statement was published jointly in Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Journal of Medical Economics, Medical Decision Making, PharmacoEconomics, and Quality of Life Research

A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program.MethodsTwenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and then ceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating.ResultsTwenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts.ConclusionIn this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project

Interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research: a scoping review protocol

Introduction There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions. Methods and analysis Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed. Ethics and dissemination A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research

The CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case reporting guideline development

Abstract Background A case report is a narrative that describes, for medical, scientific, or educational purposes, a medical problem experienced by one or more patients. Case reports written without guidance from reporting standards are insufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. Primary Objective. Develop, disseminate, and implement systematic reporting guidelines for case reports. Methods We used a three-phase consensus process consisting of (1) pre-meeting literature review and interviews to generate items for the reporting guidelines, (2) a face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the reporting guidelines, and (3) post-meeting feedback, review, and pilot testing, followed by finalization of the case report guidelines. Results This consensus process involved 27 participants and resulted in a 13-item checklist—a reporting guideline for case reports. The primary items of the checklist are title, key words, abstract, introduction, patient information, clinical findings, timeline, diagnostic assessment, therapeutic interventions, follow-up and outcomes, discussion, patient perspective, and informed consent. Conclusions We believe the implementation of the CARE (CAse REport) guidelines by medical journals will improve the completeness and transparency of published case reports and that the systematic aggregation of information from case reports will inform clinical study design, provide early signals of effectiveness and harms, and improve healthcare delivery.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112624/1/13256_2013_Article_2617.pd

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience

Introducing EMMIE: An evidence rating scale to encourage mixed-method crime prevention synthesis reviews

Objectives This short report describes the need for, and the development of, a coding system to distil the quality and coverage of systematic reviews of the evidence relating to crime prevention interventions. The starting point for the coding system concerns the evidence needs of policymakers and practitioners. Methods The coding scheme (EMMIE) proposed builds on previous scales that have been developed to assess the probity, coverage and utility of evidence both in health and criminal justice. It also draws on the principles of realist synthesis and review. Results The proposed EMMIE scale identifies five dimensions to which systematic reviews intended to inform crime prevention should speak. These are the Effect of intervention, the identification of the causal Mechanism(s) through which interventions are intended to work, the factors that Moderate their impact, the articulation of practical Implementation issues, and the Economic costs of intervention

Mindfulness-based stress reduction in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review

Background: Mindfulness based stress reduction (MBSR) is increasingly being used to improve outcomes such as stress and depression in a range of long-term conditions (LTCs). While systematic reviews on MBSR have taken place for a number of conditions there remains limited information on its impact on individuals with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Methods: Medline, Central, Embase, Amed, CINAHAL were searched in March 2016. These databases were searched using a combination of MeSH subject headings where available and keywords in the title and abstracts. We also searched the reference lists of related reviews. Study quality was assessed based on questions from the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Results: Two interventions and three papers with a total of 66 participants were included. The interventions were undertaken in Belgium (n = 27) and the USA (n = 39). One study reported significantly increased grey matter density (GMD) in the brains of the MBSR group compared to the usual care group. Significant improvements were reported in one study for a number of outcomes including PD outcomes, depression, mindfulness, and quality of life indicators. Only one intervention was of reasonable quality and both interventions failed to control for potential confounders in the analysis. Adverse events and reasons for drop-outs were not reported. There was also no reporting on the costs/benefits of the intervention or how they affected health service utilisation. Conclusion: This systematic review found limited and inconclusive evidence of the effectiveness of MBSR for PD patients. Both of the included interventions claimed positive effects for PD patients but significant outcomes were often contradicted by other results. Further trials with larger sample sizes, control groups and longer follow-ups are needed before the evidence for MBSR in PD can be conclusively judged

The CARE Guidelines: Consensus‐Based Clinical Case Reporting Guideline Development

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/101880/1/head12246.pd

Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by High-Impact Medical Journals in China: A Survey of Instructions for Authors and Published Papers

The CONSORT Statement is a reporting guideline for authors when reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare RCT reports. It has been endorsed by many high-impact medical journals and by international editorial groups. This study was conducted to assess the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high-impact medical journals in China by reviewing their instructions for authors.A total of 200 medical journals were selected according to the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Citation Reports, 195 of which publish clinical research papers. Their instructions for authors were reviewed and all texts mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers were extracted. Any mention of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or ‘clinical trial registration’ was also extracted. For journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, their most recently published RCT reports were retrieved and evaluated to assess whether the journals have followed what the CONSORT Statement required. Out of the 195 medical journals publishing clinical research papers, only six (6/195, 3.08%) mentioned ‘CONSORT’ in their instructions for authors; out of the 200 medical journals surveyed, only 14 (14/200, 7.00%) mentioned ‘ICMJE’ or ‘URM’ in their instructions for authors, and another five journals stated in their instructions for authors that clinical trials should have trial registration numbers and that priority would be given to clinical trials which had been registered. Among the 62 RCT reports published in the six journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, 20 (20/62, 32.26%) contained flow diagrams and only three (3/62, 4.84%) provided trial registration information.Medical journals in China endorsing either the CONSORT Statement or the ICMJE's URM constituted a small percentage of the total; all of these journals used ambiguous language regarding what was expected of authors

Outcomes of total hip arthroplasty, as a salvage procedure, following failed internal fixation of intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The optimal management of intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck in independently mobile patients remains open to debate. Successful fixation obviates the limitations of arthroplasty for this group of patients. However, with fixation failure rates as high as 30%, the outcome of revision surgery to salvage total hip arthroplasty (THA) must be considered. We carried out a systematic review to compare the outcomes of salvage THA and primary THA for intracapsular fractures of the femoral neck. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) compliant systematic review, using the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane libraries databases. A meta-analysis was performed where possible, and a narrative synthesis when a meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Our analyses revealed a significantly increased risk of complications including deep infection, early dislocation and peri-prosthetic fracture with salvage THA when compared with primary THA for an intracapsular fracture of the femoral neck (overall risk ratio of 3.15). Functional outcomes assessment using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D were not significantly different (p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: Salvage THA carries a significantly higher risk of complications than primary THA for intracapsular fractured neck of femur. Current literature is still lacking well designed studies to provide a full answer to the question. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Salvage THA is associated with more complications than primary THA for intracapsular neck of femur fractures