Efficacy of interventions to increase the uptake of chlamydia screening in primary care: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>As most genital chlamydia infections are asymptomatic, screening is the main way to detect and cases for treatment. We undertook a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy of interventions for increasing the uptake of chlamydia screening in primary care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed studies which compared chlamydia screening in the presence and the absence of an intervention. The primary endpoints were screening rate or total tests.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 16 intervention strategies; 11 were randomised controlled trials and five observational studies, 10 targeted females only, five both males and females, and one males only. Of the 15 interventions among females, six were associated with significant increases in screening rates at the 0.05 level including a multifaceted quality improvement program that involved provision of a urine jar to patients at registration (44% in intervention clinics vs. 16% in the control clinic); linking screening to routine Pap smears (6.9% vs. 4.5%), computer alerts for doctors (12.2% vs. 10.6%); education workshops for clinic staff; internet-based continuing medical education (15.5% vs. 12.4%); and free sexual health consultations (16.8% vs. 13.2%). Of the six interventions targeting males, two found significant increases including the multifaceted quality improvement program in which urine jars were provided to patients at registration (45% vs. 15%); and the offering by doctors of a test to all presenting young male clients, prior to consultation (29 vs. 4%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Interventions that promoted the universal offer of a chlamydia test in young people had the greatest impact on increasing screening in primary care.</p

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury and related health conditions: A scoping review

Scoping review. To identify and provide systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury (SCI) and related health conditions. Four health electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2019. We included articles that described, reflected, and/or evaluated one or more collaborative research activities in health research about SCI, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, amputation, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acquired brain injury, or wheelchair-users. Partnership principles (i.e. norms or values) and strategies (i.e. observable actions) were extracted and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis. We included 39 articles about SCI (n = 13), stroke (n = 15), multiple sclerosis (n = 5), amputation (n = 2), cerebral palsy (n = 2), Parkinson’s disease (n = 1), and wheelchair users (n = 1). We extracted 110 principles and synthesized them into 13 overarching principles. Principles related to building and maintaining relationships between researchers and research users were most frequently reported. We identified 32 strategies that could be applied at various phases of the research process and 26 strategies that were specific to a research phase (planning, conduct, or dissemination). We provided systematic overviews of principles and strategies for research partnerships. These could be used by researchers and research users who want to work in partnership to plan, conduct and/or disseminate their SCI research. The findings informed the development of the new SCI Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles (www.iktprinciples.com) and will support the implementation of these Principles within the SCI research system

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor &gt; 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. Results We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965–2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). Conclusions Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation

Global mapping of randomised trials related articles published in high-impact-factor medical journals: a cross-sectional analysis

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide the most reliable information to inform clinical practice and patient care. We aimed to map global clinical research publication activity through RCT-related articles in high-impact-factor medical journals over the past five decades. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in the highest ranked medical journals with an impact factor &gt; 10 (according to Journal Citation Reports published in 2017). We searched PubMed/MEDLINE (from inception to December 31, 2017) for all RCT-related articles (e.g. primary RCTs, secondary analyses and methodology papers) published in high-impact-factor medical journals. For each included article, raw metadata were abstracted from the Web of Science. A process of standardization was conducted to unify the different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription and/or indexing errors. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of articles, citations, most prolific authors, countries, journals, funding sources and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words are presented. Results We included 39,305 articles (for the period 1965–2017) published in forty journals. The Lancet (n = 3593; 9.1%), the Journal of Clinical Oncology (n = 3343; 8.5%) and The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 3275 articles; 8.3%) published the largest number of RCTs. A total of 154 countries were involved in the production of articles. The global productivity ranking was led by the United States (n = 18,393 articles), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 8028 articles), Canada (n = 4548 articles) and Germany (n = 4415 articles). Seventeen authors who had published 100 or more articles were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Duke University (United States), Harvard University (United States) and McMaster University (Canada). The main funding institutions were the National Institutes of Health (United States), Hoffmann-La Roche (Switzerland), Pfizer (United States), Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme (United States) and Novartis (Switzerland). The 100 most cited RCTs were published in nine journals, led by The New England Journal of Medicine (n = 78 articles), The Lancet (n = 9 articles) and JAMA (n = 7 articles). These landmark contributions focused on novel methodological approaches (e.g. the “Bland-Altman method”) and trials on the management of chronic conditions (e.g. diabetes control, hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women, multiple therapies for diverse cancers, cardiovascular therapies such as lipid-lowering statins, antihypertensive medications, and antiplatelet and antithrombotic therapy). Conclusions Our analysis identified authors, countries, funding institutions, landmark contributions and high-impact-factor medical journals publishing RCTs. Over the last 50 years, publication production in leading medical journals has increased, with Western countries leading in research but with low- and middle-income countries showing very limited representation