Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews:a scoping review

Abstract Background There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. Methods We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010–2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. Results We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ≤ 4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. Discussion/conclusion We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. Systematic review registration The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4

understanding the mechanisms of glutamine action in critically ill patients

Glutamine (Gln) is an important energy source and has been used as a supplementary energy substrate. Furthermore, Gln is an essential component for numerous metabolic functions, including acid-base homeostasis, gluconeogenesis, nitrogen transport and synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids. Therefore, glutamine plays a significant role in cell homeostasis and organ metabolism. This article aims to review the mechanisms of glutamine action during severe illnesses. In critically ill patients, the increase in mortality was associated with a decreased plasma Gln concentration. During catabolic stress, Gln consumption rate exceeds the supply, and both plasma and skeletal muscle pools of free Gln are severely reduced. The dose and route of Gln administration clearly influence its effectiveness: high-dose parenteral appears to be more beneficial than low-dose enteral administration. Experimental studies reported that Gln may protect cells, tissues, and whole organisms from stress and injury through the following mechanisms: attenuation of NF (nuclear factor)-kB activation, a balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, reduction in neutrophil accumulation, improvement in intestinal integrity and immune cell function, and enhanced of heat shock protein expression. In conclusion, high-doses of parenteral Gln (>0.50 g/kg/day) demonstrate a greater potential to benefit in critically ill patients, although Gln pathophysiological mechanisms requires elucidation

EURECCA consensus conference highlights about colon & rectal cancer multidisciplinary management: The radiology experts review

Some interesting shifts have taken place in the diagnostic approach for detection of colorectal lesions over the past decade. This article accompanies the recent EURECCA consensus group reccomendations for optimal management of colon and rectal cancers. In summary, imaging has a crucial role to play in the diagnosis, staging assessment and follow up of patients with colon and rectal cancer. Recent advances include the use of CT colonography instead of Barium Enema in the diagnosis of colonoic cancer and as an alternative to colonoscopy. Modern mutlidetector CT scanning techniques have also shown improvements in prognostic stratification of patients with colonic cancer and clinical trials are underway testing the selective use of neoadjuvant therapy for imaging identified high risk colon cancers. In rectal cancer, high resolution MRI with a voxel size less or equal to 3 7 1 7 1 mm3 on T2-weighted images has a proven ability to accurately stage patients with rectal cancer. Moreover, preoperative identification of prognostic features allows stratification of patients into different prognostic groups based on assessment of depth of extramural spread, relationship of the tumour edge to the mesorectal fascia (MRF) and extramural venous invasion (EMVI). These poor prognostic features predict an increased risk of local recurrence and/or metastatic disease and should form the basis for preoperative local staging and multidisciplinary preoperative discussion of patient treatment options. Copyright \ua9 2013. Published by Elsevier Ltd. KEYWORDS: Colon cancer, Consensus, Guidelines, Rectal cance

Quality assurance in the treatment of colorectal cancer: the EURECCA initiative

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in Europe. Over the past few decades, important advances have been made in screening, staging and treatment of colorectal cancer. However, considerable variation between and within European countries remains, which implies that further improvements are possible. The most important remaining question now is: when are we, health care professionals, delivering the best available care to patients with colon or rectal cancer? Currently, quality assurance is a major issue in colorectal cancer care and quality assurance awareness is developing in almost all disciplines involved in the treatment of colorectal cancer patients. Quality assurance has shown to be effective in clinical trials. For example, standardisation and quality control were introduced in the Dutch TME trial and led to marked improvements of local control and survival in rectal cancer patients. Besides, audit structures can also be very effective in monitoring cancer management and national audits showed to further improve outcome in colorectal cancer patients. To reduce the differences between European countries, an international, multidisciplinary, outcome-based quality improvement programme, European Registration of Cancer Care (EURECCA), has been initiated. In the near future, the EURECCA dataset will perform research on subgroups as elderly patients or patients with comorbidities, which are often excluded from trials. For optimal colorectal cancer care, quality assurance in guideline formation and in multidisciplinary team management is also of great importance. The aim of this review was to create greater awareness and to give an overview of quality assurance in the management of colorectal cancer

Involving patients in a multidisciplinary European consensus process and in the development of a 'patient summary of the consensus document for colon and rectal cancer care'

High-quality cancer care should be accessible for patients and healthcare professionals. Involvement of patients as partners in guideline formation and consensus processes is still rarely found. EURECCA, short for European Registration of Cancer Care, is the platform to improve outcomes of cancer care by reducing variation in the diagnostic and treatment process. EURECCA acknowledges the important role of patients in implementation of consensus information in clinical practice