The acute and long-term management of anaphylaxis: protocol for a systematic review

Background:The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform clinical recommendations.The aims of this systematic review will be to assess the effectiveness of interventions for the acute management of anaphylaxis, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches for the long-term management of anaphylaxis. Methods:A highly sensitive search strategy has been developed, and validated study design filters will be applied to retrieve all articles pertaining to the management of anaphylaxis from electronic bibliographic databases. We will systematically review the literature on the acute management of anaphylaxis by assessing the effectiveness of epinephrine, H1-antihistamines (versus placebo), systemic glucocorticosteroids, methylxanthines or any other treatments for the emergency management of people experiencing anaphylaxis. The main interventions that have been studied in the context of long-term management are anaphylaxis management plans and allergen-specific immunotherapy. Discussion:There is at present little in the way of robust evidence to guide decisions on the acute and/or long-term management of anaphylaxis. Given the risk of death and the considerable morbidity associated with anaphylaxis these evidence gaps need to be filled wherever possible; this systematic review will make a start in this area

Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17)

PURPOSE: The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) measures the skills of musculoskeletal patients in managing their own healthcare. The objectives of this study were to translate the EC-17 into Dutch and to further evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: The EC-17 was translated and cognitively pretested following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines. Two hundred and thirty-eight outpatients (52 % response rate) with osteoarthritis or fibromyalgia completed the EC-17 along with other validated measures. Three weeks later, 101 patients completed the EC-17 again. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported the unidimensional structure of the scale. The items adequately fit the Rasch model and only one item demonstrated differential item functioning. Person reliability was high (0.92), but item difficulty levels tended to cluster around the middle of the scale, and measurement precision was highest for moderate and lower levels of skills. The scale demonstrated adequate test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.71), and correlations with other measures were largely as expected. CONCLUSION: The results supported the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the EC-17, but suggest that the scale is best targeted at patients with relatively low levels of skills. Future studies should further examine its sensitivity to change in a clinical trial specifically aimed at improving effective consumer skills

Preventing food allergy: protocol for a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is developing guidelines about how to prevent and manage food allergy. As part of the guidelines development process, a systematic review is planned to examine published research about the prevention of food allergy. This systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management, and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform clinical recommendations. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the effectiveness of approaches for the primary prevention of food allergy. METHODS: Seven bibliographic databases will be searched from their inception to September 30, 2012 for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series and cohort studies. Cohort studies will be included due to an inability to randomize with interventions such as breastfeeding. Studies that focused on the development of either food sensitization (a proxy measure) or food allergy will also be eligible for inclusion. Studies will be critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program and Cochrane Risk of Bias tools, as appropriate. DISCUSSION: There is a lack of rigorous evidence to support recommendations about how to prevent the development of food allergy. It would appear that it is important to see the prevention of food allergy in the context of individual, family and wider factors that may influence its development. There is much left to learn about preventing food allergy, and this is a priority given the high societal and healthcare costs involved. This systematic review will help to further this learning

The epidemiology of food allergy in Europe: protocol for a systematic review

BackgroundThe European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this protocol of a systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform the formulation of clinical recommendations.The aims of the systematic review will be to understand and describe the epidemiology of food allergy, i.e. frequency, risk factors and outcomes of patients suffering from food allergy, and to describe how these characteristics vary by person, place and time.MethodsA highly sensitive search strategy has been developed to retrieve articles that have investigated the various aspects of the epidemiology of food allergy. The search will be implemented by combining the concepts of food allergy and its epidemiology from electronic bibliographic databases.DiscussionThis systematic review will provide the most up to date estimates of the frequency of food allergy in Europe. We will attempt to break these down by age and geographical region in Europe. Our analysis will take into account the suitability of the study design and the respective study biases that could affect exposure and outcome. We will examine the different methods to diagnose food allergy and the associated measures of occurrence

A summary to communicate evidence from systematic reviews to the public improved understanding and accessibility of information: a randomized controlled trial.

AbstractObjectivesTo evaluate a new format of a summary, which presents research from synthesized evidence to patients and the public.Study Design and SettingWe conducted a randomized controlled trial in 143 members of the public from five countries (Canada, Norway, Spain, Argentina, and Italy). Participants received either a new summary format (a plain language summary [PLS]) or the current format used in Cochrane systematic reviews. The new PLS presents information about the condition and intervention, a narrative summary of results, and a table of results with absolute numbers for effects of the intervention and quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.ResultsWith the new PLS, more participants understood the benefits and harms and quality of evidence (53% vs. 18%, P < 0.001); more answered each of the five questions correctly (P ≤ 0.001 for four questions); and they answered more questions correctly, median 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1–4) vs. 1 (IQR: 0–1), P < 0.001). Better understanding was independent of education level. More participants found information in the new PLS reliable, easy to find, easy to understand, and presented in a way that helped make decisions. Overall, participants preferred the new PLS.ConclusionThis new PLS format for patients and the public is a promising tool to translate evidence from synthesized research

Disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments for food allergy: protocol for a systematic review

BACKGROUND: The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management, and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform clinical recommendations. The aim of this systematic review will be to determine which validated instruments can be employed to enable assessment of the impact of, and investigations and interventions for, food allergy on health-related quality of life.METHODS: Seven bibliographic databases were searched from their inception to September 30, 2012 for disease-specific HRQL questionnaires that were specifically designed for use with patients/carers and any articles relating to the description, development and/or the validation of the above identified HRQLs. There were no language or geographic restrictions. We will assess the development of the instruments identified and their performance properties including: validity; generalizability; responsiveness; managing missing data; how variation in patient demography was managed; and cross-cultural and linguistic adaptation, using a previously reported quality assessment tool.DISCUSSION: Using appropriately developed and validated instruments is critical to the accurate evaluation of HRQL in people with food allergy. This review will systematically appraise the evidence on the subject and help to identify any gaps

The epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Europe: protocol for a systematic review

Background The European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology is in the process of developing its Guideline for Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis, and this systematic review is one of seven inter-linked evidence syntheses that are being undertaken in order to provide a state-of-the-art synopsis of the current evidence base in relation to epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis and clinical management and impact on quality of life, which will be used to inform clinical recommendations. The aims of this systematic review will be to understand and describe the epidemiology of anaphylaxis, i.e. frequency, risk factors and outcomes of anaphylaxis, and describe how these characteristics vary by person, place and time. Methods A highly sensitive search strategy has been designed to retrieve all articles combining the concepts of anaphylaxis and epidemiology from electronic bibliographic databases. Discussion This review will aim to provide some estimates of the incidence and prevalence of anaphylaxis in Europe. The occurrence of anaphylaxis can have a profound effect on the quality of life of the sufferer and their family. Estimates of disease frequency will help us to ascertain the burden of anaphylaxis and provide useful comparators for management strategies.BioMed Central open acces

Personal non-commercial use only

ABSTRACT. Objective. To develop an innovative stepped patient decision aid (StDA) comparing the benefits and harms of 13 nonsurgical treatment options for managing osteoarthritis (OA) and to evaluate its acceptability and effects on informed decision making. Methods. Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, the process involved (1) developing a decision aid with evidence on 13 nonsurgical treatments from the 2012 American College of Rheumatology OA clinical practice guidelines; and (2) interviewing patients with OA and healthcare providers to test its acceptability and effects on knowledge and decisional conflict. Results. The StDA helped make the decision explicit, and presented evidence on 13 OA treatments clustered into 5 steps or levels according to their benefits and harms. Probabilities of benefits and harms were presented using pictograms of 100 faces formatted to allow comparisons across sets of options. It also included a values clarification exercise and knowledge test. Feedback was obtained from 49 patients and 7 healthcare providers. They found that the StDA presented evidence in a clear manner, and helped patients clarify their values and make an informed decision. Some participants found that there was too much information and others said that there was not enough on each treatment option. Conclusion. This innovative StDA allows patients to consider both the evidence and their values for multiple options. The findings are being used to revise and plan future evaluation. The StDA is an example of how research evidence in guidelines can be implemented in practice