Time to Update and Quantitative Changes in the Results of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Reviews

BACKGROUND: The recommended interval between updates for systematic reviews included in The Cochrane Library is 2 years. However, it is unclear whether this interval is always appropriate. Whereas excessive updating wastes time and resources, insufficient updating allows out-of-date or incomplete evidence to guide clinical decision-making. We set out to determine, for Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews, the frequency of updates, factors associated with updating, and whether updating frequency was appropriate. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews published in Issue 3, 2007 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were retrieved, and data were collected from their original and updated versions. Quantitative changes were determined for one of the primary outcomes (mortality, or the outcome of greatest clinical significance). Potential factors associated with time to update were assessed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Among the 101 reviews in our final sample, the median time before the first update was 3.3 years (95% CI 2.7-3.8). Only 32.7% had been updated within the recommended interval of 2 years. In 75.3% (76/101), a median of 3 new trials with a median of 576 additional participants were included in the updated versions. There were quantitative changes in 71% of the reviews that included new trials (54/76): the median change in effect size was 18.2%, and the median change in 95% CI width was 30.8%. Statistical significance changed in 18.5% (10/54) of these reviews, but conclusions were revised in only 3.7% (2/54). A shorter time to update was associated with the same original review team at updating. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most reviews were updated less frequently than recommended by Cochrane policy, but few updates had revised conclusions. Prescribed time to update should be reconsidered to support improved decision-making while making efficient use of limited resources

Using psychological theory to understand the clinical management of type 2 diabetes in Primary Care : a comparison across two European countries

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A descriptive analysis of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered an important tool for decision-making. There has been no recent comprehensive identification or description of child-relevant SRs. A description of existing child-relevant SRs would help to identify the extent of available child-relevant evidence available in SRs and gaps in the evidence base where SRs are required. The objective of this study was to describe child-relevant SRs from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 2, 2009).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>SRs were assessed for relevance using pre-defined criteria. Data were extracted and entered into an electronic form. Univariate analyses were performed to describe the SRs overall and by topic area.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search yielded 1666 SRs; 793 met the inclusion criteria. 38% of SRs were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2007. Corresponding authors were most often from the UK (41%). Most SRs (59%) examined pharmacological interventions. 53% had at least one external source of funding. SRs included a median of 7 studies (IQR 3, 15) and 679 participants (IQR 179, 2833). Of all studies, 48% included only children, and 27% only adults. 94% of studies were published in peer-reviewed journals. Primary outcomes were specified in 72% of SRs. Allocation concealment and the Jadad scale were used in 97% and 25% of SRs, respectively. Adults and children were analyzed separately in 12% of SRs and as a subgroup analysis in 14%. Publication bias was assessed in only 14% of SRs. A meta-analysis was conducted in 68% of SRs with a median of 5 trials (IQR 3, 9) each. Variations in these characteristics were observed across topic areas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We described the methodological characteristics and rigour of child-relevant reviews in the CDSR. Many SRs are not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria. Our study describes variation in conduct and reporting across SRs and reveals clinicians' ability to access child-specific data.</p

Autopsy as an outcome and performance measure: three years of hospital autopsy as an instrument of clinical audit

An extensive literature documents a high prevalence of errors in clinical diagnosis discovered at autopsy. Multiple studies have suggested no significant decrease in these errors over time. Despite these findings, autopsies have dramatically decreased in frequency in the United States and many other countries. In 1994, the last year for which national U.S. data exist, the autopsy rate for all non-forensic deaths fell below 6%. The marked decline in autopsy rates from previous rates of 40\u201350% undoubtedly reflects various factors, including reimbursement issues, the attitudes of clinicians regarding the utility of autopsies in the setting of other diagnostic advances, and general unfamiliarity with the autopsy and techniques for requesting it, especially among physicians-in-training. The autopsy is valuable for its role in undergraduate and graduate medical education, the identification and characterization of new diseases, and contributions to the understanding of disease pathogenesis. Although extensive, these benefits are difficult to quantify. This review of the last three years of hospital autopsy in Lucca studied the more easily quantifiable benefits of the autopsy as a tool in performance measurement and improvement. Such benefits largely relate to the role of the autopsy in detecting errors in clinical diagnosis and unsuspected complications of treatment. It is hoped that characterizing the extent to which the autopsy provides data relevant to clinical performance measurement and improvement will help inform strategies for preserving the benefits of routinely obtained autopsies and for considering its wider use as an instrument for quality improvement

Step towards monitoring intelligent agents in healthcare information systems

A platform for establishing interoperability between heterogeneous information systems implemented in a hospital environment is more a requirement than an option. The Agency for the Integration, Diffusion and Archiving of Medical and Clinical Information (AIDA) is an interoperability platform designed specifically to address the problem of integrating information from multiple systems and addressing interoperability, confidentiality, integrity and data availability. This article focuses on the relevance and need for such vigilance, finding and designing effective new ways to establish them. This study culminated in the creation of AIDAMonit, a surveillance platform developed and tested by ALGORITMI Center researchers, which has shown promise and is extremely beneficial for the well-functioning of the health facilities currently using the AIDA platform.This work has been supported by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia within the Project Scope: UID/CEC/00319/2019 and DSAIPA/DS/0084/2018

Who Is at Risk for Diagnostic Discrepancies? Comparison of Pre- and Postmortal Diagnoses in 1800 Patients of 3 Medical Decades in East and West Berlin

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Autopsy rates in Western countries consistently decline to an average of <5%, although clinical autopsies represent a reasonable tool for quality control in hospitals, medically and economically. Comparing pre- and postmortal diagnoses, diagnostic discrepancies as uncovered by clinical autopsies supply crucial information on how to improve clinical treatment. The study aimed at analyzing current diagnostic discrepancy rates, investigating their influencing factors and identifying risk profiles of patients that could be affected by a diagnostic discrepancy.</p> <h3>Methods and Findings</h3><p>Of all adult autopsy cases of the Charité Institute of Pathology from the years 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003 and 2008, the pre- and postmortal diagnoses and all demographic data were analyzed retrospectively. Based on power analysis, 1,800 cases were randomly selected to perform discrepancy classification (class I-VI) according to modified Goldman criteria. The rate of discrepancies in major diagnoses (class I) was 10.7% (95% CI: 7.7%–14.7%) in 2008 representing a reduction by 15.1%. Subgroup analysis revealed several influencing factors to significantly correlate with the discrepancy rate. Cardiovascular diseases had the highest frequency among class-I-discrepancies. Comparing the 1988-data of East- and West-Berlin, no significant differences were found in diagnostic discrepancies despite an autopsy rate differing by nearly 50%. A risk profile analysis visualized by intuitive heatmaps revealed a significantly high discrepancy rate in patients treated in low or intermediate care units at community hospitals. In this collective, patients with genitourinary/renal or infectious diseases were at particularly high risk.</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This is the current largest and most comprehensive study on diagnostic discrepancies worldwide. Our well-powered analysis revealed a significant rate of class-I-discrepancies indicating that autopsies are still of value. The identified risk profiles may aid both pathologists and clinicians to identify patients at increased risk for a discrepant diagnosis and possibly suboptimal treatment intra vitam.</p> </div