Radiation Fractionation Schedules Published During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Quality of Evidence and Recommendations for Future Development

Purpose Numerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study. Methods and Materials Based on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios. Results From January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19–adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications. Conclusions A large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world

Integrating Science and Engineering to Implement Evidence-Based Practices in Health Care Settings

Integrating two distinct and complementary paradigms, science and engineering, may produce more effective outcomes for the implementation of evidence-based practices in health care settings. Science formalizes and tests innovations, whereas engineering customizes and optimizes how the innovation is applied tailoring to accommodate local conditions. Together they may accelerate the creation of an evidence-based healthcare system that works effectively in specific health care settings. We give examples of applying engineering methods for better quality, more efficient, and safer implementation of clinical practices, medical devices, and health services systems. A specific example was applying systems engineering design that orchestrated people, process, data, decision-making, and communication through a technology application to implement evidence-based depression care among low-income patients with diabetes. We recommend that leading journals recognize the fundamental role of engineering in implementation research, to improve understanding of design elements that create a better fit between program elements and local context