A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types.

BackgroundComplex wounds present a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems, costing billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The prevalence of complex wounds is a significant patient and societal healthcare concern and cost-effective wound care management remains unclear. This article summarizes the cost-effectiveness of interventions for complex wound care through a systematic review of the evidence base.MethodsWe searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) for cost-effectiveness studies that examined adults treated for complex wounds. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed methodological quality using the Drummond 10-item methodological quality tool. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported, or, if not reported, calculated and converted to United States Dollars for the year 2013.ResultsOverall, 59 cost-effectiveness analyses were included; 71% (42 out of 59) of the included studies scored 8 or more points on the Drummond 10-item checklist tool. Based on these, 22 interventions were found to be more effective and less costly (i.e., dominant) compared to the study comparators: 9 for diabetic ulcers, 8 for venous ulcers, 3 for pressure ulcers, 1 for mixed venous and venous/arterial ulcers, and 1 for mixed complex wound types.ConclusionsOur results can be used by decision-makers in maximizing the deployment of clinically effective and resource efficient wound care interventions. Our analysis also highlights specific treatments that are not cost-effective, thereby indicating areas of resource savings. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

Minimal clinical data sets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary care and outpatient settings: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION Lack of standardised clinical data collection may lead to reduced quality in musculoskeletal (MSK)-related clinical care and research. Little is known about the availability and characteristics of minimal clinical data sets for spine-related MSK disorders in primary care and outpatient settings and their utility for improving healthcare quality. Our objective is to undertake a scoping review aiming to identify and map current literature on minimal clinical data sets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews will guide review conduct. The review will consider studies that describe and report on minimal clinical data sets for spine-related MSK disorders designed for primary care and outpatient clinical practice settings. Quantitative and qualitative study designs will be eligible, including consensus-based studies, interventional, observational, feasibility and linguistic validation studies. Studies published in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish will be included, with no limit on date of publication. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and medRxiv preprint repository will be searched from database inception to 25 July 2021. Two reviewers will independently screen identified titles, abstracts and relevant full-text records, and then extract data using review-specific data extraction forms. Findings will be synthesised and presented as a descriptive summary using PRISMA ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics review and approval is not required for this scoping review. Our target audience for this review will be clinicians, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders involved in the measurement and health status monitoring of patients with spine-related MSK disorders. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed publication and presentations at relevant conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/fkw5b

Incorporating dose effects in network meta-analysis

Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis that ignore potential dose effects could limit the applicability and validity of review findings. This article aims to help content experts (eg, clinicians), methodologists, and statisticians better understand how to incorporate dose effects in network meta-analysis. Three models are described that make different clinical and statistical assumptions about how to model dose effects. This article also illustrates the importance of dose effects in understanding the potential risk of harm in people with dementia from cerebrovascular events associated with atypical antipsychotic drug use (quetiapine, olanzapine, and risperidone) and the potential risk of harm in people with nausea and headache associated with cholinesterase inhibitor use (donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine). Finally, important considerations when choosing between different network meta-analysis models incorporating dose effects are discussed

Learning best-practices in journalology: Course description and attendee insights into the inaugural EQUATOR Canada Publication School

Background and purpose Dissemination of research results is a key component of the research continuum and is commonly achieved through publication in peer-reviewed academic journals. However, issues of poor quality reporting in the research literature are well documented. A lack of formal training in journalology (i.e., publication science) may contribute to this problem. To help address this gap in training, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Canada Publication School was developed and facilitated by internationally-renowned faculty to train researchers and clinicians in reporting and publication best practices. This article describes the structure of the inaugural course and provides an overview of attendee evaluations and perspectives. Key highlights Attendees perceived the content of this two-day intensive course as highly informative. They noted that the course helped them learn skills that were relevant to academic publishing (e.g., using reporting guidelines in all phases of the research process; using scholarly metrics beyond the journal impact factor; open-access publication models; and engaging patients in the research process). The course provided an opportunity for researchers to share their challenges faced during the publication process and to learn skills for improving reproducibility, completeness, transparency, and dissemination of research results. There was some suggestion that this type of course should be offered and integrated into formal training and course curricula. Implications In light of the importance of academic publishing in the scientific process, there is a need to train and prepare researchers with skills in Journalology. The EQUATOR Canada Publication School provides an example of a successful program that addressed the needs of researchers across career trajectories and provided them with resources to be successful in the publication process. This approach can be used, modified, and/or adapted by curriculum developers interested in designing similar programs, and could be incorporated into academic and clinical research training programs

A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome : A PROSPERO register study

OBJECTIVES: To examine outcome reporting bias of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcomes from systematic review publications were compared with those reported in the corresponding PROSPERO records; discrepancies in the primary outcomes were assessed as upgrades, additions, omissions or downgrades. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the likelihood of having a change in primary outcome when the meta-analysis result was favourable and statistically significant. RESULTS: 96 systematic reviews were published. A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 8.63) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR 0.76, 0.27-2.17) an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favourable and statistically significant. As well, there was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR 0.89, 0.31-2.53) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR 0.56, 0.29-1.08) an outcome when the conclusion was positive. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend review authors carefully consider primary outcome selection and journals are encouraged to focus acceptance on registered systematic reviews

Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports : A comparative study

BACKGROUND: As production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured. OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs. METHODS: JP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared 'how' (i.e., visual arrangement) and 'what' information was presented. RESULTS: We identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors; use of a traditional journal article structure; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices; use of typographic cues; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: The full protocol is available at: https://osf.io/29xvk/

Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews’ methods: protocol for an eDelphi study

Introduction: Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised.// Objective: To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs.// Methods and analysis: An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies.// Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created