Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed. Methods Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus. Results Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified. Conclusions Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.The overview conducted by Pollock [19] was supported by a project grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. The overview conducted by McClurg [21] was supported by a project grant by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation. The overview by Hunt [22] was supported as part of doctoral programme funding by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC). The overview conducted by Estcourt [20] was supported by an NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant for the Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. The overview conducted by Brunton [23] was commissioned by the Department of Health as part of an ongoing programme of work on health policy research synthesis. Alex Pollock is employed by the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, which is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. Pauline Campbell is supported by the Chief Nurses Office of the Scottish Government

Using the eSexual Health Clinic to access chlamydia treatment and care via the internet: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: We developed the eSexual Health Clinic (eSHC), an innovative, complex clinical and public health intervention, embedded within a specialist sexual health service. Patients with genital chlamydia access their results online and are offered medical management via an automated online clinical consultation, leading to antibiotic collection from community pharmacy. A telephone helpline, staffed by Sexual Health Advisers, is available to support patients and direct them to conventional services if appropriate. We sought to understand how patients used this ehealth intervention. METHODS: Within exploratory studies of the eSHC (2014-2015), we conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of 36 patients diagnosed with chlamydia, who had chosen to use the eSHC (age 18-35, 20 female, 16 male). Thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Participants described choosing to use this ehealth intervention to obtain treatment rapidly, conveniently and privately, within busy lifestyles that hindered clinic access. They described completing the online consultation promptly, discreetly and with ease. The information provided online was considered comprehensive, reassuring and helpful, but some overlooked it in their haste to obtain treatment. Participants generally described being able to collect treatment from pharmacies discreetly and promptly, but for some, poor awareness of the eSHC by pharmacy staff undermined their ability to do this. Those unsuitable for remote management, who were directed to clinic, described frustration and concern about health implications and clinic attendance. However, the helpline was a highly valued source of information, assistance and support. CONCLUSION: The eSHC is a promising adjunct to traditional care. Its users have high expectations for convenience, speed and privacy, which may be compromised when transitioning from online to face-to-face elements of the eSHC. Managing expectations and improving implementation of the pharmacy process, could improve their experiences. Positive views on the helpline provide further support for embedding this ehealth intervention within a specialist clinical service

The eSexual Health Clinic system for management, prevention, and control of sexually transmitted infections: exploratory studies in people testing for Chlamydia trachomatis

Background Self-directed and internet-based care are key elements of eHealth agendas. We developed a complex online clinical and public health intervention, the eSexual Health Clinic (eSHC), in which patients with genital chlamydia are diagnosed and medically managed via an automated online clinical consultation, leading to antibiotic collection from a pharmacy. Partner notification, health promotion, and capture of surveillance data are integral aspects of the eSHC. We aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of the eSHC as an alternative to routine care in non-randomised, exploratory proof-of-concept studies. Methods Participants were untreated patients with chlamydia from genitourinary medicine clinics, untreated patients with chlamydia from six areas in England in the National Chlamydia Screening Programme's (NCSP) online postal testing service, or patients without chlamydia tested in the same six NCSP areas. All participants were aged 16 years or older. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with chlamydia who consented to the online chlamydia pathway who then received appropriate clinical management either exclusively through online treatment or via a combination of online management and face-to-face care. We captured adverse treatment outcomes. Findings Between July 21, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 2340 people used the eSHC. Of 197 eligible patients from genitourinary medicine clinics, 161 accessed results online. Of the 116 who consented to be included in the study, 112 (97%, 95% CI 91–99) received treatment, and 74 of those were treated exclusively online. Of the 146 eligible NCSP patients, 134 accessed their results online, and 105 consented to be included. 93 (89%, 95% CI 81–94) received treatment, and 60 were treated exclusively online. In both groups, median time to collection of treatment was within 1 day of receiving their diagnosis. 1776 (89%) of 1936 NCSP patients without chlamydia accessed results online. No adverse events were recorded. Interpretation The eSHC is safe and feasible for management of patients with chlamydia, with preliminary evidence of similar treatment outcomes to those in traditional services. This innovative model could help to address growing clinical and public health needs. A definitive trial is needed to assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and public health impact of this intervention. Funding UK Clinical Research Collaboration

Application of theory to enhance audit and feedback interventions to increase the uptake of evidence-based transfusion practice: an intervention development protocol

Background: Audits of blood transfusion demonstrate around 20% transfusions are outside national recommendations and guidelines. Audit and feedback is a widely used quality improvement intervention but effects on clinical practice are variable, suggesting potential for enhancement. Behavioural theory, theoretical frameworks of behaviour change and behaviour change techniques provide systematic processes to enhance intervention. This study is part of a larger programme of work to promote the uptake of evidence-based transfusion practice. Objectives: The objectives of this study are to design two theoretically enhanced audit and feedback interventions; one focused on content and one on delivery, and investigate the feasibility and acceptability. Methods: Study A (Content): A coding framework based on current evidence regarding audit and feedback, and behaviour change theory and frameworks will be developed and applied as part of a structured content analysis to specify the key components of existing feedback documents. Prototype feedback documents with enhanced content and also a protocol, describing principles for enhancing feedback content, will be developed. Study B (Delivery): Individual semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals and observations of team meetings in four hospitals will be used to specify, and identify views about, current audit and feedback practice. Interviews will be based on a topic guide developed using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Analysis of transcripts based on these frameworks will form the evidence base for developing a protocol describing an enhanced intervention that focuses on feedback delivery. Study C (Feasibility and Acceptability): Enhanced interventions will be piloted in four hospitals. Semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and observations will be used to assess feasibility and acceptability. Discussion: This intervention development work reflects the UK Medical Research Council’s guidance on development of complex interventions, which emphasises the importance of a robust theoretical basis for intervention design and recommends systematic assessment of feasibility and acceptability prior to taking interventions to evaluation in a full-scale randomised study. The work-up includes specification of current practice so that, in the trials to be conducted later in this programme, there will be a clear distinction between the control (usual practice) conditions and the interventions to be evaluated

Heterogeneous treatment effects of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized for COVID-19

Importance Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of therapeutic-dose heparin in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 produced conflicting results, possibly due to heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) across individuals. Better understanding of HTE could facilitate individualized clinical decision-making. Objective To evaluate HTE of therapeutic-dose heparin for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and to compare approaches to assessing HTE. Design, Setting, and Participants Exploratory analysis of a multiplatform adaptive RCT of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in 3320 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 enrolled in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia between April 2020 and January 2021. Heterogeneity of treatment effect was assessed 3 ways: using (1) conventional subgroup analyses of baseline characteristics, (2) a multivariable outcome prediction model (risk-based approach), and (3) a multivariable causal forest model (effect-based approach). Analyses primarily used bayesian statistics, consistent with the original trial. Exposures Participants were randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures Organ support–free days, assigning a value of −1 to those who died in the hospital and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 for those who survived to hospital discharge; and hospital survival. Results Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between patients randomized to therapeutic-dose heparin or usual care (median age, 60 years; 38% female; 32% known non-White race; 45% Hispanic). In the overall multiplatform RCT population, therapeutic-dose heparin was not associated with an increase in organ support–free days (median value for the posterior distribution of the OR, 1.05; 95% credible interval, 0.91-1.22). In conventional subgroup analyses, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin on organ support–free days differed between patients requiring organ support at baseline or not (median OR, 0.85 vs 1.30; posterior probability of difference in OR, 99.8%), between females and males (median OR, 0.87 vs 1.16; posterior probability of difference in OR, 96.4%), and between patients with lower body mass index (BMI 90% for all comparisons). In risk-based analysis, patients at lowest risk of poor outcome had the highest propensity for benefit from heparin (lowest risk decile: posterior probability of OR >1, 92%) while those at highest risk were most likely to be harmed (highest risk decile: posterior probability of OR <1, 87%). In effect-based analysis, a subset of patients identified at high risk of harm (P = .05 for difference in treatment effect) tended to have high BMI and were more likely to require organ support at baseline. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the effect of therapeutic-dose heparin was heterogeneous. In all 3 approaches to assessing HTE, heparin was more likely to be beneficial in those who were less severely ill at presentation or had lower BMI and more likely to be harmful in sicker patients and those with higher BMI. The findings illustrate the importance of considering HTE in the design and analysis of RCTs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02735707, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, NCT0437258

Why has demand for platelet components increased? A review

Platelet transfusions are used in clinical practice to prevent and treat haemorrhage in thrombocytopenic patients or patients with severe platelet dysfunction. In the UK, and abroad there has been a recent rise in platelet component demand. The three largest patient groups that use platelet components are patients with haematological malignancies (up to 67%), patients receiving cardiac surgery (up to 10%) and patients receiving intensive care (up to 8%). This review has explored some of the factors that may explain this recent trend within these three main groups. These factors include a rise in the general population, an ageing population, an increase in the incidence and prevalence of haematological malignancies, and changes in the management of patients with haematological malignancies. However, the only data available that can be correlated directly with national component data are the size of the total population. There is no evidence to support the premise that use of platelet components in patients receiving cardiac surgery or intensive care treatment is rising over and above the general rise in the population, but the data are sparse

Platelet transfusion thresholds in premature neonates (PlaNeT-2 trial)

CLINICAL QUESTION: Does transfusing platelets to preterm infants (< 34 weeks) at a higher platelet count threshold count (< 50 x 109 /L) reduce the risk of major bleeding or death compared to only transfusing platelets when the platelet count drops below 25 x 109 /L. EVIDENCE FROM TRIAL: Preterm infants with a low platelet count who were transfused platelets at the higher platelet count threshold had a higher risk of dying or having a major bleed than those who were not. The reasons why this occurred are currently unclear

Platelet transfusion thresholds in premature neonates (PlaNeT-2 trial)

Clinical Question: Does transfusing platelets to preterm infants (&lt; 34 weeks) at a higher platelet count threshold count (&lt; 50 x 109 /L) reduce the risk of major bleeding or death compared to only transfusing platelets when the platelet count drops below 25 x 109 /L. Evidence From Trial: Preterm infants with a low platelet count who were transfused platelets at the higher platelet count threshold had a higher risk of dying or having a major bleed than those who were not. The reasons why this occurred are currently unclear.</p