Systematic reviews as a “lens of evidence”: determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening

This systematic review, stimulated by inconsistency in secondary evidence, reports the benefits and harms of breast cancer (BC) screening and their determinants according to systematic reviews. A systematic search, which identified 9,976 abstracts, led to the inclusion of 58 reviews. BC mortality reduction with screening mammography was 15–25% in trials and 28–56% in observational studies in all age groups, and the risk of stage III+ cancers was reduced for women older than 49 years. Overdiagnosis due to mammography was 1–60% in trials and 1–12% in studies with a low risk of bias, and cumulative false‐positive rates were lower with biennial than annual screening (3–17% vs 0.01–41%). There is no consistency in the reviews’ conclusions about the magnitude of BC mortality reduction among women younger than 50 years or older than 69 years, or determinants of benefits and harms of mammography, including the type of mammography (digital vs screen‐film), the number of views, and the screening interval. Similarly, there was no solid evidence on determinants of benefits and harms or BC mortality reduction with screening by ultrasonography or clinical breast examination (sensitivity ranges, 54–84% and 47–69%, respectively), and strong evidence of unfavourable benefit‐to‐harm ratio with breast self‐examination. The reviews’ conclusions were not dependent on the quality of the reviews or publication date. Systematic reviews on mammography screening, mainly from high‐income countries, systematically disagree on the interpretation of the benefit‐to‐harm ratio. Future reviews are unlikely to clarify the discrepancies unless new original studies are published

A prospective, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial comparing standard wound care with adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) to standard wound care only for the treatment of chronic, non-healing ulcers of the lower limb in patients with diabetes mellitus: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It has been suggested that the use of adjunctive hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves the healing of diabetic foot ulcers, and decreases the risk of lower extremity amputations. A limited number of studies have used a double blind approach to evaluate the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in the treatment of diabetic ulcers. The primary aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy plus standard wound care compared with standard wound care alone in preventing the need for major amputation in patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic ulcers of the lower limb.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>One hundred and eighteen (59 patients per arm) patients with non-healing diabetic ulcers of the lower limb, referred to the Judy Dan Research and Treatment Centre are being recruited if they are at least 18 years of age, have either Type 1 or 2 diabetes with a Wagner grading of foot lesions 2, 3 or 4 on lower limb not healing for at least 4 weeks. Patients receive hyperbaric oxygen therapy every day for 6 weeks during the treatment phase and are provided ongoing wound care and weekly assessments. Patients are required to return to the study centre every week for an additional 6 weeks of follow-up for wound evaluation and management. The primary outcome is freedom from having, or meeting the criteria for, a major amputation (below knee amputation, or metatarsal level) up to 12 weeks after randomization. The decision to amputate is made by a vascular surgeon. Other outcomes include wound healing, effectiveness, safety, healthcare resource utilization, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. The study will run for a total of about 3 years.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this study will provide detailed information on the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy for the treatment of non-healing ulcers of the lower limb. This will be the first double-blind randomized controlled trial for this health technology which evaluates the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in prevention of amputations in diabetic patients.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00621608">NCT00621608</a></p

Is population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm cost-effective?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is responsible for 1–2% of all male deaths over the age of 65 years. Early detection of AAA and elective surgery can reduce the mortality risk associated with AAA. However, many patients will not be diagnosed with AAA and have therefore an increased death risk due to the untreated AAA. It has been suggested that population screening for AAA in elderly males is effective and cost-effective. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses of screening elderly men for AAA.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a systematic search for economic evaluations in NHSEED, EconLit, Medline, Cochrane, Embase, Cinahl and two Scandinavian HTA data bases (DACEHTA and SBU). All identified studies were read in full and each study was systematically assessed according to international guidelines for critical assessment of economic evaluations in health care.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search identified 16 cost-effectiveness studies. Most studies considered only short term cost consequences. The studies seemed to employ a number of "optimistic" assumptions in favour of AAA screening, and included only few sensitivity analyses that assessed less optimistic assumptions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further analyses of cost-effectiveness of AAA screening are recommended.</p

Negative pressure wound therapy for open traumatic wounds

BACKGROUND: Traumatic wounds (wounds caused by injury) range from abrasions and minor skin incisions or tears, to wounds with extensive tissue damage or loss as well as damage to bone and internal organs. Two key types of traumatic wounds considered in this review are those that damage soft tissue only and those that involve a broken bone, that is, open fractures. In some cases these wounds are left open and negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is used as a treatment. This medical device involves the application of a wound dressing through which negative pressure is applied and tissue fluid drawn away from the area. The treatment aims to support wound management, to prepare wounds for further surgery, to reduce the risk of infection and potentially to reduce time to healing (with or without surgical intervention). There are no systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of NPWT for traumatic wounds. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of NPWT for treating open traumatic wounds in people managed in any care setting. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2018 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that used NPWT for open traumatic wounds involving either open fractures or soft tissue wounds. Wound healing, wound infection and adverse events were our primary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, extracted data, carried out a 'Risk of bias' assessment and rated the certainty of the evidence. Data were presented and analysed separately for open fracture wounds and other open traumatic wounds (not involving a broken bone). MAIN RESULTS: Seven RCTs (1377 participants recruited) met the inclusion criteria of this review. Study sample sizes ranged from 40 to 586 participants. One study had three arms, which were all included in the review. Six studies compared NPWT at 125 mmHg with standard care: one of these studies did not report any relevant outcome data. One further study compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and NPWT 125mmHg with NPWT 75 mmHg.Open fracture wounds (four studies all comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care)One study (460 participants) comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care reported the proportions of wounds healed in each arm. At six weeks there was no clear difference between groups in the number of participants with a healed, open fracture wound: risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.27); moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision.We pooled data on wound infection from four studies (596 participants). Follow-up varied between studies but was approximately 30 days. On average, it is uncertain whether NPWT at 125 mmHg reduces the risk of wound infection compared with standard care (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.13; I2 = 56%); very low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Data from one study shows that there is probably no clear difference in health-related quality of life between participants treated with NPWT 125 mmHg and those treated with standard wound care (EQ-5D utility scores mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.06; 364 participants, moderate-certainty evidence; physical component summary score of the short-form 12 instrument MD -0.50, 95% CI -4.08 to 3.08; 329 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded for imprecision).Moderate-certainty evidence from one trial (460 participants) suggests that NPWT is unlikely to be a cost-effective treatment for open fractures in the UK. On average, NPWT was more costly and conferred few additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) when compared with standard care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was GBP 267,910 and NPWT was shown to be unlikely to be cost effective at a range of cost-per-QALYs thresholds. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for imprecision.Other open traumatic wounds (two studies, one comparing NPWT 125 mmHg with standard care and a three-arm study comparing NPWT 125 mmHg, NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care)Pooled data from two studies (509 participants) suggests no clear difference in risk of wound infection between open traumatic wounds treated with NPWT at 125 mmHg or standard care (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.18); low-certainty evidence downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision.One trial with 463 participants compared NPWT at 75 mmHg with standard care and with NPWT at 125 mmHg. Data on wound infection were reported for each comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and standard care (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.10; 463 participants) and uncertain if there is a difference in risk of wound infection between NPWT 75 mmHg and 125 mmHg (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.51; 251 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for risk of bias and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence for no clear difference between NPWT and standard care on the proportion of wounds healed at six weeks for open fracture wounds. There is moderate-certainty evidence that NPWT is not a cost-effective treatment for open fracture wounds. Moderate-certainty evidence means that the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in risk of wound infection, adverse events, time to closure or coverage surgery, pain or health-related quality of life between NPWT and standard care for any type of open traumatic wound

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Surgical wounds healing by secondary intention: characterising and quantifying the problem, identifying effective treatments, and assessing the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of negative pressure wound therapy versus usual care

Background: Most surgical incisions heal by primary intention (i.e. wound edges are apposed with sutures, clips or glue); however some heal by secondary intention (i.e. the wound is left open and heals by formation of granulation tissue). There is, however, a lack of evidence regarding the epidemiology, management, and impact on patients’ quality of life of these surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (SWHSI), resulting in uncertainty regarding effective treatments and difficulty in planning care and research. Objectives: To derive a better understanding of the nature, extent, costs, impact and outcomes of SWHSI, effective treatments and the value and nature of further research. Design: Cross-sectional survey; inception cohort; cost-effectiveness and value of implementation analyses; qualitative interviews; and a pilot, feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Setting: Acute and community care settings in Leeds and Hull, Yorkshire, UK. Participants: Adults with (or for qualitative interviews, patients or practitioners with previous experience of) a SWHSI. Inclusion criteria varied between the individual Workstreams. Interventions: The pilot, feasibility RCT compared negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) – a device applying a controlled vacuum to a wound via a dressing - with Usual Care (no NPWT). Results: Survey data estimated that treated SWHSI have a point prevalence of 4.1 per 10,000 population (95% CI: 3.5 to 4.7). SWHSI most frequently occurred following colorectal surgery (n=80, 42.8% - Cross-sectional survey, n=136, 39.7% - Inception cohort), and were often planned before surgery (n=89, 47.6% - Survey, n=236, 60.1% - Cohort). Wound care was frequently delivered in community settings (n=109, 58.3%) and most patients (n=184, 98.4%) received active wound treatment. Cohort data identified hydrofibre dressings (n=259, 65.9%) as the most common treatment, although 29.3% (n=115) participants used NPWT at some time during the study. SWHSI healing occurred in 81.4% (n=320) of participants at a median of 86 days (95% CI: 75 to 103). Baseline wound area (p=<0.01), surgical wound contamination (determined during surgery) (p=0.04) and wound infection at any time (p=<0.01) (i.e. at baseline or post-operatively) were found to be predictors of prolonged healing. Econometric models, using observational, cohort study data, identified that with little uncertainty, that NPWT treatment is more costly and less effective than standard dressing treatment for the healing of open surgical wounds: Model A (ordinary least squares with imputation): Effectiveness: 73 days longer than those who did not receive NPWT (95% Credible Interval (CrI): 33.8 to 112.8); Cost Effectiveness (Associated incremental quality adjusted life years): -0.012 (SE 0.005) (Observables); -0.008 (SE 0.011) (Unobservables) , Model B (Two Stage Model – Logistic and linear regression): Effectiveness: 46 days longer the those who did not receive NPWT (95% CrI: 19.6 to 72.5); Cost Effectiveness (Associated incremental quality adjusted life years): -0.007 (Observables) and -0.027 (Unobservables) (SE 0.017). Patient interviews (n=20) identified initial reactions to SWHSI of shock and disbelief. Impaired quality of life characterised the long healing process, with particular impact on daily living for patients with families or in paid employment. Patients were willing to try any treatment promising wound healing. Health professionals (n=12) had variable knowledge of SWHSI treatments, and frequently favoured NPWT despite the lack of robust evidence, The pilot, feasibility RCT screened 248 patients for eligibility and subsequently recruited and randomised 40 participants to receive NPWT or Usual Care (no NPWT). Data indicated that it was feasible to complete a full RCT to provide definitive evidence for the effectiveness of NPWT as a treatment for SWHSI. Key elements and recommendations for a larger RCT were identified. Limitations: This research programme was conducted in a single geographical area (Yorkshire and the Humber, UK) and local guidelines and practices may have affected treatment availability and so may not represent UK wide treatment choices. A wide range of wound types were included, however, some wound types may be underrepresented meaning this research may not represent the overall SWHSI population. The lack of RCT data on the relative effects of NPWT in SWHSI resulted in much of the economic modelling being based on observational data. Observational data, even with adjustment, does not negate the potential for unresolved confounding to affect the results. This may reduce confidence in the conclusions drawn and may lead to calls for definitive evidence from an RCT. Conclusions: This research has provided new information regarding the nature, extent, costs, impacts and outcomes of SWHSI, treatment effectiveness and the value and nature of future research; addressing previous uncertainties regarding the problem of SWHSI. Aspects of our research indicate that NPWT is more costly and less effective than standard dressing for the healing of open surgical wounds. However, because this conclusion is based solely on observational data it may be affected by unresolved confounding. Should a future RCT be considered necessary, its design should reflect careful consideration of the findings of this programme of research

A randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of Tai Chi alongside usual care with usual care alone on the postural balance of community-dwelling people with dementia: Protocol for The TACIT Trial (TAi ChI for people with dementia).

Background: Falls are a public health issue for the older adult population and more so for people with dementia (PWD). Compared with their cognitively intact peers, PWD are at higher risk of falls and injurious falls. This randomised controlled trial aims to test the clinical and cost effectiveness of Tai Chi to improve postural balance among community-dwelling PWD and to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive trial to reduce the incidence of falls among PWD. Methods: A 3-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation. One hundred and fifty community-dwelling dyads of a person with dementia and their informal carer will be recruited and assessed at baseline and at six-month follow-up. Dyads will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either usual care or usual care plus a Tai Chi intervention for 20 weeks. The Tai Chi intervention will consist of weekly classes (45 minutes’ Tai Chi plus up to 45 minutes for informal discussion, with up to 10 dyads per class) and home-based exercises (20 minutes per day to be facilitated by the carer). Home practice of Tai Chi will be supported by the use of behaviour change techniques with the Tai Chi instructor at a home visit in week 3-4 of the intervention (action planning, coping planning, self-monitoring, and alarm clock reminder) and at the end of each class (feedback on home practice). The primary outcome is dynamic balance measured using the Timed Up and Go test, coinciding with the end of the 20-week intervention phase for participants in the Tai Chi arm. Secondary outcomes for PWD include functional balance, static balance, fear of falling, global cognitive functioning, visual-spatial cognitive functioning, quality of life, and falls. Secondary outcomes for carers include dynamic balance, static balance, quality of life, costs, and carer burden. Discussion: This trial is the first in the UK to test the effectiveness of Tai Chi to improve balance among PWD. The trial will inform a future study that will be the first in the world to use Tai Chi in a trial to prevent falls among PWD. Trial registration: NCT02864056