Certainty ranges facilitated explicit and transparent judgments regarding evidence credibility

Objectives: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rating certainty of evidence includes five domains of reasons for rating down certainty. Only one of these, precision, is easily amenable through the confidence interval to quantitation. The other four (risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias) are not. Nevertheless, conceptually, one could consider a quantified "certainty range" within which the true effect lies. The certainty range would be at least as wide as the confidence interval and would expand with each additional reason for uncertainty. Study Design and Setting: We have applied this concept to rating the certainty of evidence in the baseline risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding in patients undergoing urological surgery. We considered rating up moderate or low quality evidence when the net benefit of VTE prophylaxis was unequivocally positive, that is, when the smallest plausible value of VTE reduction was greater than the largest plausible value of increased bleeding. To establish whether the net benefit was unequivocally positive, we expanded the range of plausible values by 20% for each of the four nonquantitative domains in which there were serious limitations. Results: We present how we applied these methods to examples of open radical cystectomy and laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. In high-VTE risk laparoscopic partial nephrectomy patients and high-and medium-VTE risk open radical cystectomy patients, results proved robust to expanded certainty intervals, justifying rating up quality of evidence. In low -risk patients, the results were not robust, and rating up was therefore not appropriate. Conclusion: This work represents the first empirical application in a decision -making context of the previously suggested concept of certainty ranges and should stimulate further exploration of the associated theoretical and practical issues. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Systematic reviews of observational studies of risk of thrombosis and bleeding in urological surgery (ROTBUS) : introduction and methodology

Abstract Background Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in the peri-operative period involves a trade-off between reduction in venous thromboembolism (VTE) and an increase in bleeding. Baseline risks, in the absence of prophylaxis, for VTE and bleeding are known to vary widely between urological procedures, but their magnitude is highly uncertain. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing baseline risks are uncommon, needed, and require methodological innovation. In this article, we describe the rationale and methods for a series of systematic reviews of the risks of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation in urological surgery. Methods/design We searched MEDLINE from January 1, 2000 until April 10, 2014 for observational studies reporting on symptomatic VTE or bleeding after urological procedures. Additional studies known to experts and studies cited in relevant review articles were added. Teams of two reviewers, independently assessed articles for eligibility, evaluated risk of bias, and abstracted data. We derived best estimates of risk from the median estimates among studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary endpoints were 30-day post-operative risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and bleeding requiring reoperation, stratified by procedure and patient risk factors. Discussion This series of systematic reviews will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding. Our work advances standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at best estimates of risk (including modeling of timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates of risk. The results will be incorporated in the upcoming European Association Urology Guideline on Thromboprophylaxis. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014010342

Decision Aids for Prostate Cancer Screening Choice: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Key PointsQuestionWhat is the association of decision aids vs usual care with shared decision-making in men deciding whether to undergo prostate cancer screening? FindingsThis systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 randomized clinical trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening (12781 men) found that decision aids are probably associated with a small reduction in decisional conflict and are possibly associated with an increase in knowledge. Decision aids are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening and are possibly not associated with actual screening decisions. MeaningRandomized clinical trials have failed to provide compelling evidence for the use of decision aids for men contemplating prostate cancer screening that have, up to now, undergone rigorous testing to determine their outcome. ImportanceUS guidelines recommend that physicians engage in shared decision-making with men considering prostate cancer screening. ObjectiveTo estimate the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening. Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from inception through June 19, 2018. Study SelectionRandomized trials comparing decision aids for prostate cancer screening with usual care. Data Extraction and SynthesisIndependent duplicate assessment of eligibility and risk of bias, rating of quality of the decision aids, random-effects meta-analysis, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations rating of the quality of evidence. Main Outcomes and MeasuresKnowledge, decisional conflict, screening discussion, and screening choice. ResultsOf 19 eligible trials (12781 men), 9 adequately concealed allocation and 8 blinded outcome assessment. Of 12 decision aids with available information, only 4 reported the likelihood of a true-negative test result, and 3 presented the likelihood of false-negative test results or the next step if the screening test result was negative. Decision aids are possibly associated with improvement in knowledge (risk ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.73; I-2=67%; risk difference, 12.1; low quality), are probably associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict (mean difference on a 100-point scale, -4.19; 95% CI, -7.06 to -1.33; I-2=75%; moderate quality), and are possibly not associated with whether physicians and patients discuss prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.90-1.39; I-2=60%; low quality) or with men's decision to undergo prostate cancer screening (risk ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.88-1.03; I-2=36%; low quality). Conclusions and RelevanceThe results of this study provide moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared with usual care are associated with a small decrease in decisional conflict and low-quality evidence that they are associated with an increase in knowledge but not with whether physicians and patients discussed prostate cancer screening or with screening choice. Results suggest that further progress in facilitating effective shared decision-making may require decision aids that not only provide education to patients but are specifically targeted to promote shared decision-making in the patient-physician encounter. This systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 randomized clinical trials estimates the association of decision aids with decisional outcomes in prostate cancer screening.Peer reviewe

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS) : introduction and methodology

Funding Information: The Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS) project was conducted by the Clinical Urology and Epidemiology (CLUE) Working Group and supported by the Academy of Finland (309387, 340957), Sigrid Jusélius Foundation and Competitive Research Funding of the Helsinki University Hospital (TYH2019321; TYH2020248). The sponsors had no role in the analysis and interpretation of the data or the manuscript preparation, review, or approval. Funding Information: KMA received a research grant from Astra Zeneca, and is consultant for Gedeon Richter, and received reimbursement for attending a scientific meeting from GSK (Tesaro Bio). RMT received reimbursement for attending a scientific meeting from Olympus. LIL, GHG, YL, RC, ALL, VJS, IEJK, PJK, RJC, RLA, KA, KMA, IB-L, MHB, JLC, SC, PJG, HAG-P, FZG, HAG, LH, MLI-K, KMJ, PKK, NK, TPK, AJK, TK, HL, AKM, BTN, TPN, CN, SMO, SP, NP, CBBR, ARR, TS, RMT, RWMV, YW, YX, LY, JH, and KAOT have no financial conflicts of interest. GHG and RC were panel members of the European Association of Urology (EAU) ad hoc Guideline on Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery. KAOT was chair of the European Association of Urology (EAU) ad hoc Guideline on Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery and panel member of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) Guideline Panel on Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) in Surgical Hospitalized Patients. Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries. Methods We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. Discussion This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42021234119Peer reviewe

Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS): introduction and methodology

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding are serious and potentially fatal complications of surgical procedures. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis decreases the risk of VTE but increases the risk of major post-operative bleeding. The decision to use pharmacologic prophylaxis therefore represents a trade-off that critically depends on the incidence of VTE and bleeding in the absence of prophylaxis. These baseline risks vary widely between procedures, but their magnitude is uncertain. Systematic reviews addressing baseline risks are scarce, needed, and require innovations in methodology. Indeed, systematic summaries of these baseline risk estimates exist neither in general nor gynecologic surgery. We will fill this knowledge gap by performing a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the procedure-specific and patient risk factor stratified risk estimates in general and gynecologic surgeries.Methods: We will perform comprehensive literature searches for observational studies in general and gynecologic surgery reporting symptomatic VTE or bleeding estimates. Pairs of methodologically trained reviewers will independently assess the studies for eligibility, evaluate the risk of bias by using an instrument developed for this review, and extract data. We will perform meta-analyses and modeling studies to adjust the reported risk estimates for the use of thromboprophylaxis and length of follow up. We will derive the estimates of risk from the median estimates of studies rated at the lowest risk of bias. The primary outcomes are the risk estimates of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding at 4 weeks post-operatively for each procedure stratified by patient risk factors. We will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty.Discussion: This series of systematic reviews, modeling studies, and meta-analyses will inform clinicians and patients regarding the trade-off between VTE prevention and bleeding in general and gynecologic surgeries. Our work advances the standards in systematic reviews of surgical complications, including assessment of risk of bias, criteria for arriving at the best estimates of risk (including modeling of the timing of events and dealing with suboptimal data reporting), dealing with subgroups at higher and lower risk of bias, and use of the GRADE approach.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021234119</p

An International Survey on the Use of Thromboprophylaxis in Urological Surgery

Background: The use of perioperative thromboprophylaxis in urological surgery is common but not standardized. Objective: To characterize international practice variation in thromboprophylaxis use in urological surgery. Design, setting, and participants: We conducted a scenario-based survey addressing the use of mechanical and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in urological cancer procedures (radical cystectomy [RC], radical prostatectomy [RP], and radical nephrectomy [RN]) among practicing urologists in Canada, Finland, and Japan. The survey presented patient profiles reflecting a spectrum of risk for venous thromboembolism; the respondents described their clinical practice. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The proportion of respondents who routinely used (1) mechanical, (2) pharmacological, and (3) extended pharmacological prophylaxis was stratified by procedure. A logistic regression identified characteristics associated with thromboprophylaxis use. Results and limitations: Of 1051 urologists contacted, 570 (54%) participated in the survey. Japanese urologists were less likely to prescribe pharmacological prophylaxis than Canadian or Finnish urologists (p < 0.001 for all procedures). Canadian and Finnish urologists exhibited large variation for extended pharmacological prophylaxis for RP and RN. Finnish urologists were most likely to prescribe extended prophylaxis versus Canadian and Japanese urologists (RC 98%, 84%, and 26%; Open RP 25%, 8%, and 3%; robotic RP 11%, 9%, and 0%; and RN 43%, 7%, and 1%, respectively; p < 0.001 for each procedure). Less variation was found regarding the prescription of mechanical prophylaxis, which was most commonly used until ambulation or discharge. The length of hospital stay was longer in Japan and may bias estimates of extended prophylaxis in Japan.Peer reviewe

Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation

Abstract Background The use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Results A total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties. Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk

Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation

Abstract Background The use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Results A total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties. Conclusions The findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk

Predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary tuberculosis : a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Introduction: Tuberculosis (TB) continues to be a major public health issue worldwide, with 1.4 million deaths occurring annually. There is uncertainty regarding which factors are associated with in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB. This knowledge gap complicates efforts to identify and improve the management of those individuals with TB at greatest risk of death. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to establish predictors of in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB to enhance the evidence base for public policy. Methods and analysis: Studies will be identified by a MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health search. Eligible studies will be cohort and case–control studies that report predictors or risk factors for in-hospital mortality among patients with pulmonary TB and an adjusted analysis to explore factors associated with inhospital mortality. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to summarise the findings of some reported predictors. Teams of 2 reviewers will screen the titles and abstracts of all citations identified in our search, independently and in duplicate, extract data, and assess scientific quality using standardised forms quality assessment and tools tailored. We will pool all factors that were assessed for an association with mortality that were reported by >1 study, and presented the OR and the associated 95% CI. When studies provided the measure of association as a relative risk (RR), we will convert the RR to OR using the formula provided by Wang. For binary data, we will calculate a pooled OR, with an associated 95% CI. Ethics and dissemination: This study is based on published data, and therefore ethical approval is not a requirement. Findings will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations at relevant conferences