Identifying the PECO:A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes

[First paragraph] A clearly-framed question creates the structure and delineates the approach to defining research objectives, conducting systematic reviews and developing health guidance (Guyatt et al., 2011; Armstrong et al., 2007). To assess the association between exposures and outcomes, including in the field of nutrition, environmental and occupational health, the concept of defining the Population (including animal species), Exposure, Comparator, and Outcomes (PECO) as pillars of the question is increasingly accepted (Morgan et al., 2016; Morgan et al., n.d.). Thus, the PECO defines the objectives of the review or guideline. Furthermore, the PECO informs the study design or inclusion and exclusion criteria for a review, as well as facilitating the interpretation of the directness of the findings based on how well the actual research findings represent the original question

Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified?

BACKGROUND: Combining outcomes and the use of standardized effect measures such as effect size and standardized response mean across instruments allows more comprehensive meta-analyses and should avoid selection bias. However, such analysis ideally requires that the instruments correlate strongly and that the underlying assumption of similar responsiveness is fulfilled. The aim of the study was to assess the correlation between two widely used health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and to compare the instruments' responsiveness on a study level. METHODS: We systematically identified all longitudinal studies that used both the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) through electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed. We assessed the correlation between CRQ (scale 1 – 7) and SGRQ (scale 1 – 100) change scores and compared responsiveness of the two instruments by comparing standardized response means (change scores divided by their standard deviation). RESULTS: We identified 15 studies with 23 patient groups. CRQ change scores ranged from -0.19 to 1.87 (median 0.35, IQR 0.14–0.68) and from -16.00 to 3.00 (median -3.00, IQR -4.73–0.25) for SGRQ change scores. The correlation between CRQ and SGRQ change scores was 0.88. Standardized response means of the CRQ (median 0.51, IQR 0.19–0.98) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than for the SGRQ (median 0.26, IQR -0.03–0.40). CONCLUSION: Investigators should be cautious about pooling the results from different instruments in meta-analysis even if they appear to measure similar constructs. Despite high correlation in changes scores, responsiveness of instruments may differ substantially and could lead to important between-study heterogeneity and biased meta-analyses

Summary of findings tables for communicating key findings of systematic reviews

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: The clinician's perspective

This article deals with the problem of interpreting health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes in clinical trials. First, we will briefly describe how dichotomization and item response theory can facilitate interpretation. Based on examples from the medical literature for the interpretation of HRQL scores we will show that dichotomies may help clinicians understand information provided by HRQL instruments in RCTs. They can choose thresholds to calculate proportions of patients benefiting based on absolute scores or change scores. For example, clinicians interpreting clinical trial results could consider the difference in the proportion of patients who achieve a mean score of 50 before and after an intervention on a scale from 1 to 100. For the change score approach, they could consider the proportion of patients who have changed by a score of 5 or more. Finally, they can calculate the proportion of patients benefiting and transform these numbers into a number needed to treat or natural frequencies. Second, we will describe in more detail an approach to the interpretation of HRQL scores based on the minimal important difference (MID) and proportions. The MID is the smallest difference in score in the outcome of interest that informed patients or informed proxies perceive as important, either beneficial or harmful, and that would lead the patient or clinician to consider a change in the management. Any change in management will depend on the downsides, including cost and inconvenience, associated with the intervention. Investigators can help with the interpretation of HRQL scores by determining the MID of an HRQL instrument and provide mean differences in relation to the MID. For instance, for an MID of 0.5 on a seven point scale investigators could provide the mean change on the instrument as well as the proportion of patients with scores greater than the MID. Thus, there are several steps investigators can take to facilitate this process to help bringing HRQL information closer to the bedside

Interval exercise versus continuous exercise in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – study protocol for a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN11611768]

BACKGROUND: Physical exercise has become a cornerstone of management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) because it leads to clinically relevant improvements of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Despite the scarcity of randomised trials directly comparing exercise protocols, current guidelines recommend high intensity continuous exercise for lower extremities as the probably most effective exercise modality. However, for patients admitted to inpatient respiratory rehabilitation programmes, it is often difficult to initiate such an exercise programme because they are severely limited by dyspnoea and leg fatigue and therefore unable to perform continuous exercise at higher intensities and for periods longer than 30 minutes. Interval exercise may be an attractive alternative for these COPD patients because it allows high intensity exercise with recovery periods. The aim of this study is to assess if interval exercise compared to high intensity continuous exercise is not of inferior effectiveness in terms of HRQL and exercise capacity improvements but associated with better exercise tolerance in patients with moderate to severe COPD at the beginning of a respiratory rehabilitation. METHODS/DESIGN: We will assign patients with moderately severe to severe COPD to either continuous exercise or interval exercise using a stratified randomisation. Patients will follow 12–15 exercise sessions during a comprehensive inpatient respiratory rehabilitation. Primary end point for effectiveness is HRQL as measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) two weeks after the end of rehabilitation and secondary endpoints include additional clinical outcomes such as functional exercise capacity, other HRQL measures, patients' experience of physical exercise as well as physiological measures of the effects of physical exercise such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Including expected drop-outs, we will need 52 patients per group to show differences corresponding to the minimal clinically important difference of the CRQ. Outcome assessors and investigators involved in data analysis will be blinded to group assignment until analyses have been carried out. DISCUSSION: Clinicians and the scientific community need evidence on the benefits and tolerance of exercise protocols available in clinical practice. The proposed trial will provide important and needed data on interval and continuous exercise for decision making in clinical practice

Minimally important difference estimates and methods: A protocol

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID determination. No study or database currently exists that provides all anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments; nor are there any accepted standards for appraising the credibility of MID estimates. Our objectives are to complete a systematic survey of the literature to collect and characterise published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in evaluating the effects of interventions on chronic medical and psychiatric conditions and to assess their credibility. Methods and analysis: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (1989 to present) to identify studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs of target PRO instruments or reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs. Teams of two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts of citations, and extract relevant data. On the basis of findings from studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs, we will summarise the available methods and develop an instrument addressing the credibility of empirically ascertained MIDs. We will evaluate the credibility of all studies reporting on the empirical ascertainment of anchorbased MIDs using the credibility instrument, and assess the instrument's inter-rater reliability. We will separately present reports for adult and paediatric populations. Ethics and dissemination: No research ethics approval was required as we will be using aggregate data from published studies. Our work will summarise anchor-based methods available to establish MIDs, provide an instrument to assess the credibility of available MIDs, determine the reliability of that instrument, and provide a comprehensive compendium of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments which will help improve the interpretability of outcome effects in systematic reviews and practice guidelines

Managing Allergic Rhinitis in the Pharmacy : An ARIA Guide for Implementation in Practice

The paradigm of how we manage allergic rhinitis is shifting with a growing understanding that it is a complex process, requiring a coordinated effort from healthcare providers and patients. Pharmacists are key members of these integrated care pathways resolving medication-related problems, optimizing regimens, improving adherence and recommending therapies while establishing liaisons between patients and physicians. Community pharmacists are the most accessible healthcare professionals to the public and allergic rhinitis is one of the most common diseases managed by pharmacists. Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) guidelines developed over the past 20 years have improved the care of allergic rhinitis patients through an evidence-based, integrated care approach. In this paper, we propose an integrated approach to allergic rhinitis management in community pharmacy following the 2019 ARIA in the pharmacy guidelines.Peer reviewe

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery : systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW METHODS Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.Peer reviewe

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism : prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2). Conclusions: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.Peer reviewe

Application of GRADE: Making evidence-based recommendations about diagnostic tests in clinical practice guidelines

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Accurate diagnosis is a fundamental aspect of appropriate healthcare. However, clinicians need guidance when implementing diagnostic tests given the number of tests available and resource constraints in healthcare. Practitioners of health often feel compelled to implement recommendations in guidelines, including recommendations about the use of diagnostic tests. However, the understanding about diagnostic tests by guideline panels and the methodology for developing recommendations is far from completely explored. Therefore, we evaluated the factors that guideline developers and users need to consider for the development of implementable recommendations about diagnostic tests.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using a critical analysis of the process, we present the results of a case study using the Grading of Recommendations Applicability, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop a clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of Cow Milk Allergy with the World Allergy Organization.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>To ensure that guideline panels can develop informed recommendations about diagnostic tests, it appears that more emphasis needs to be placed on group processes, including question formulation, defining patient-important outcomes for diagnostic tests, and summarizing evidence. Explicit consideration of concepts of diagnosis from evidence-based medicine, such as pre-test probability and treatment threshold, is required to facilitate the work of a guideline panel and to formulate implementable recommendations.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This case study provides useful guidance for guideline developers and clinicians about what they ought to demand from clinical practice guidelines to facilitate implementation and strengthen confidence in recommendations about diagnostic tests. Applying a structured framework like the GRADE approach with its requirement for transparency in the description of the evidence and factors that influence recommendations facilitates laying out the process and decision factors that are required for the development, interpretation, and implementation of recommendations about diagnostic tests.</p