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

GRADE equity guidelines 4: guidance on how to assess and address health equity within the evidence to decision process

Objective: The aim of this paper is to provide detailed guidance on how to incorporate health equity within the GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence) evidence to decision process. Study design and setting: We developed this guidance based on the GRADE evidence to decision (EtD) framework, iteratively reviewing and modifying draft documents, in person discussion of project group members and input from other GRADE members. Results: Considering the impact on health equity may be required, both in general guidelines, and guidelines that focus on disadvantaged populations. We suggest two approaches to incorporate equity considerations: 1) assessing the potential impact of interventions on equity and; 2) incorporating equity considerations when judging or weighing each of the evidence to decision criteria. We provide guidance and include illustrative examples. Conclusion: Guideline panels should consider the impact of recommendations on health equity with attention to remote and underserviced settings and disadvantaged populations. Guideline panels may wish to incorporate equity judgments across the evidence to decision framework

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

Dissemination of clinical practice guidelines: A content analysis of patient versions

Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are typically written for health care professionals but are meant to assist patients with health care decisions. A number of guideline producers have started to develop patient versions of CPGs to reach this audience. Objective. To describe the content and purpose of patient versions of CPGs and compare with patient and public views of CPGs. Design. A descriptive qualitative study with a directed content analysis of a sample of patient versions of CPGs published and freely available in English from 2012 to 2014. Results. We included 34 patient versions of CPGs from 17 guideline producers. Over half of the patient versions were in dedicated patient sections of national/professional agency websites. There was essentially no information about how to manage care in the health care system. The most common purpose was to equip people with information about disease, tests or treatments, and recommendations, but few provided quantitative data about benefits and harms of treatments. Information about beliefs, values and preferences, accessibility, costs, or feasibility of the interventions was rarely addressed. Few provided personal stories or scenarios to personalize the information. Three versions described the strength of the recommendation or the level of evidence. Limitations. Our search for key institutions that produce patient versions of guidelines was comprehensive, but we only included English and freely available versions. Future work will include other languages. Conclusions. This review describes the current landscape of patient versions of CPGs and suggests that these versions may not address the needs of their targeted audience. Research is needed about how to personalize information, provide information about factors contributing to the recommendations, and provide access

Summary of findings tables for communicating key findings of systematic reviews

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

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

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

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