An evidence map of the effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes.

BackgroundThis evidence map describes the volume and focus of Tai Chi research reporting health outcomes. Originally developed as a martial art, Tai Chi is typically taught as a series of slow, low-impact movements that integrate the breath, mind, and physical activity to achieve greater awareness and a sense of well-being.MethodsThe evidence map is based on a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched 11 electronic databases from inception to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted with topic experts. We used a bubble plot to graphically display clinical topics, literature size, number of reviews, and a broad estimate of effectiveness.ResultsThe map is based on 107 systematic reviews. Two thirds of the reviews were published in the last five years. The topics with the largest number of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were general health benefits (51 RCTs), psychological well-being (37 RCTs), interventions for older adults (31 RCTs), balance (27 RCTs), hypertension (18 RCTs), fall prevention (15 RCTs), and cognitive performance (11 RCTs). The map identified a number of areas with evidence of a potentially positive treatment effect on patient outcomes, including Tai Chi for hypertension, fall prevention outside of institutions, cognitive performance, osteoarthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pain, balance confidence, and muscle strength. However, identified reviews cautioned that firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to methodological limitations in the original studies and/or an insufficient number of existing research studies.ConclusionsTai Chi has been applied in diverse clinical areas, and for a number of these, systematic reviews have indicated promising results. The evidence map provides a visual overview of Tai Chi research volume and content.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014009907

Hospital fall prevention: a systematic review of implementation, components, adherence, and effectiveness.

ObjectivesTo systematically document the implementation, components, comparators, adherence, and effectiveness of published fall prevention approaches in U.S. acute care hospitals.DesignSystematic review. Studies were identified through existing reviews, searching five electronic databases, screening reference lists, and contacting topic experts for studies published through August 2011.SettingU.S. acute care hospitals.ParticipantsStudies reporting in-hospital falls for intervention groups and concurrent (e.g., controlled trials) or historic comparators (e.g., before-after studies).InterventionFall prevention interventions.MeasurementsIncidence rate ratios (IRR, ratio of fall rate postintervention or treatment group to the fall rate preintervention or control group) and ratings of study details.ResultsFifty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Implementation strategies were sparsely documented (17% not at all) and included staff education, establishing committees, seeking leadership support, and occasionally continuous quality improvement techniques. Most interventions (81%) included multiple components (e.g., risk assessments (often not validated), visual risk alerts, patient education, care rounds, bed-exit alarms, and postfall evaluations). Fifty-four percent did not report on fall prevention measures applied in the comparison group, and 39% neither reported fidelity data nor described adherence strategies such as regular audits and feedback to ensure completion of care processes. Only 45% of concurrent and 15% of historic control studies reported sufficient data to compare fall rates. The pooled postintervention incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0.77 (95% confidence interval = 0.52-1.12, P = .17; eight studies; I(2) : 94%). Meta-regressions showed no systematic association between implementation intensity, intervention complexity, comparator information, or adherence levels and IRR.ConclusionPromising approaches exist, but better reporting of outcomes, implementation, adherence, intervention components, and comparison group information is necessary to establish evidence on how hospitals can successfully prevent falls

A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program.MethodsTwenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and then ceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating.ResultsTwenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts.ConclusionIn this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project

Acupuncture for the Treatment of Adults with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

21 pagesAcupuncture has been suggested as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet its clinical effects are unclear. This review aims to estimate effects of acupuncture on PTSD symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality for adults with PTSD. We searched 10 databases in January 2016 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed random effects meta-analyses and examined quality of the body of evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach to rate confidence in meta-analytic effect estimates. Seven RCTs with 709 participants met inclusion criteria. We identified very low QoE indicating significant differences favoring acupuncture (versus any comparator) at post-intervention on PTSD symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] [−1.59, −0.01], 6 RCTs), and low QoE at longer follow-up on PTSD (SMD = −0.46, 95% CI [−0.85, −0.06], 4 RCTs) and depressive symptoms (SMD = −0.56; 95% CI [−0.88, −0.23], 4 RCTs). No significant differences were observed between acupuncture and comparators at post-intervention for depressive symptoms (SMD = −0.58, 95% CI [−1.18, 0.01], 6 RCTs, very low QoE), anxiety symptoms (SMD = −0.82, 95% CI [−2.16, 0.53], 4 RCTs, very low QoE), and sleep quality (SMD = −0.46, 95% CI [−3.95, 3.03], 2 RCTs, low QoE). Safety data (7 RCTs) suggest little risk of serious adverse events, though some participants experienced minor/moderate pain, superficial bleeding, and hematoma at needle insertion sites. To increase confidence in findings, sufficiently powered replication trials are needed that measure all relevant clinical outcomes and dedicate study resources to minimizing participant attrition

Identifying quality improvement intervention publications - A comparison of electronic search strategies

Abstract Background The evidence base for quality improvement (QI) interventions is expanding rapidly. The diversity of the initiatives and the inconsistency in labeling these as QI interventions makes it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and QI practitioners to access the literature systematically and to identify relevant publications. Methods We evaluated search strategies developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed based on free text words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), QI intervention components, continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, and combinations of the strategies. Three sets of pertinent QI intervention publications were used for validation. Two independent expert reviewers screened publications for relevance. We compared the yield, recall rate, and precision of the search strategies for the identification of QI publications and for a subset of empirical studies on effects of QI interventions. Results The search yields ranged from 2,221 to 216,167 publications. Mean recall rates for reference publications ranged from 5% to 53% for strategies with yields of 50,000 publications or fewer. The 'best case' strategy, a simple text word search with high face validity ('quality' AND 'improv*' AND 'intervention*') identified 44%, 24%, and 62% of influential intervention articles selected by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) experts, a set of exemplar articles provided by members of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) group, and a sample from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) register of studies, respectively. We applied the search strategy to a PubMed search for articles published in 10 pertinent journals in a three-year period which retrieved 183 publications. Among these, 67% were deemed relevant to QI by at least one of two independent raters. Forty percent were classified as empirical studies reporting on a QI intervention. Conclusions The presented search terms and operating characteristics can be used to guide the identification of QI intervention publications. Even with extensive iterative development, we achieved only moderate recall rates of reference publications. Consensus development on QI reporting and initiatives to develop QI-relevant MeSH terms are urgently needed

Phrase truncation in PubMed searches

Comment on Duffy S, de Kock S, Misso K, Noake C, Ross J, Stirk L. Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):309–12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.011

Additional file 2: of What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products

PRISMA Flow. (DOC 57 kb

The Cost of Interventions to Increase Influenza Vaccination: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Influenza vaccination rates remain below Healthy People 2020 goals. This project sought to systematically review economic evaluations of healthcare-based quality improvement interventions for improving influenza vaccination uptake among general populations and healthcare workers. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The databases MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews &amp; Dissemination, Greylit, and Worldcat were searched in July 2016 for papers published from January 2004 to July 2016. Eligible studies evaluated efforts by bodies within the healthcare system to encourage influenza vaccination by means of an organizational or structural change. For each study, program costs per enrollee and per additional enrollee vaccinated were derived (excluding vaccine costs, standardized to 2017 U.S. dollars). Complete economic evaluations were examined when available. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 2,350 records, 18 articles were eligible and described 29 unique interventions. Most interventions improved vaccine uptake. Among 23 interventions in general populations, the median program cost was $3.27 (interquartile range,$0.82-$11.53) per enrollee and$50.78 (interquartile range, $27.85-$124.84) per additional enrollee vaccinated. Among ten complete economic evaluations in general populations, three studies reported net cost savings, four reported costs &lt;50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and three reported costs <60,000 per life saved. Among six interventions in healthcare workers, the median program cost was $8.09 (interquartile range,$5.03-$10.31) per worker enrolled and$125.24 (interquartile range, $96.06-$171.38) per additional worker vaccinated (there were no complete economic analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement interventions for influenza vaccination involve per-enrollee costs that are similar to the cost of the vaccine itself ($11.78-$36.08/dose). Based on limited available evidence in general populations, quality improvement interventions may be cost saving to cost effective for the health system