How can we improve the interpretation of systematic reviews?

A study conducted by Lai and colleagues, published this week in BMC Medicine, suggests that more guidance might be required for interpreting systematic review (SR) results. In the study by Lai and colleagues, positive (or favorable) results were influential in changing participants' prior beliefs about the interventions presented in the systematic review. Other studies have examined the relationship between favorable systematic review results and the publication of systematic reviews. An international registry may decrease the number of unpublished systematic reviews and will hopefully decrease redundancy, increase transparency, and increase collaboration within the SR community. In addition, using guidance from the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA: http://www.prisma-statement.org/) Statement and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/) approach can also be used to improve the interpretation of systematic reviews. In this commentary, we highlight important methodological issues related to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and also present our own guidance on interpreting systematic reviews

Process description and evaluation of Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines development

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This paper describes the process used to arrive at recommended physical activity guidelines for Canadian school-aged children and youth (5-17 years), adults (18-64 years) and older adults (≥65 years).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) Physical Activity Measurement and Guidelines (PAMG) Steering Committee used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation (AGREE II) Instrument to inform the guideline development process. Fourteen background papers and five systematic reviews were completed. Systematic review authors appraised and synthesized the data, and proposed specific recommendations at an international consensus conference of invited experts and key stakeholders. Independently, an international panel of experts interpreted the evidence from the systematic reviews and developed recommendations following attendance at the Consensus Conference.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using the AGREE II instrument as a guide, specific <it>foci </it>for each of the guidelines were defined and systematic review methodology was used to synthesize the evidence base. The expert panel, CSEP PAMG Steering Committee and methodological consultants reviewed the systematic reviews and Consensus Statement. The expert panel achieved consensus on the level of evidence informing the physical activity guidelines and developed a separate document outlining key recommendations, interpretation of the evidence and justification of each recommendation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The CSEP and Public Health Agency of Canada followed a rigorous process to examine the evidence informing potential revisions to existing physical activity guidelines for Canadians. It is believed that this is the first physical activity guideline development process in the world to be guided and assessed by AGREE II and AMSTAR instruments.</p

A systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of complex wound interventions reveals optimal treatments for specific wound types.

BackgroundComplex wounds present a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems, costing billions of dollars annually in North America alone. The prevalence of complex wounds is a significant patient and societal healthcare concern and cost-effective wound care management remains unclear. This article summarizes the cost-effectiveness of interventions for complex wound care through a systematic review of the evidence base.MethodsWe searched multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) for cost-effectiveness studies that examined adults treated for complex wounds. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data from full-text articles, and assessed methodological quality using the Drummond 10-item methodological quality tool. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported, or, if not reported, calculated and converted to United States Dollars for the year 2013.ResultsOverall, 59 cost-effectiveness analyses were included; 71% (42 out of 59) of the included studies scored 8 or more points on the Drummond 10-item checklist tool. Based on these, 22 interventions were found to be more effective and less costly (i.e., dominant) compared to the study comparators: 9 for diabetic ulcers, 8 for venous ulcers, 3 for pressure ulcers, 1 for mixed venous and venous/arterial ulcers, and 1 for mixed complex wound types.ConclusionsOur results can be used by decision-makers in maximizing the deployment of clinically effective and resource efficient wound care interventions. Our analysis also highlights specific treatments that are not cost-effective, thereby indicating areas of resource savings. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0288-5

Besieged : Malta 1565

The sixteenth century Mediterranean has often been described as ‘a battleground’ between the two great empires of Catholic Spain in the West and the Muslim Ottomans in the East. It was a century during which the two great empires gave evidence of their formidable might. Before the rise of the Habsburg kings, Charles V and Philip II, the Catholic Kings of Spain, Ferdinand and Isabella, who were responsible for the unification of Spain, played as vital a part in creating the Spanish Empire as did the Ottoman sultans before the fall of Constantinople in 1453.peer-reviewe

Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective

Minimal clinical data sets for spine-related musculoskeletal disorders in primary care and outpatient settings: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION Lack of standardised clinical data collection may lead to reduced quality in musculoskeletal (MSK)-related clinical care and research. Little is known about the availability and characteristics of minimal clinical data sets for spine-related MSK disorders in primary care and outpatient settings and their utility for improving healthcare quality. Our objective is to undertake a scoping review aiming to identify and map current literature on minimal clinical data sets for measuring and monitoring health status in patients with spine-related MSK disorders in primary and outpatient healthcare settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The 2020 Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews will guide review conduct. The review will consider studies that describe and report on minimal clinical data sets for spine-related MSK disorders designed for primary care and outpatient clinical practice settings. Quantitative and qualitative study designs will be eligible, including consensus-based studies, interventional, observational, feasibility and linguistic validation studies. Studies published in English, German, French, Italian and Spanish will be included, with no limit on date of publication. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Index to Chiropractic Literature, MANTIS, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and medRxiv preprint repository will be searched from database inception to 25 July 2021. Two reviewers will independently screen identified titles, abstracts and relevant full-text records, and then extract data using review-specific data extraction forms. Findings will be synthesised and presented as a descriptive summary using PRISMA ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics review and approval is not required for this scoping review. Our target audience for this review will be clinicians, researchers, patients and other relevant stakeholders involved in the measurement and health status monitoring of patients with spine-related MSK disorders. Results will be shared through peer-reviewed publication and presentations at relevant conferences. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: https://osf.io/fkw5b