UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Implementation of an evidence-based guideline on fluid resuscitation: lessons learnt for future guidelines

Implementation of an evidence-based guideline on fluid resuscitation: lessons learnt for future guidelines Tabbers, M.M.; Boluyt, N.; Offringa, M. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Abstract Introduction There is little experience with the nationwide implementation of an evidence-based pediatric guideline on first-choice fluid for resuscitation in hypovolemia. Methods We investigated fluid prescribing behavior at (1) guideline development, (2) after guideline development, and (3) after active implementation and identified potential barriers and facilitators for guideline implementation. In order to minimize costs and to optimize implementation effect, we continuously developed and adjusted implementation strategies according to identified barriers. Implementation success was evaluated using questionnaires, pharmaceutical data, and data from medical records. Discussion The most remarkable change occurred after guideline development and dissemination: Normal saline use by neonatologists increased from 22-89% to 100% and by pediatric intensivists from 43-71% to 88-100%, and synthetic colloid use by pediatric intensivists declined from 29-43% to 0-13% with a reduction in albumin use by neonatologists from 11-44% to 0%. After active guideline implementation, most of specialist's management behavior was according to the guideline. Conclusion Stakeholders involved in the developmental process are of great importance in disseminating recommendations before active implementation. Therefore, to successfully implement guidelines and reduce costs of active implementation, any guideline development should consider implementation right from the beginning. Implementation strategies should target identified barriers and will therefore always be guideline specific

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings.Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.</p

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings.Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed

Outcome reporting in neonates experiencing withdrawal following opioid exposure in pregnancy: a systematic review

BackgroundNeonatal withdrawal secondary to in utero opioid exposure is a growing global concern stressing the psychosocial well-being of affected families and scarce hospital resources. In the ongoing search for the most effective treatment, randomized controlled trials are indispensable. Consistent outcome selection and measurement across randomized controlled trials enables synthesis of results, fostering the translation of research into practice. Currently, there is no core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, definition and reporting. This study identifies the outcomes currently reported in the literature for neonates experiencing withdrawal following opioid exposure during pregnancy.MethodsA comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central was conducted to identify all primary research studies (randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, case-controlled studies, uncontrolled trials, observational cohort studies, clinical practice guidelines and case reports) reporting outcomes for interventions used to manage neonatal abstinence syndrome between July 2007 and July 2017. All “primary” and “secondary” neonatal outcomes were extracted by two independent reviewers and were assigned to one of OMERACT’s core areas of “pathophysiological manifestation”, “life impact”, “resource use”, “adverse events”, or “death”.ResultsForty-seven primary research articles reporting 107 “primary” and 127 “secondary” outcomes were included. The most frequently reported outcomes were “duration of pharmacotherapy” (68% of studies, N = 32), “duration of hospital stay” (66% of studies, N = 31) and “withdrawal symptoms” (51% of studies, N = 24). The discrepancy between the number of times an outcome was reported and the number of articles was secondary to the use of composite outcomes. Frequently reported outcomes had heterogeneous definitions or were not defined by the study and were measured at different times. Outcomes reported in the literature to date were mainly assigned to the core areas “pathophysiologic manifestations” or “resource use”. No articles reported included parent or former patient involvement in outcome selections.ConclusionsInconsistent selection and definition of primary and secondary outcomes exists in the present literature of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for managing opioid withdrawal in neonates. No studies involved parents in the process of outcome selection. These findings hinder evidence synthesis to generate clinically meaningful practice guidelines. The development of a specific core outcome set is imperative

A core outcome set for neonatal abstinence syndrome: Study protocol for a systematic review, parent interviews and a Delphi survey

Background: The prevalence of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is increasing globally resulting in an increased incidence of adverse neonatal outcomes and health system costs. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of NAS prevention and management strategies is very weak and further research initiatives are critically needed to support meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. In NAS research, the choice of outcomes and the use of valid, responsive and feasible measurement instruments are crucial. There is currently no consensus and evidence-based core outcome set (COS) for NAS. Methods/design: The development of the NAS-COS will include five stages led by an international Multidisciplinary Steering Committee: (1) qualitative interviews with parents/families and a systematic review (SR) to identify items for inclusion in a COS. The SR will also identify participants for the Delphi survey, (2) a three-round Delphi survey to gain expert opinion on the importance of health outcomes influencing NAS management decisions, (3), a consensus meeting to finalize the items and definitions with experts and COS users, (4) feasibility and pilot testing, development of the COS and explanatory document and (5) implementation planning. Discussion: Since standardized outcome measurement and reporting will improve NAS clinical research consistency, efficacy and impact, this COS will reflect the minimum set of health outcomes which should be measured in trials evaluating interventions for preventing or treating NAS

Pharmacological protection of the thyroid gland against radiation damage from radioactive iodine labeled compounds in children: a systematic review

Purpose: There is currently no consensus on which protective strategy is most effective to prevent I-131 uptake in the thyroid during medical interventions in children. We aimed to collect the best available evidence to determine which pharmacological intervention is most effective in protecting the thyroid gland from damage by radioactive iodine (RAI). Methods: Literature searches were performed using PubMed, Embase, OLDMEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Only original studies were included (1950–2022). Studies comparing pharmacological prevention of the thyroid against RAI uptake or occurrence of hypothyroidism, thyroid nodule or thyroid cancer were included. Included studies were graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation considerations. Pharmacological interventions were compared for effectiveness on reduction of thyroidal intake or relevant clinical thyroidal outcomes. Results: Forty studies were included. Quality of included studies was low and many different outcome variables were used, making meta-analysis impossible. In 81% of studies, the pharmacological intervention could not prevent RAI uptake or thyroid damage. The administration of potassium iodide (KI) 1 h before exposure to RAI seemed most effective to reduce thyroidal uptake, however, hypothyroidism was reported in up to 64% as well as several cases of thyroid carcinoma. The combination of KI, thyroxine and thiamazole reduced RAI uptake and occurrence of hypothyroidism; yet, after follow-up of 9 years, still 50% of patients developed hypothyroidism. KI with potassium perchlorate showed hypothyroidism to occur in up to 12% of patients after short follow-up time. Conclusions: The lack of well-designed studies impairs making strong recommendations on the optimal way to prevent thyroid damage when using radioactive coupled ligands for medical interventions. To improve the protection of the thyroid against radiation damage by I-131, well-designed randomized clinical trials with sufficient follow-up time, comparing new protective strategies’ effects on valid and well-defined thyroid outcomes are needed

Enzyme replacement therapy and/or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation at diagnosis in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I: results of a European consensus procedure

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is a lysosomal storage disorder that results in the accumulation of glycosaminoglycans causing progressive multi-organ dysfunction. Its clinical spectrum is very broad and varies from the severe Hurler phenotype (MPS I-H) which is characterized by early and progressive central nervous system (CNS) involvement to the attenuated Scheie phenotype (MPS I-S) with no CNS involvement. Indication, optimal timing, safety and efficacy of the two available treatment options for MPS I, enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), are subject to continuing debate. A European consensus procedure was organized to reach consensus about the use of these two treatment strategies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A panel of specialists, including 8 specialists for metabolic disorders and 7 bone marrow transplant physicians, all with acknowledged expertise in MPS I, participated in a modified Delphi process to develop consensus-based statements on MPS I treatment. Fifteen MPS I case histories were used to initiate the discussion and to anchor decisions around either treatment mode. Before and at the meeting all experts gave their opinion on the cases (YES/NO transplantation) and reasons for their decisions were collected. A set of draft statements on MPS I treatment options composed by a planning committee were discussed and revised during the meeting until full consensus.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Full consensus was reached on several important issues, including the following: 1) The preferred treatment for patients with MPS I-H diagnosed before age 2.5 yrs is HSCT; 2) In individual patients with an intermediate phenotype HSCT may be considered if there is a suitable donor. However, there are no data on efficacy of HSCT in patients with this phenotype; 3) All MPS I patients including those who have not been transplanted or whose graft has failed may benefit significantly from ERT; 4) ERT should be started at diagnosis and may be of value in patients awaiting HSCT.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This multidisciplinary consensus procedure yielded consensus on the main issues related to therapeutic choices and research for MPS I. This is an important step towards an international, collaborative approach, the only way to obtain useful evidence in rare diseases.</p