Background

After a spinal cord injury, quality of life, as well as the determinants of quality of life, has been widely assessed. However, to date, there have been no systematic reviews on the impact of quality improvement strategies, including self-management strategies, on the quality of life and well-being of individuals with a spinal cord injury. The current protocol outlines a strategy for a systematic review that aims to identify, assess, and synthesize evidence on the impact of quality improvement strategies on the quality of life and physical and psychological well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury.

Methods/Design

All study designs, except qualitative studies will be included. Studies reporting on quality improvement including audit and feedback, case management, team changes, electronic patient registries, clinician education, clinical reminders, facilitated relay of clinical information to clinicians, patient education, (promotion of) self-management, patient reminder systems, and continuous quality improvement among individuals with spinal cord injury will be included. The primary outcome is quality of life. The secondary outcomes are physical and psychological well-being. Studies will be included regardless of publication status, year of dissemination, or language of dissemination. Potentially relevant articles not written in English will be translated. We will search Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. The use of these databases will be supplemented by other data sources, including unpublished data. Two independent reviewers will conduct all levels of screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal. Results will be grouped according to the target group of the varying quality improvement strategies (that is, health system, health-care professionals, or patients) and/or by any other noteworthy grouping variable, such as etiology of spinal cord condition or by sex. If deemed appropriate, a meta-analysis will be conducted.

Discussion

This systematic review will identify those quality improvement strategies aimed at the health system, health-care professionals, and patients that impact the quality of life and well-being of individuals with spinal cord injury. Knowledge and application of such quality improvement strategies may reduce inappropriate health-care utilization costs, such as acute care inpatient readmission in the years post injury. Prospero registry number: CRD42012003058.

Background

Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), optimal hypertension control is not achieved in many parts of the world; one of the challenges is the volume of guidelines on this topic and their variable quality. To systematically review the quality, methodology, and consistency of recommendations of recently-developed national CPGs on the diagnosis, assessment and the management of hypertension.

Methodology/Principal Findings

MEDLINE, EMBASE, guidelines' websites and Google were searched for CPGs written in English on the general management of hypertension in any clinical setting published between January 2006 and September 2011. Four raters independently appraised each CPG using the AGREE-II instrument and 2 reviewers independently extracted the data. Conflicts were resolved by discussion or the involvement of an additional reviewer. Eleven CPGs were identified. The overall quality ranged from 2.5 to 6 out of 7 on the AGREE-II tool. The highest scores were for “clarity of presentation” (44.4% −88.9%) and the lowest were for “rigour of development” (8.3%–30% for 9 CGPs). None of them clearly reported being newly developed or adapted. Only one reported having a patient representative in its development team. Systematic reviews were not consistently used and only 2 up-to-date Cochrane reviews were cited. Two CPGs graded some recommendations and related that to levels (but not quality) of evidence. The CPGs' recommendations on assessment and non-pharmacological management were fairly consistent. Guidelines varied in the selection of first-line treatment, adjustment of therapy and drug combinations. Important specific aspects of care (e.g. resistant hypertension) were ignored by 6/11 CPGs. The CPGs varied in methodological quality, suggesting that their implementation might not result in less variation of care or in better health-related outcomes.

Conclusions/Significance

More efforts are needed to promote the realistic approach of localization or local adaptation of existing high-quality CPGs to the national context.

Background

The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme is a multimodal evidence-based approach to surgical care which begins in the preoperative setting and extends through to patient discharge in the postoperative period. The primary components of ERAS include the introduction of preoperative patient education; reduction in perioperative use of nasogastric tubes and drains; the use of multimodal analgesia; goal-directed fluid management; early removal of Foley catheter; early mobilization, and early oral nutrition. The ERAS approach has gradually evolved to become the standard of care in colorectal surgery and is presently being used in other specialty areas such as vascular surgery. Currently there is little evidence available for the implementation of ERAS in this field. We plan to conduct a systematic review of this literature with a view to incorporating ERAS principles into the management of major elective vascular surgery procedures.

Methods

We will search EMBASE (OVID, 1947 to June 2012), Medline (OVID, 1948 to June 2012), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley, Issue 1, 2012). Searches will be performed with no year or language restrictions. For inclusion, studies must look at adult patients over 18 years. Major elective vascular surgery includes carotid, bypass, aneurysm and amputation procedures. Studies must have evaluated usual care against an ERAS intervention in the preoperative, perioperative or postoperative period of care. Primary outcome measures are length of stay, decreased complication rate, and patient satisfaction or expectations. Only randomized controlled trials will be included.

Discussion

Most ERAS approaches have been considered in the context of colorectal surgery. Given the increasing use of multiple yet different aspects of this pathway in vascular surgery, it is timely to systematically review the evidence for their independent or combined outcomes, with a view to implementing them in this clinical setting. Results from this review will have important implications for vascular surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, and other health care professionals when making evidenced-based decisions about the use of ERAS in daily practice.

Background

A knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool.

Methods

We will search relevant electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and discipline-based listservs. The scoping review will consider all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding economic analysis or clinical practice guideline development), and identify knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction forms, and will independently screen the literature and abstract the data. A three-step synthesis process will be used to map the literature to our objectives.

Discussion

This project represents the first attempt to broadly and systematically identify, define and classify knowledge synthesis methods (i.e., less traditional knowledge synthesis methods). We anticipate that our results will lead to an accepted taxonomy for less traditional knowledge synthesis methods, and to the development and implementation of a methods manual for these reviews which will be relevant to a wide range of knowledge users, including researchers, funders, and journal editors.

Background

Approximately 35 million people world-wide have Alzheimer’s disease and this is projected to nearly double by 2030. Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors (for example, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonist) have been approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in many countries. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer’s disease through a systematic review.

Methods/design

Studies examining the efficacy, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers compared to placebo, supportive care, and other cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer’s patients will be included. The primary outcome is cognition and secondary outcomes include function, behavior, quality of life, safety, and cost. Experimental studies (randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials), quasi-experimental studies (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), and observational studies (cohort, case–control studies) will be eligible for inclusion. Inclusion will not be limited by publication status, time period or language of dissemination.

We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ageline) from inception onwards. The electronic database search will be supplemented by searching for grey literature (for example, conference proceedings, searches in Google and relevant organization websites). Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for inclusion using the eligibility criteria established a priori and independently extract data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for experimental and quasi-experimental studies and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. If deemed appropriate, meta-analysis and network (that is, indirect comparisons) meta-analysis will be conducted.

Discussion

Our systematic review will inform the decision of healthcare providers, policy-makers, Alzheimer’s patients and family members about the use of cognitive enhancers, by improving their understanding of the costs, benefits and harms that are associated with these agents.

PROSPERO registry number

CRD42012001948

Background

The burden of H1N1 among socially disadvantaged populations is unclear. We aimed to synthesize hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality data associated with pandemic A/H1N1/2009 among socially disadvantaged populations.

Methods/Principal Findings

Studies were identified through searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, scanning reference lists, and contacting experts. Studies reporting hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality attributable to laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 pandemic among socially disadvantaged populations (e.g., ethnic minorities, low-income or lower-middle-income economy countries [LIC/LMIC]) were included. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (Newcastle Ottawa Scale). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using SAS and Review Manager.

Conclusions/Significance

Sixty-two studies including 44,777 patients were included after screening 787 citations and 164 full-text articles. The prevalence of hospitalization for H1N1 ranged from 17–87% in high-income economy countries (HIC) and 11–45% in LIC/LMIC. Of those hospitalized, the prevalence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality was 6–76% and 1–25% in HIC; and 30% and 8–15%, in LIC/LMIC, respectively. There were significantly more hospitalizations among ethnic minorities versus non-ethnic minorities in two studies conducted in North America (1,313 patients, OR 2.26 [95% CI: 1.53–3.32]). There were no differences in ICU admissions (n = 8 studies, 15,352 patients, OR 0.84 [0.69–1.02]) or deaths (n = 6 studies, 14,757 patients, OR 0.85 [95% CI: 0.73–1.01]) among hospitalized patients in HIC. Sub-group analysis indicated that the meta-analysis results were not likely affected by confounding. Overall, the prevalence of hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality due to H1N1 was high for ethnic minorities in HIC and individuals from LIC/LMIC. However, our results suggest that there were little differences in the proportion of hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality between ethnic minorities and non-ethnic minorities living in HIC.

Background

Elderly individuals who have memory problems without significant limitations in activities of daily living are often diagnosed as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Some of these individuals progress to dementia. Several cognitive enhancers (for example donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine) have been approved for use in people with Alzheimer’s dementia but their use in patients with MCI is unclear. We aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers for MCI through a systematic review and network (that is, indirect comparisons) meta-analysis.

Design/Methods

We will include studies that examine the use of cognitive enhancers compared to placebo, supportive care, or other cognitive enhancers among patients diagnosed with MCI. Outcomes of interest include cognition and function (primary outcomes), as well as behavior, quality of life, safety, and cost (secondary outcomes). We will include all experimental studies (randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials), quasi-experimental studies (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), and observational studies (cohort, case–control). Studies will be included regardless of publication status (that is, we will include unpublished studies), year, or language of dissemination.

To identify potentially relevant material, we will search the following electronic databases from inception onwards: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Ageline. The electronic database search will be supplemented by scanning the reference lists of included studies, searching Google and organization websites for unpublished or difficult to locate material literature, and contacting experts.

Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for inclusion using the eligibility criteria established a priori and independently extract data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for experimental and quasi-experimental studies and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational epidemiology studies. Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis are planned, if the studies are deemed statistically, methodologically, and clinically homogenous.

Discussion

Our systematic review will provide important information regarding the benefits, costs, and harms of cognitive enhancers for patients with MCI. This information can be used to assist healthcare providers, policy-makers, MCI patients and their family regarding the use of these agents.

PROSPERO registry number

CRD42012002234

Background

Systematic reviews have the potential to inform clinical decisions, yet little is known about the impact of interventions on increasing the use of systematic reviews in clinical decision-making.

Purpose

To systematically review the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision-making by clinicians.

Data Sources

Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until July 2009.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a clinician. Information about the study population, features of each intervention, methods used to measure the use of systematic reviews and those used to measure professional performance or health care outcomes, existence and use of statistical tests, study outcomes, and comparative data were extracted.

Data Synthesis

A total of 8,104 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 189 full-text articles for assessment; five of these studies met all inclusion criteria. All five studies reported on professional performance behavior; none reported on patient health outcomes. One study reported positive outcomes in improving preventive care. Three studies focused on obstetrical care, with two reporting no impact on professional practice change, and one study reporting increases in the use of prophylactic oxytocin and episiotomy. One study found no improvement in the sealant rate of newly erupted molars among dentists in Scotland.

Limitations

The small number of studies available for examination indicates the difficulty in summarizing and identifying key aspects in successful strategies that encourage clinicians to use systematic reviews in decision-making. Other concerns lay in selective reporting and lack of blinding during data collection.

Conclusions

The limited empirical data render the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and types of interventions that encourage clinicians to use systematic reviews in clinical decision making.

Background:

It has been proposed by Zamboni and colleagues that multiple sclerosis is caused by chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, a term used to describe ultrasound-detectable abnormalities in the anatomy and flow of intra- and extracerebral veins. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that reported the frequency of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency among patients with and those without multiple sclerosis.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as bibliographies of relevant articles for eligible studies. We included studies if they used ultrasound to diagnose chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and compared the frequency of the venous abnormalities among patients with and those without multiple sclerosis.

Results:

We identified eight eligible studies: all included healthy controls, and four of them also included a control group of patients with neurologic diseases other than multiple sclerosis. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency was more frequent among patients with multiple sclerosis than among the healthy controls (odds ratio [OR] 13.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6–71.4), but there was extensive unexplained heterogeneity among the studies. The association remained significant in the most conservative sensitivity analysis (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.2–11.0), in which we removed the initial study by Zamboni and colleagues and added a study that did not find chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in any patient. Although chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency was also more frequent among patients with multiple sclerosis than among controls with other neurologic diseases (OR 32.5, 95% CI 0.6–1775.7), the association was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was wide, and the OR was less extreme after removal of the study by Zamboni and colleagues (OR 3.5, 95% 0.8–15.8).

Interpretation:

Our findings showed a positive association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. However, poor reporting of the success of blinding and marked heterogeneity among the studies included in our review precluded definitive conclusions.

Background

Clinical practice guidelines have the potential to facilitate the implementation of evidence into practice, support clinical decision making, specify beneficial therapeutic approaches, and influence public policy. However, these potential benefits have not been consistently achieved. The limited impact of guidelines can be attributed to organisational constraints, the complexity of the guidelines, and the lack of usability testing or end-user involvement in their development. Implementability has been referred to as the perceived characteristics of guidelines that predict the relative ease of their implementation at the clinical level, but this concept is as yet poorly defined. The objective of our study is to identify guideline attributes that affect uptake in practice by considering evidence from four disciplines (medicine, psychology, management, human factors engineering) to determine the relationship between the perceived characteristics of recommendations and their uptake and to develop a framework of implementability.

Methods

A realist-review approach to knowledge synthesis will be used to understand attributes of guidelines (e.g., its text and content) and how changing these elements might impact clinical practice and clinical decision making. It also allows for the exploration of 'what works for whom, in what circumstances, and in what respects'. The realist review will be structured according to Pawson's five practical steps in realist reviews: (1) clarifying the scope of the review, (2) determining the search strategy, (3) ensuring proper article selection and study quality assessment, (4) extracting and organising data, and (5) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. Data will be synthesised according to a two-stage analysis: (1) we will extract and define all relevant guideline attributes from the different disciplines, then create a shortlist of unique attributes and investigate their relationships with uptake, and (2) we will compare and contrast the attributes and guideline uptake within each and between the four disciplines to create a robust framework of implementability.

Discussion

Creating guidelines that are designed to maximise uptake may be a potentially effective and inexpensive way of increasing their impact. However, this is best achieved by a comprehensive framework to inform the design of guidelines drawing on a range of disciplines that study behaviour change. This study will use a customised realist-review approach to synthesising the literature to better understand and operationalise a complex and under-theorised concept.

Background

Systematic reviews have the potential to inform decisions made by health policymakers and managers, yet little is known about the impact of interventions to increase the use of systematic reviews by these groups in decision making.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision making by health policymakers or managers. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until April 2010. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a health policymaker or manager. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data.

Results

11,297 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 37 full-text articles for assessment; four of these articles met all inclusion criteria. Three articles described one study where five systematic reviews were mailed to public health officials and followed up with surveys at three months and two years. The articles reported from 23% to 63% of respondents declaring they had used systematic reviews in policymaking decisions. One randomised trial indicated that tailored messages combined with access to a registry of systematic reviews had a significant effect on policies made in the area of healthy body weight promotion in health departments.

Conclusions

The limited empirical data renders the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and the types of interventions that encourage health policymakers and managers to use systematic reviews in decision making.

Background

Research funders, educators, investigators and decision makers worldwide have identified the need to improve the quality of health care by building capacity for knowledge translation (KT) research and practice. Peer-based mentorship represents a vehicle to foster KT capacity. The purpose of this exploratory study is to identify mentoring models that could be used to build KT capacity, consult with putative mentee stakeholders to understand their KT mentorship needs and preferences, and generate recommendations for the content and format of KT mentorship strategies or programs, and how they could be tested through future research.

Methods

A conceptual framework was derived based on mentoring goals, processes and outcomes identified in the management and social sciences literature, and our research on barriers and facilitators of academic mentorship. These concepts will inform data collection and analysis. To identify useful models by which to design, implement and evaluate KT mentorship, we will review the social sciences, management, and nursing literature from 1990 to current, browse tables of contents of relevant journals, and scan the references of all eligible studies. Eligibility screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two investigators. Semi-structured interviews will be used to collect information about KT needs, views on mentorship as a knowledge sharing strategy, preferred KT mentoring program elements, and perceived barriers from clinician health services researchers representing different disciplines. Qualitative analysis of transcripts will be performed independently by two investigators, who will meet to compare findings and resolve differences through discussion. Data will be shared and discussed with the research team, and their feedback incorporated into final reports.

Discussion

These findings could be used by universities, research institutes, funding agencies, and professional organizations in Canada and elsewhere to develop, implement, and evaluate mentorship for KT research and practice. This research will establish a theoretical basis upon which we and others can compare the cost-effectiveness of interventions that enhance KT mentorship. If successful, this program of research may increase knowledge about, confidence in, and greater utilization of KT processes, and the quality and quantity of KT research, perhaps ultimately leading to better implementation and adoption of recommended health care services.

The exponential development of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) measures in clinical research has led to the creation of the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database (PROQOLID) to facilitate the selection process of PRO measures in clinical research. The project was initiated by Mapi Research Trust in Lyon, France. Initially called QOLID (Quality of Life Instruments Database), the project's purpose was to provide all those involved in health care evaluation with a comprehensive and unique source of information on PRO and HRQOL measures available through the Internet.

PROQOLID currently describes more than 470 PRO instruments in a structured format. It is available in two levels, non-subscribers and subscribers, at . The first level is free of charge and contains 14 categories of basic useful information on the instruments (e.g. author, objective, original language, list of existing translations, etc.). The second level provides significantly more information about the instruments. It includes review copies of over 350 original instruments, 120 user manuals and 350 translations. Most are available in PDF format. This level is only accessible to annual subscribers. PROQOLID is updated in close collaboration with the instruments' authors on a regular basis. Fifty or more new instruments are added to the database annually.

Today, all of the major pharmaceutical companies, prestigious institutions (such as the FDA, the NIH's National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Veterans Administration), dozens of universities, public institutions and researchers subscribe to PROQOLID on a yearly basis. More than 800 users per day routinely visit the database.