Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well-tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2015, Issue 2 on oxycodone for cancer-related pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2016. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we identified six new studies (1258 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 23 studies which enrolled/randomised 2648 participants, with 2144 of these analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons.Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing controlled-release (CR) oxycodone to immediate-release (IR) oxycodone showed that the ability of CR and IR oxycodone to provide pain relief were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR and IR oxycodone for asthenia (risk ratio (RR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.68), confusion (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.2 to 3.02), constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.37), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), dry mouth (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.75), insomnia (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.53), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), nervousness (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.64), pruritus (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.25), vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.22). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. Three of the four studies found similar results for treatment acceptability.Pooled analysis of seven of the nine studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine indicated that pain relief was significantly better after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; low quality evidence). However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.26).Pooled analyses of adverse events showed no significant differences between CR oxycodone and CR morphine for confusion (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.78 to 1.31), constipation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16), dizziness/lightheadedness (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.76), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08), dry mouth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.26), dysuria (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.26), nausea (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26), pruritus (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.29), vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.29), and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.6). However, the RR for hallucinations was significantly lower after treatment with CR oxycodone compared to CR morphine (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.97). The quality of the evidence was very low for all these adverse events. There were no marked differences in treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review. The data suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and overall adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine. Although we identified a clinically insignificant benefit on pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, in this updated analysis, we found that hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.

Buprenorphine for treating cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.

Oxycodone for Cancer Pain in Adult Patients.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Is oxycodone associated with greater efficacy and fewer adverse events compared with alternative analgesics for cancer pain? BOTTOM LINE: Oxycodone was not associated with superior cancer pain relief or fewer adverse effects compared with other strong opioids, such as morphine or oxymorphone. However, the quality of the evidence was low.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Telegenetics: a systematic review of telemedicine in genetics services.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine is being increasingly used in many areas of health care, particularly to reduce the barriers that rural populations face in accessing health-care services. Telemedicine may also be effectively utilized in clinical genetics services­an application that has been termed "telegenetics." METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies of genetic consultations carried out through video conferencing so as to determine whether conclusions can be drawn about the value of telegenetics. A total of 14 articles reporting data from 12 separate studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In a majority of these studies, patients received their telegenetics consultation at a local clinic or outreach center, from where they communicated via a synchronous video link with a genetic spractitioner. All the studies reported high levels of patient satisfaction with telegenetics,and patients were generally more receptive to telegenetics than the genetics practitioners were. The studies had limitations of small sample sizes and lack of statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that telegenetics may be a useful tool for providing routine counseling and has the potential to evaluate pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions. Prospective,fully powered studies of telegenetics that explore the accuracy of diagnoses and patient outcomes are needed to allow informed decisions to be made about the appropriate use of telemedicine in genetics service delivery.

Telegenetics: a systematic review of telemedicine in genetics services.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine is being increasingly used in many areas of health care, particularly to reduce the barriers that rural populations face in accessing health-care services. Telemedicine may also be effectively utilized in clinical genetics services-an application that has been termed "telegenetics." METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify studies of genetic consultations carried out through videoconferencing so as to determine whether conclusions can be drawn about the value of telegenetics. A total of 14 articles reporting data from 12 separate studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In a majority of these studies, patients received their telegenetics consultation at a local clinic or outreach center, from where they communicated via a synchronous video link with a genetics practitioner. All the studies reported high levels of patient satisfaction with telegenetics, and patients were generally more receptive to telegenetics than the genetics practitioners were. The studies had limitations of small sample sizes and lack of statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that telegenetics may be a useful tool for providing routine counseling and has the potential to evaluate pediatric patients with suspected genetic conditions. Prospective, fully powered studies of telegenetics that explore the accuracy of diagnoses and patient outcomes are needed to allow informed decisions to be made about the appropriate use of telemedicine in genetics service delivery.

Cancer genetic risk assessment for individuals at risk of familial breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The recognition of an inherited component to breast cancer has led to an increase in demand for information, reassurance, and genetic testing, which has resulted in the creation of genetic clinics for familial cancer. The first step for patients referred to a cancer genetic clinic is a risk assessment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of cancer genetic risk-assessment services on patients at risk of familial breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: The specialised register maintained by the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group was searched on 16th February 2005. We also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycLIT, CENTRAL, DARE, ASSIA, Web of Science, SIGLE and LILACS. The original searches covered the period 1985 to February 2005. We also handsearched relevant journals. For this review update the search was repeated through to April 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered trials looking at interventions for cancer genetic risk-assessment services for familial breast cancer for inclusion. Trials assessed outcomes such as understanding of risk, satisfaction and psychological well-being. We excluded studies if they concerned cancers other than breast cancer or if participants were not at risk of inherited breast cancer. We also excluded trials concerning the provision of general cancer genetic information or education as this review was concerned with the delivery of genetic risk assessment. Participants could be individuals of any age or gender, with or without a known BRCA mutation, but without a previous history of breast cancer or any other serious illness. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from investigators as necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of both the interventions and outcomes, we reported data descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: In this review update, we included five new trials, bringing the total number of included studies to eight. The included trials (pertaining to 10 papers), provided data on 1973 participants and assessed the impact of cancer genetic risk assessment on outcomes including perceived risk of inherited cancer, and psychological distress. This review suggests that cancer genetic risk-assessment services help to reduce distress, improve the accuracy of the perceived risk of breast cancer, and increase knowledge about breast cancer and genetics. The health professional delivering the risk assessment does not appear to have a significant impact on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found favourable outcomes for patients after risk assessment for familial breast cancer. However, there were too few papers to make any significant conclusions about how best to deliver cancer genetic risk-assessment services. Further research is needed assessing the best means of delivering cancer risk assessment, by different health professionals, in different ways and in alternative locations.

An online resource of digital stories about cancer genetics: qualitative study of patient preferences and information needs.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Genetics Service for Wales (CGSW) was established in 1998 as an all-Wales service for individuals with concerns about their family history of cancer. CGSW offers a range of services such as risk assessment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing. Individuals referred to cancer genetics services often have unmet information and support needs, and they value access to practical and experiential information from other patients and health professionals. As a result of the lifelong nature of genetic conditions, a fundamental challenge is to meet the ongoing needs of these patients by providing easily accessible and reliable information. OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to explore how the long-term information and support needs of CGSW patients could be met and to assess whether an online bank of digital stories about cancer genetics would be acceptable to patients. METHODS: In 2009, CGSW organized patient panels across Wales. During these events, 169 patients were asked for their feedback about a potential online resource of digital stories from CGSW patients and staff. A total of 75 patients registered to take part in the project and 23 people from across Wales agreed to share their story. All participants took part in a follow-up interview. RESULTS: Patient preferences for an online collection of cancer genetics stories were collected at the patient panels. Key topics to be covered by the stories were identified, and this feedback informed the development of the website to ensure that patients' needs would be met. The 23 patient storytellers were aged between 28 and 75 years, and 19 were female. The digital stories reflect patients' experiences within CGSW and the implications of living with or at risk of cancer. Follow-up interviews with patient storytellers showed that they shared their experiences as a means of helping other patients and to increase understanding of the cancer genetics service. Digital stories were also collected from 12 members of staff working at CGSW. The digital stories provide reliable and easily accessible information about cancer genetics and are hosted on the StoryBank website (www.cancergeneticsstorybank.co.uk). CONCLUSIONS: The Internet is one mechanism through which the long-term information and support needs of cancer genetics patients can be met. The StoryBank is one of the first places where patient and staff stories have been allied to every aspect of a patient pathway through a service and provides patients with an experiential perspective of the cancer genetics "journey." The StoryBank was developed in direct response to patient feedback and is an innovative example of patient involvement in service development. The stories are a useful resource for newly referred patients, current patients, the general public, and health care professionals.

Retention Strategies for Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Adults: A Rapid Evidence Review.

OBJECTIVES: Although medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) save lives, treatment retention remains challenging. Identification of interventions to improve MOUD retention is of interest to policymakers and researchers. On behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we conducted a rapid evidence review on interventions to improve MOUD retention. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library from February 2009 through August 2019 for systematic reviews and randomized trials of care settings, services, logistical support, contingency management, health information technology (IT), extended-release (XR) formulations, and psychosocial interventions that assessed retention at least 3 months. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews and 39 primary studies were included; most did not focus on retention as the primary outcome. Initiating MOUD in soon-to-be-released incarcerated people improved retention following release. Contingency management may improve retention using antagonist but not agonist MOUD. Retention with interventions integrating medical, psychiatric, social services, or IT did not differ from in-person treatment-as-usual approaches. Retention was comparable with XR- compared to daily buprenorphine formulations and conflicting with XR-naltrexone monthly injection compared to daily buprenorphine. Most psychosocial interventions did not improve retention. DISCUSSION: Consistent but sparse evidence supports criminal justice prerelease MOUD initiation, and contingency management interventions for antagonist MOUD. Integrating MOUD with medical, psychiatric, social services, delivering through IT, or administering via XR-MOUD formulations did not worsen retention. Fewer than half of the studies we identified focused on retention as a primary outcome. Studies used different measures of retention, making it difficult to compare effectiveness. Additional inquiry into the causes of low retention would inform future interventions.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42019134739.

Impact of eye clinic liaison officers: a qualitative study in UK ophthalmology clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of eye clinic liaison officers (ECLOs, also known as sight loss advisors) on the processes, functions and quality of ophthalmology clinics through the experiences of ophthalmology staff in the UK. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: UK hospital ophthalmology clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Health and social care professionals in the UK. RESULTS: ECLOs who had a presence in hospital ophthalmology clinics were seen as valuable in streamlining processes within the clinic, particularly in relation to the certification of visual impairment process, and providing continuity of care for patients when they were discharged from medical treatment. ECLOs also saved staff time in the clinic, as they were often responsible for providing emotional and practical support for patients living with sight loss. CONCLUSIONS: ECLOs are well placed in ophthalmology clinics. They can relieve pressure on clinical staff by taking on information giving and referring duties, allowing other staff to focus on their clinical responsibilities. The impact of ECLOs may depend on efficient communication with the clinical team, being trusted by other staff and having a good knowledge of local and national sight loss support services outside of the hospital setting. Further research could enhance our understanding of how much time and associated costs ECLOs substitute in the ophthalmology clinic.

Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer-related pain in adults: an updated Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of oxycodone for cancer pain in adults METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, SCI, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, BIOSIS, PsycINFO and four trials registries to November 2016. RESULTS: We included 23 randomised controlled trials with 2144 patients analysed for efficacy and 2363 for safety. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences between controlled-release (CR) and immediate-release oxycodone in pain intensity or adverse events but did show significantly better pain relief after treatment with CR morphine compared with CR oxycodone. However, sensitivity analysis did not corroborate this result. Meta-analyses of the adverse events showed a significantly lower risk of hallucinations after treatment with CR oxycodone compared with CR morphine, but no other differences. The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone in pain relief or adverse events. The quality of this evidence base was limited by the high/unclear risk of bias of the studies and the low event rates for many outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids. However, hallucinations occurred less with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine, but the quality of this evidence was very low, so this finding should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that oxycodone can be used first line as an alternative to morphine. However, because it is cheaper, morphine generally remains the first-line opioid of choice.

The effectiveness of buprenorphine for treating cancer pain: an abridged Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for cancer pain in adults and children. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, ISI BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain to early 2015. RESULTS: We included 19 randomised controlled trials comparing buprenorphine with placebo, buprenorphine or another active drug for cancer pain. The trials included 1421 patients and examined 16 different intervention comparisons. Of the 11 studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 5, 3 and 3 studies, respectively, found that buprenorphine was superior, no different or inferior to the alternative treatment in side effects profile or patient preference/acceptability. Pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository, although intramuscular treatment was associated with more adverse events (1 study). One study found faster onset of pain relief after sublingual than subdermal buprenorphine, with similar analgesia duration and adverse event rates. 2 studies found transdermal buprenorphine superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine. No clear dose-response relationship was found for transdermal buprenorphine. The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting, small sample sizes and attrition. CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine might be considered as a fourth-line option compared with the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even then it would only be suitable for some patients.

Individuals' experiences of, and responses to, a negative genetic test result for familial hypercholesterolaemia.

This study aimed to explore the responses of individuals who have undergone genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) where no genetic mutation has been identified. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 patients and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) was employed. This article describes three inter-related themes: 'feeling in limbo', 'exploring causes of raised cholesterol' and 'contradictions in talk about diet'. Although participants generally adhered to medication and engaged in healthy lifestyles, the findings have clinical implications for how genetic test results are communicated.