"We are not invited": Australian focus group results on how to improve ethnic diversity in trials.

OBJECTIVES: Lack of ethnic diversity in trials may contribute to health disparities and to inequity in health outcomes. The primary objective was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of ethnically diverse populations about how to improve ethnic diversity in trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative data were collected via 16 focus groups with participants from 21 ethnically diverse communities in Australia. Data collection took place between August and September 2022 in community-based settings in six capital cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, and Darwin, and one rural town: Bordertown (South Australia). RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight purposively sampled adults (aged 18-85, 49% women) participated in groups speaking Tamil, Greek, Punjabi, Italian, Mandarin, Cantonese, Karin, Vietnamese, Nepalese, and Arabic; or English-language groups (comprising Fijian, Filipino, African, and two multicultural groups). Only 10 participants had previously taken part in medical research including three in trials. There was support for medical research, including trials; however, most participants had never been invited to participate. To increase ethnic diversity in trial populations, participants recommended recruitment via partnering with communities, translating trial materials and making them culturally accessible using audiovisual ways, promoting retention by minimizing participant burden, establishing trust and rapport between participants and researchers, and sharing individual results. Participants were reluctant to join studies on taboo topics in their communities (eg, sexual health) or in which physical specimens (eg, blood) were needed. Participants said these barriers could be mitigated by communicating about the topic in more culturally cognizant and safe ways, explaining how data would be securely stored, and reinforcing the benefit of medical research to humanity. CONCLUSION: Participants recognized the principal benefits of trials and other medical research, were prepared to take part, and offered suggestions on recruitment, consent, data collection mechanisms, and retention to enable this to occur. Researchers should consider these community insights when designing and conducting trials; and government, regulators, funders, and publishers should allow for greater innovation and flexibility in their processes to enable ethnic diversity in trials to improve.

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.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus. RESULTS: The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A collaborative approach to adopting/adapting guidelines. The Australian 24-hour movement guidelines for children (5-12 years) and young people (13-17 years): An integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the Australian Government updated the Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Children and Young People. A requirement of this update was the incorporation of a 24-hour approach to movement, recognising the importance of adequate sleep. The purpose of this paper was to describe how the updated Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Young People (5 to 17 years): an integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep were developed and the outcomes from this process. METHODS: The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach was used to develop the guidelines. A Leadership Group was formed, who identified existing credible guidelines. The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth best met the criteria established by the Leadership Group. These guidelines were evaluated based on the evidence in the GRADE tables, summaries of findings tables and recommendations from the Canadian Guidelines. We conducted updates to each of the Canadian systematic reviews. A Guideline Development Group reviewed, separately and in combination, the evidence for each behaviour. A choice was then made to adopt or adapt the Canadian recommendations for each behaviour or create de novo recommendations. We then conducted an online survey (n=237) along with three focus groups (n=11 in total) and 13 key informant interviews. Stakeholders used these to provide feedback on the draft guidelines. RESULTS: Based on the evidence from the Canadian systematic reviews and the updated systematic reviews in Australia, the Guideline Development Group agreed to adopt the Canadian recommendations and, apart from some minor changes to the wording of good practice statements, maintain the wording of the guidelines, preamble, and title of the Canadian Guidelines. The Australian Guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for a healthy day (24-hours), integrating physical activity, sedentary behaviour (including limits to screen time), and sleep for children (5-12 years) and young people (13-17 years). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is only the second time the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach has been used to develop movement behaviour guidelines. The judgments of the Australian Guideline Development Group did not differ sufficiently to change the directions and strength of the recommendations and as such, the Canadian Guidelines were adopted with only very minor alterations. This allowed the Australian Guidelines to be developed in a shorter time frame and at a lower cost. We recommend the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, especially if a credible set of guidelines that was developed using the GRADE approach is available with all supporting materials. Other countries may consider this approach when developing and/or revising national movement guidelines.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholder engagement has become widely accepted as a necessary component of guideline development and implementation. While frameworks for developing guidelines express the need for those potentially affected by guideline recommendations to be involved in their development, there is a lack of consensus on how this should be done in practice. Further, there is a lack of guidance on how to equitably and meaningfully engage multiple stakeholders. We aim to develop guidance for the meaningful and equitable engagement of multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. METHODS: This will be a multi-stage project. The first stage is to conduct a series of four systematic reviews. These will (1) describe existing guidance and methods for stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (2) characterize barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation, (3) explore the impact of stakeholder engagement on guideline development and implementation, and (4) identify issues related to conflicts of interest when engaging multiple stakeholders in guideline development and implementation. DISCUSSION: We will collaborate with our multiple and diverse stakeholders to develop guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. We will use the results of the systematic reviews to develop a candidate list of draft guidance recommendations and will seek broad feedback on the draft guidance via an online survey of guideline developers and external stakeholders. An invited group of representatives from all stakeholder groups will discuss the results of the survey at a consensus meeting which will inform the development of the final guidance papers. Our overall goal is to improve the development of guidelines through meaningful and equitable multi-stakeholder engagement, and subsequently to improve health outcomes and reduce inequities in health.

Extending the RIGHT statement for reporting adapted practice guidelines in healthcare: the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The adaptation of guidelines is an increasingly used methodology for the efficient development of contextualised recommendations. Nevertheless, there is no specific reporting guidance. The essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement could be useful for reporting adapted guidelines, but it does not address all the important aspects of the adaptation process. The objective of our project is to develop an extension of the RIGHT statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To develop the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist, we will use a multistep process that includes: (1) establishment of a Working Group; (2) generation of an initial checklist based on the RIGHT statement; (3) optimisation of the checklist (an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review by guideline developers and users and a final assessment of adapted guidelines); and (4) approval of the final checklist. At each step of the process, we will calculate absolute frequencies and proportions, use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions, discuss the results, draft a report and refine the checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona, Spain). We will disseminate the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist by publishing into a peer-reviewed journal, presenting to relevant stakeholders and translating into different languages. We will continuously seek feedback from stakeholders, surveil new relevant evidence and, if necessary, update the checklist.

Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. Taxanes are highly active chemotherapy agents used in metastatic breast cancer. Review authors examined their role in early breast cancer. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for treatment of women with operable early breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (2018, Issue 6), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2018, using key words such as 'early breast cancer' and 'taxanes'. We screened reference lists of other related literature reviews and articles, contacted trial authors, and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing taxane-containing regimens versus non-taxane-containing regimens in women with operable breast cancer were included. Studies of women receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS); disease-free survival (DFS) was a secondary outcome measure. Toxicity was represented as odds ratios (ORs), and quality of life (QoL) data were extracted when present. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 29 studies (27 full-text publications and 2 abstracts or online theses). The updated analysis included 41,911 randomised women; the original review included 21,191 women. Taxane-containing regimens improved OS (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence; 27 studies; 39,180 women; 6501 deaths) and DFS (HR, 0.88, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.92; high-certainty evidence; 29 studies; 41,909 women; 10,271 reported events) compared to chemotherapy without a taxane. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity across studies for OS and DFS (respectively).When a taxane-containing regimen was compared with the same regimen without a taxane, the beneficial effects of taxanes persisted for OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 10,842 women) and for DFS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 10,842 women). When a taxane-containing regimen was compared with the same regimen with another drug or drugs that were substituted for the taxane, a beneficial effect was observed for OS and DFS with the taxane-containing regimen (OS: HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.86; P < 0.001; 13 studies; 16,196 women; DFS: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 14 studies; 16,823 women). Preliminary subgroup analysis by lymph node status showed a survival benefit with taxane-containing regimens in studies of women with lymph node-positive disease only (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 17 studies; 22,055 women) but less benefit in studies of women both with and without lymph node metastases or with no lymph node metastases. Taxane-containing regimens also improved DFS in women with lymph node-positive disease (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.88; P < 0.001; 17 studies; 22,055 women), although the benefit was marginal in studies of women both with and without lymph node-positive disease (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; 9 studies; 12,998 women) and was not apparent in studies of women with lymph node-negative disease (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.14; 3 studies; 6856 women).Taxanes probably result in a small increase in risk of febrile neutropenia (odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; moderate-certainty evidence; 24 studies; 33,763 women) and likely lead to a large increase in grade 3/4 neuropathy (OR 6.89, 95% CI 3.23 to 14.71; P < 0.001; moderate-certainty evidence; 22 studies; 31,033 women). Taxanes probably cause little or no difference in cardiotoxicity compared to regimens without a taxane (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.33; moderate-certainty evidence; 23 studies; 32,894 women). Seven studies reported low-quality evidence for QoL; overall, taxanes may make little or no difference in QoL compared to chemotherapy without a taxane during the follow-up period; however, the duration of follow-up differed across studies. Only one study, which was conducted in Europe, provided cost-effectiveness data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review of studies supports the use of taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, with improvement in overall survival and disease-free survival for women with operable early breast cancer. This benefit persisted when analyses strictly compared a taxane-containing regimen versus the same regimen without a taxane or the same regimen with another drug that was substituted for the taxane. Preliminary evidence suggests that taxanes are more effective for women with lymph node-positive disease than for those with lymph node-negative disease. Considerable heterogeneity across studies probably reflects the varying efficacy of the chemotherapy backbones of the comparator regimens used in these studies. This review update reports results that are remarkably consistent with those of the original review, and it is highly unlikely that this review will be updated, as new trials are assessing treatments based on more detailed breast cancer biology.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. RESULTS: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

The risk of bias in observational studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool: concerns arising from application to observational studies of exposures.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews, which assess the risk of bias in included studies, are increasingly used to develop environmental hazard assessments and public health guidelines. These research areas typically rely on evidence from human observational studies of exposures, yet there are currently no universally accepted standards for assessing risk of bias in such studies. The risk of bias in non-randomised studies of exposures (ROBINS-E) tool has been developed by building upon tools for risk of bias assessment of randomised trials, diagnostic test accuracy studies and observational studies of interventions. This paper reports our experience with the application of the ROBINS-E tool. METHODS: We applied ROBINS-E to 74 exposure studies (60 cohort studies, 14 case-control studies) in 3 areas: environmental risk, dietary exposure and drug harm. All investigators provided written feedback, and we documented verbal discussion of the tool. We inductively and iteratively classified the feedback into 7 themes based on commonalities and differences until all the feedback was accounted for in the themes. We present a description of each theme. RESULTS: We identified practical concerns with the premise that ROBINS-E is a structured comparison of the observational study being rated to the 'ideal' randomised controlled trial. ROBINS-E assesses 7 domains of bias, but relevant questions related to some critical sources of bias, such as exposure and funding source, are not assessed. ROBINS-E fails to discriminate between studies with a single risk of bias or multiple risks of bias. ROBINS-E is severely limited at determining whether confounders will bias study outcomes. The construct of co-exposures was difficult to distinguish from confounders. Applying ROBINS-E was time-consuming and confusing. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience suggests that the ROBINS-E tool does not meet the need for an international standard for evaluating human observational studies for questions of harm relevant to public and environmental health. We propose that a simpler tool, based on empirical evidence of bias, would provide accurate measures of risk of bias and is more likely to meet the needs of the environmental and public health community.

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. RESULTS: Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

A collaborative approach to adopting/adapting guidelines - The Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the early years (Birth to 5 years): an integration of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the Australian Government funded the update of the National Physical Activity Recommendations for Children 0-5 years, with the intention that they be an integration of movement behaviours across the 24-h period. The benefit for Australia was that it could leverage research in Canada in the development of their 24-h guidelines for the early years. Concurrently, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group published a model to produce guidelines based on adoption, adaption and/or de novo development using the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework. Referred to as the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, it allows guideline developers to follow a structured and transparent process in a more efficient manner, potentially avoiding the need to unnecessarily repeat costly tasks such as conducting systematic reviews. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process and outcomes for adapting the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years to develop the Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years guided by the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT framework. METHODS: The development process was guided by the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. A Leadership Group and Consensus Panel were formed and existing credible guidelines identified. The draft Canadian 24-h integrated movement guidelines for the early years best met the criteria established by the Panel. These were evaluated based on the evidence in the GRADE tables, summaries of findings tables and draft recommendations from the Canadian Draft Guidelines. Updates to each of the Canadian systematic reviews were conducted and the Consensus Panel reviewed the evidence for each behaviour separately and made a decision to adopt or adapt the Canadian recommendations for each behaviour or create de novo recommendations. An online survey was then conducted (n = 302) along with five focus groups (n = 30) and five key informant interviews (n = 5) to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the draft guidelines. RESULTS: Based on the evidence from the Canadian systematic reviews and the updated systematic reviews in Australia, the Consensus Panel agreed to adopt the Canadian recommendations and, apart from some minor changes to the wording of good practice statements, keep the wording of the guidelines, preamble and title of the Canadian Guidelines. The Australian Guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for a healthy day (24-h), integrating physical activity, sedentary behaviour (including limits to screen time), and sleep for infants (<1 year), toddlers (1-2 years) and preschoolers (3-5 years). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is only the second time the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach has been used. Following this approach, the judgments of the Australian Consensus Panel did not differ sufficiently to change the directions and strength of the recommendations and as such, the Canadian recommendations were adopted with very minor alterations. This allowed the Guidelines to be developed much faster and at lower cost. As such, we would recommend the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, especially if a credible set of guidelines, with all supporting materials and developed using a transparent process, is available. Other countries may consider using this approach when developing and/or revising national movement guidelines.

Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: We examined major issues associated with sharing of individual clinical trial data and developed a consensus document on providing access to individual participant data from clinical trials, using a broad interdisciplinary approach. DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a consensus-building process among the members of a multistakeholder task force, involving a wide range of experts (researchers, patient representatives, methodologists, information technology experts, and representatives from funders, infrastructures and standards development organisations). An independent facilitator supported the process using the nominal group technique. The consensus was reached in a series of three workshops held over 1 year, supported by exchange of documents and teleconferences within focused subgroups when needed. This work was set within the Horizon 2020-funded project CORBEL (Coordinated Research Infrastructures Building Enduring Life-science Services) and coordinated by the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network. Thus, the focus was on non-commercial trials and the perspective mainly European. OUTCOME: We developed principles and practical recommendations on how to share data from clinical trials. RESULTS: The task force reached consensus on 10 principles and 50 recommendations, representing the fundamental requirements of any framework used for the sharing of clinical trials data. The document covers the following main areas: making data sharing a reality (eg, cultural change, academic incentives, funding), consent for data sharing, protection of trial participants (eg, de-identification), data standards, rights, types and management of access (eg, data request and access models), data management and repositories, discoverability, and metadata. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the recommendations in this document would help to promote and support data sharing and reuse among researchers, adequately inform trial participants and protect their rights, and provide effective and efficient systems for preparing, storing and accessing data. The recommendations now need to be implemented and tested in practice. Further work needs to be done to integrate these proposals with those from other geographical areas and other academic domains.

Platinum-containing regimens for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies have reported high tumour response rates for platinum-containing regimens in the treatment of women with metastatic breast cancer. Most of these studies were conducted prior to the 'intrinsic subtype' era, and did not specifically focus on metastatic triple-negative breast cancers (mTNBCs). OBJECTIVES: To identify and review the evidence from randomised trials comparing platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in the management of women with metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this review update, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov on 28 May 2015. We identified further potentially relevant studies from handsearching references of previous trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Prior to this review update, the most recent search for studies was conducted in May 2003 for the original 2004 review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing platinum-containing chemotherapy regimens with regimens not containing platinum in women with metastatic breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility and quality, and extracted all relevant data from each study. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, where possible, and fixed-effect models were used for meta-analyses. Objective tumour response rates (OTRRs) and toxicities were analysed as binary (dichotomous) outcomes with risk ratios (RRs) used as measures of effects. Quality of life data were extracted where available. GRADE was used to rate the quality of evidence for survival and tumour response outcomes at the level of subgroups selected and unselected for mTNBC, and for toxicity outcomes based on combining data from selected and unselected populations. MAIN RESULTS: This update includes 15 new eligible treatment-comparisons from 12 studies. In total, 28 treatment-comparisons, involving 4418 women, from 24 studies are now included in one or more meta-analyses. Of the 28 treatment-comparisons, 19 and 16 had published or provided extractable time-to-event data on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival/time to progression (PFS/TTP), respectively. All 28 treatment-comparisons provided OTRR data that could be included in meta-analyses. Most women recruited to the studies were not selected on the basis of mTNBC status.In a subgroup of three treatment-comparisons assessing women with mTNBC, platinum-containing regimens may have provided a survival benefit (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; low-quality evidence). In women unselected for intrinsic subtypes such as mTNBC, there was little or no effect on survival (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; high-quality evidence). This effect was similar to the combined analysis of survival data for both populations (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07; I2 =39%, 1868 deaths, 2922 women; 19 trials). The difference in treatment effects between mTNBC women compared with unselected women was of borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05).Data from three treatment-comparisons with mTNBC participants showed that platinum regimens may improve PFS/TTP (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72; low-quality evidence). Thirteen treatment-comparisons of unselected metastatic participants showed that there was probably a small PFS/TTP benefit for platinum recipients, although the confidence interval included no difference (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). Combined analysis of data from an estimated 1772 women who progressed or died out of 2136 women selected or unselected for mTNBC indicated that platinum-containing regimens improved PFS/TTP (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). There was marked evidence of heterogeneity (P = 0.0004; I2 = 63%). The larger treatment benefit in mTNBC women compared with unselected women was statistically significant (P < 0.0001).There was low-quality evidence of better tumour response in both subgroups of women with mTNBC and unselected women (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.56; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.19, respectively). Combined analysis of both populations was closer to the effect in unselected women (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.22; 4130 women). There was considerable evidence of heterogeneity (P < 0.0001; I2 = 64%), which may reflect between-study differences and general difficulties in assessing response, as well as the varying potencies of the comparators.Compared with women receiving non-platinum regimens: rates of grade 3 and 4 nausea/vomiting were probably higher among women receiving cisplatin- (RR 2.65, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.34; 1731 women; moderate-quality evidence) but the effect from carboplatin-containing regimens was less certain (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; 1441 women; moderate-quality evidence); rates of grade 3 and 4 anaemia were higher among women receiving cisplatin- (RR 3.72, 95% CI 2.36 to 5.88; 1644 women; high-quality evidence) and carboplatin-containing regimens (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.70; 1441 women; high-quality evidence); rates of grade 3 and 4 hair loss (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.58; 1452 women; high-quality evidence) and leukopenia (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.57; 3176 women; moderate-quality evidence) were higher among women receiving platinum-containing regimens (regardless of platinum agent). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women with metastatic breast cancer who do not have triple-negative disease, there is high-quality evidence of little or no survival benefit and excess toxicity from platinum-based regimens. There is preliminary low-quality evidence of a moderate survival benefit from platinum-based regimens for women with mTNBC. Further randomised trials of platinum-based regimens in this subpopulation of women with metastatic breast cancer are required.

GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health.

There is high demand in environmental health for adoption of a structured process that evaluates and integrates evidence while making decisions and recommendations transparent. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework holds promise to address this demand. For over a decade, GRADE has been applied successfully to areas of clinical medicine, public health, and health policy, but experience with GRADE in environmental and occupational health is just beginning. Environmental and occupational health questions focus on understanding whether an exposure is a potential health hazard or risk, assessing the exposure to understand the extent and magnitude of risk, and exploring interventions to mitigate exposure or risk. Although GRADE offers many advantages, including its flexibility and methodological rigor, there are features of the different sources of evidence used in environmental and occupational health that will require further consideration to assess the need for method refinement. An issue that requires particular attention is the evaluation and integration of evidence from human, animal, in vitro, and in silico (computer modeling) studies when determining whether an environmental factor represents a potential health hazard or risk. Assessment of the hazard of exposures can produce analyses for use in the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to inform risk-management decisions about removing harmful exposures or mitigating risks. The EtD framework allows for grading the strength of the recommendations based on judgments of the certainty in the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence), as well as other factors that inform recommendations such as social values and preferences, resource implications, and benefits. GRADE represents an untapped opportunity for environmental and occupational health to make evidence-based recommendations in a systematic and transparent manner. The objectives of this article are to provide an overview of GRADE, discuss GRADE's applicability to environmental health, and identify priority areas for method assessment and development.