Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. INFORMATION SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. RESULTS: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021289712.

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

A programme to improve quality of care for patients with chronic diseases, Kazakhstan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a disease management programme in Kazakhstan on quality indicators for patients with hypertension, diabetes and chronic heart failure. METHODS: A supportive, interdisciplinary, quality improvement programme was implemented between November 2014 and November 2015 at seven polyclinics in Pavlodar and Petropavlovsk. Quality improvement teams were established at each clinic and quality improvement tools were introduced, including patient flowsheets, decision support tools, patient registries, a patient recall process, support for patient self-management and patient follow-up with intensity adjusted for level of disease control. Clinic teams met for four 3-day interactive learning sessions within 1 year, with additional coaching visits. Implementation was managed by five local coordinators and consultants trained by international consultants. National and regional steering committees monitored progress. FINDINGS: Between July and October 2015, the proportion of hypertensive patients with the recommended blood pressure increased from 24% (101/424) to 56% (228/409). Among patients with diabetes, the proportion who recently underwent eye examinations increased from 26% (101/391) to 71% (308/433); the proportion who had their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measured increased from 57% (221/391) to 85% (369/433); and the proportion who had their albumin : creatinine ratio measured increased from 11% (44/391) to 49% (212/433). The proportion of chronic heart failure patients who underwent echocardiography rose from 91% (128/140) to 99% (157/158). All patients set themselves self-management goals. CONCLUSION: This intensive, supportive, multifaceted programme was associated with significant improvements in quality of care for patients with chronic disease. Further investment in coaching capacity is needed to extend the programme nationally.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Interventions to increase the use of electronic health information by healthcare practitioners to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is a large volume of health information available, and, if applied in clinical practice, may contribute to effective patient care. Despite an abundance of information, sub-optimal care is common. Many factors influence practitioners' use of health information, and format (electronic or other) may be one such factor. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions aimed at improving or increasing healthcare practitioners' use of electronic health information (EHI) on professional practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and LISA (EBSCO) up to November 2013. We contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to improve or increase the use of EHI by healthcare practitioners on professional practice and patient outcomes. We defined EHI as information accessed on a computer. We defined 'use' as logging into EHI. We considered any healthcare practitioner involved in patient care. We included randomized, non-randomized, and cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs, NRCTs, CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs).The comparisons were: electronic versus printed health information; EHI on different electronic devices (e.g. desktop, laptop or tablet computers, etc.; cell / mobile phones); EHI via different user interfaces; EHI provided with or without an educational or training component; and EHI compared to no other type or source of information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included studies. We reassessed previously excluded studies following our decision to define logins to EHI as a measure of professional behavior. We reported results in natural units. When possible, we calculated and reported median effect size (odds ratio (OR), interquartile ranges (IQR)). Due to high heterogeneity across studies, meta-analysis was not feasible. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs and four CRCTs involving 352 physicians, 48 residents, and 135 allied health practitioners. Overall risk of bias was low as was quality of the evidence. One comparison was supported by three studies and three comparisons were supported by single studies, but outcomes across the three studies were highly heterogeneous. We found no studies to support EHI versus no alternative. Given these factors, it was not possible to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions. All studies reported practitioner use of EHI, two reported on compliance with electronic practice guidelines, and none reported on patient outcomes.One trial (139 participants) measured guideline adherence for an electronic versus printed guideline, but reported no difference between groups (median OR 0.85, IQR 0.74 to 1.08). One small cross-over trial (10 participants) reported increased use of clinical guidelines when provided with a mobile versus stationary, desktop computer (mean use per shift: intervention group (IG) 3.6, standard deviation (SD) 1.7 vs. control group (CG) 2.0 (SD 1.9), P value = 0.033). One cross-over trial (203 participants) reported that using a customized versus a generic interface had little impact on practitioners' use of EHI (mean difference in adjusted end-of-study rate: 0.77 logins/month/user, 95% confidence interval (CI) CI 0.43 to 1.11). Three trials included education or training and reported increased use of EHI by practitioners following training. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provided no evidence that the use of EHI translates into improved clinical practice or patient outcomes, though it does suggest that when practitioners are provided with EHI and education or training, the use of EHI increases. We have defined use as the activity of logging into an EHI resource, but based on our findings use does not automatically translate to the application of EHI in practice. While using EHI may be an important component of evidence-based medicine, alone it is insufficient to improve patient care or clinical practices. For EHI to be applied in patient care, it will be necessary to understand why practitioners' are reluctant to apply EHI when treating people, and to determine the most effective way(s) to reduce this reluctance.

Mentoring a health technology assessment initiative in Kazakhstan.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assist in the development of a health technology assessment (HTA) program for the Ministry of Health (MOH) of the Republic of Kazakhstan METHODS: Mentoring of an initial HTA program in Kazakhstan was provided by the Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH) by means of a partnership with the Kazakhstan MOH. HTA materials, courses, and one-on-one support for the preparation of a series of initial HTA reports by MOH HTA staff were provided by a seven-member CSIH team over a 2.5-year project. RESULTS: Guidance documents on HTA and institutional strengthening were prepared in response to an extensive set of deliverables developed by the MOH and the World Bank. Introductory and train-the-trainer workshops in HTA and economic evaluation were provided for MOH staff members, experts from Kazakhstan research institutes and physicians. Five short HTA reports were successfully developed by staff in the Ministry's HTA Unit with assistance from the CSIH team. Challenges that may be relevant to other emerging HTA programs included lack of familiarity with some essential underlying concepts, organization culture, and limited time for MOH staff to do HTA work. CONCLUSIONS: The project helped to define the need for HTA and mentored MOH staff in taking the first steps to establish a program to support health policy decision making in Kazakhstan. This experience offers practical lessons for other emerging HTA programs, although these should be tailored to the specific context.

Decision making in family medicine: randomized trial of the effects of the InfoClinique and Trip database search engines.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of users of 2 medical search engines, InfoClinique and the Trip database, to provide correct answers to clinical questions and to explore the perceived effects of the tools on the clinical decision-making process. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Three family medicine units of the family medicine program of the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University in Quebec city, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen second-year family medicine residents. INTERVENTION: Residents generated 30 structured questions about therapy or preventive treatment (2 questions per resident) based on clinical encounters. Using an Internet platform designed for the trial, each resident answered 20 of these questions (their own 2, plus 18 of the questions formulated by other residents, selected randomly) before and after searching for information with 1 of the 2 search engines. For each question, 5 residents were randomly assigned to begin their search with InfoClinique and 5 with the Trip database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ability of residents to provide correct answers to clinical questions using the search engines, as determined by third-party evaluation. After answering each question, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their perception of the engine's effect on the decision-making process in clinical practice. RESULTS: Of 300 possible pairs of answers (1 answer before and 1 after the initial search), 254 (85%) were produced by 14 residents. Of these, 132 (52%) and 122 (48%) pairs of answers concerned questions that had been assigned an initial search with InfoClinique and the Trip database, respectively. Both engines produced an important and similar absolute increase in the proportion of correct answers after searching (26% to 62% for InfoClinique, for an increase of 36%; 24% to 63% for the Trip database, for an increase of 39%; P = .68). For all 30 clinical questions, at least 1 resident produced the correct answer after searching with either search engine. The mean (SD) time of the initial search for each question was 23.5 (7.6) minutes with InfoClinique and 22.3 (7.8) minutes with the Trip database (P = .30). Participants' perceptions of each engine's effect on the decision-making process were very positive and similar for both search engines. CONCLUSION: Family medicine residents' ability to provide correct answers to clinical questions increased dramatically and similarly with the use of both InfoClinique and the Trip database. These tools have strong potential to increase the quality of medical care.

Implemented machine learning tools to inform decision-making for patient care in hospital settings: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify ML tools in hospital settings and how they were implemented to inform decision-making for patient care through a scoping review. We investigated the following research questions: What ML interventions have been used to inform decision-making for patient care in hospital settings? What strategies have been used to implement these ML interventions? DESIGN: A scoping review was undertaken. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 2009 until June 2021. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted data independently. Conflicts were resolved by another reviewer. Data were summarised descriptively using simple content analysis. SETTING: Hospital setting. PARTICIPANT: Any type of clinician caring for any type of patient. INTERVENTION: Machine learning tools used by clinicians to inform decision-making for patient care, such as AI-based computerised decision support systems or "'model-based'" decision support systems. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and study characteristics, as well as intervention characteristics including the type of machine learning tool, implementation strategies, target population. Equity issues were examined with PROGRESS-PLUS criteria. RESULTS: After screening 17 386 citations and 3474 full-text articles, 20 unique studies and 1 companion report were included. The included articles totalled 82 656 patients and 915 clinicians. Seven studies reported gender and four studies reported PROGRESS-PLUS criteria (race, health insurance, rural/urban). Common implementation strategies for the tools were clinician reminders that integrated ML predictions (44.4%), facilitated relay of clinical information (17.8%) and staff education (15.6%). Common barriers to successful implementation of ML tools were time (11.1%) and reliability (11.1%), and common facilitators were time/efficiency (13.6%) and perceived usefulness (13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence related to the implementation of ML tools to assist clinicians with patient healthcare decisions in hospital settings. Future research should examine other approaches to integrating ML into hospital clinician decisions related to patient care, and report on PROGRESS-PLUS items. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Foundation grant awarded to SES and the CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented-Research Initiative (GSR-154442). SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/e2mna.

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research.

BACKGROUND: Transparent reporting of rapid reviews enables appropriate use of research findings and dissemination strategies can strengthen uptake and impact for the targeted knowledge users, including policy-makers and health system managers. The aim of this literature review was to understand reporting and dissemination approaches for rapid reviews and provide an overview in the context of health policy and systems research. METHODS: A literature review and descriptive summary of the reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews was conducted, focusing on available guidance and methods, considerations for engagement with knowledge users, and optimizing dissemination. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, as well as relevant websites and reference lists were searched from January 2017 to March 2021 to identify the relevant literature with no language restrictions. Content was abstracted and charted. RESULTS: The literature review found limited guidance specific to rapid reviews. Building on the barriers and facilitators to systematic review use, we provide practical recommendations on different approaches and methods for reporting and disseminating expedited knowledge synthesis considering the needs of health policy and systems knowledge users. Reporting should balance comprehensive accounting of the research process and findings with what is "good enough" or sufficient to meet the requirements of the knowledge users, while considering the time and resources available to conduct a review. Typical approaches may be used when planning the dissemination of rapid review findings; such as peer-reviewed publications or symposia and clear and ongoing engagement with knowledge users in crafting the messages is essential so they are appropriately tailored to the target audience. Consideration should be given to providing different products for different audiences. Dissemination measures and bibliometrics are also useful to gauge impact and reach. CONCLUSIONS: Limited guidance specific to the reporting and dissemination of rapid reviews is available. Although approaches to expedited synthesis for health policy and systems research vary, considerations for the reporting and dissemination of findings are pertinent to all.