Telemedicine and the assessment of clinician time: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine may improve healthcare access and efficiency if it demands less clinician time than usual care. We sought to describe the degree to which telemedicine trials assess the effect of telemedicine on clinicians' time and to discuss how including the time needed to treat (TNT) in health technology assessment (HTA) could affect the design of telemedicine services and studies. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching clinicaltrials.gov using the search term "telemedicine" and limiting results to randomized trials or observational studies registered between January 2012 and October 2023. We then reviewed trial registration data to determine if any of the outcomes assessed in the trials measured effect on clinicians' time. RESULTS: We found 113 studies and of these 78 studies of telemedicine met the inclusion criteria and were included. Nine (12 percent) of the 78 studies had some measure of clinician time as a primary outcome, and 11 (14 percent) as a secondary outcome. Four studies compared direct measures of TNT with telemedicine versus usual care, but no statistically significant difference was found. Of the sixteen studies including indirect measures of clinician time, thirteen found no significant effects, two found a statistically significant reduction, and one found a statistically significant increase. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review found that clinician time is not commonly measured in studies of telemedicine interventions. Attention to telemedicine's TNT in clinical studies and HTAs of telemedicine in practice may bring attention to the organization of clinical workflows and increase the value of telemedicine.

Confounding biases in studies on early- versus late-caffeine in preterm infants: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Caffeine is indicated for the management of apnoea of prematurity and extubation in preterm infants. Early initiation of caffeine administration has increased in the past decades with the purpose of reducing respiratory morbidity. However, there might be harms associated with this approach. This systematic review aims to assess whether early administration of caffeine reduces morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. METHODS: The methods were published in a preregistered protocol. The literature search was performed in February 2019 with no restrictions for language or publication date. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing early versus late caffeine administration to infants born before week 34 were included. RESULTS: Two RCTs and 14 cohort studies were included. All studies but one had a serious/critical overall risk of bias. Few studies reported on long-term or patient-relevant outcomes. No meta-analysis could be performed. CONCLUSION: Based on the available evidence, no conclusions about the optimal timing of caffeine administration can be drawn. There are inherent methodological problems in the cohort studies. RCTs are needed to answer the question of optimal timing for caffeine administration in neonatal care. Future trials should focus on outcomes relevant to patients and their families and include long-term outcomes.

Benefits and harms of screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm in Sweden: a registry-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Large reductions in the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and AAA-related mortality mean that results from randomised trials of screening for the disorder might be out-dated. The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of AAA screening in Sweden on disease-specific mortality, incidence, and surgery. METHODS: Individual data on the incidence of AAA, AAA mortality, and surgery for AAA in a cohort of men aged 65 years who were invited to screening between 2006 and 2009, were compared with data from an age-matched contemporaneous cohort of men who were not invited for AAA screening. We also analysed national data for all men aged 40-99 years between Jan 1, 1987, and Dec 31, 2015, to explore background trends. Adjustment for confounding was done by weighting the analyses with a propensity score obtained from a logistic regression model on cohort year, marital status, educational level, income, and whether the patient already had an AAA diagnosis at baseline. Adjustment for differential attrition was also done by weighting the analyses with the inverse probability of still being in the cohort 6 years after screening. Generalised estimating equations were used to adjust the variance for repeated measurement and in response to the weighting. FINDINGS: AAA mortality in Swedish men has decreased from 36 to ten deaths per 100 000 men aged 65-74 years between the early 2000s and 2015. Mortality decreased at similar rates in all Swedish counties, irrespective of whether AAA screening was offered. After 6 years with screening, we found a non-significant reduction in AAA mortality associated with screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·38-1·51), which means that two men (95% CI -3 to 7) avoid death from AAA for every 10 000 men offered screening. Screening was associated with increased odds of AAA diagnosis (aOR 1·52, 95% CI 1·16-1·99; p=0·002) and an increased risk of elective surgery (aOR 1·59, 95% CI 1·20-2·10; p=0·001), such that for every 10 000 men offered screening, 49 men (95% CI 25-73) were likely to be overdiagnosed, 19 of whom (95% CI 1-37) had avoidable surgery that increased their risk of mortality and morbidity. INTERPRETATION: AAA screening in Sweden did not contribute substantially to the large observed reductions in AAA mortality. The reductions were mostly caused by other factors, probably reduced smoking. The small benefit and substantially less favourable benefit-to-harm balance call the continued justification of the intervention into question. FUNDING: Research Unit and Section for General Practice, FoUU-centrum Fyrbodal, Sweden, and the region of Västra Götaland, Sweden.

Screening for reducing morbidity and mortality in malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Screening for malignant melanoma has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from the disease through earlier detection, as prognosis is closely associated with the thickness of the lesion at the time of diagnosis. However, there are also potential harms from screening people without skin lesion concerns, such as overdiagnosis of lesions that would never have caused symptoms if they had remained undetected. Overdiagnosis results in harm through unnecessary treatment and the psychosocial consequences of being labelled with a cancer diagnosis. For any type of screening, the benefits must outweigh the harms. Screening for malignant melanoma is currently practised in many countries, and the incidence of the disease is rising sharply, while mortality remains largely unchanged. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on morbidity and mortality of screening for malignant melanoma in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registries, checked the reference lists of included and other relevant studies for further references to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), used citation tracking (Web of Science) for key articles, and asked trialists about additional studies and study reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs, including cluster-randomised trials, of screening for malignant melanoma compared with no screening, regardless of screening modality or setting, in any type of population and in any age group where people were not suspected of having malignant melanoma. We excluded studies in people with a genetic disposition for malignant melanoma (e.g. familial atypical mole and melanoma syndrome) and studies performed exclusively in people with previous melanomas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes of this review were total mortality, overdiagnosis of malignant melanoma, and quality of life/psychosocial consequences. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 64,391 participants. The first study was a randomised trial of an intervention developed to increase the rate of performance of thorough skin self-examination. The intervention group received instructional materials, including cues and aids, a 14-minute instruction video, and a brief counselling session, and at three weeks a brief follow-up telephone call from a health educator, aimed at increasing performance of thorough skin self-examination. The control group received a diet intervention with similar follow-up. The trial included 1356 people, who were recruited from 11 primary care practices in the US between 2000 and 2001. Participant mean age was 53.2 years and 41.7% were men. This study did not report on any of our primary outcomes or the following secondary outcomes: mortality specific to malignant melanoma, false-positive rates (skin biopsies/excisions with benign outcome), or false-negative rates (malignant melanomas diagnosed between screening rounds and up to one year after the last round). All participants were asked to complete follow-up telephone interviews at 2, 6, and 12 months after randomisation.The second study was a pilot study for a cluster-RCT of population-based screening for malignant melanoma in Australia. This pilot trial included 63,035 adults aged over 30 years. The three-year programme involved community education, an education and support component for medical practitioners, and the provision of free skin screening services. The mean age of people attending the skin screening clinics (which were held by primary care physicians in workplaces, community venues, and local hospitals, and included day and evening sessions) was 46.5 years, and 51.5% were men. The study included whole communities, targeting participants over 30 years of age, but information on age and gender of the whole study population was not reported. Study duration was three years (1998 to 2001), and outcomes were measured at the screening clinics during these three years. There was no further follow-up for any outcomes. The control group received no programme. The ensuing, planned cluster randomised trial in 560,000 adults was never carried out due to lack of funding. At the time of this review, there are no published or unpublished data on our prespecified outcomes available, and no results for mortality outcomes from the pilot study are to be expected.The risk of bias in these studies was high for performance bias (blinding study personnel and participants) and high or unclear for detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). Risk of bias in the other domains was either unclear or low. We were unable to assess the certainty of the evidence for our primary outcomes as planned due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adult general population screening for malignant melanoma is not supported or refuted by current evidence from RCTs. It therefore does not fulfil accepted criteria for implementation of population screening programmes. This review did not investigate the effects of screening people with a history of malignant melanoma or in people with a genetic disposition for malignant melanoma (e.g. familial atypical mole and melanoma syndrome). To determine the benefits and harms of screening for malignant melanoma, a rigorously conducted randomised trial is needed, which assesses overall mortality, overdiagnosis, psychosocial consequences, and resource use.

Sustainable oral healthcare: what is it and how do we achieve it?

In recent years, there has been an increase in interest in what environmental sustainability means for healthcare, including oral health and dentistry. To help facilitate discussions among key stakeholders in this area, the Scottish Dental Clinical Effectiveness Programme held a workshop in November 2022. The purpose of this workshop was to explore current thinking on the subject of sustainability as it relates to oral health and to help stakeholders identify how to engage with the sustainability agenda. This paper presents an overview of the presentations and discussions from the workshop and highlights potential avenues for future work and collaboration.

[What is overdiagnosis?] / Överdiagnostik ­ vad är det?

A considerable amount of spending in health care is deemed wasteful. Overdiagnosis, i.e. the labelling of a person with a diagnosis that lacks net benefit, is an entity within the overarching concept of ¼too much medicine«. Overdiagnosis includes overdetection and overdefinition. Disease mongering is a type of overdefinition with economic drivers. Overtesting and overtreatment are other aspects of ¼too much medicine«, but are not overdiagnosis per se. Medical research tends to focus on benefits of diagnostics and therapy, whereas overdiagnosis and other harms receive less attention, leading to overestimation of benefits. The international network Choosing Wisely has been successful in changing the diagnostic mindset in several countries and a Swedish campaign is under way, yielding new possibilities to counteract ¼too much medicine« and the specific problem of overdiagnosis.

Evaluation of evidence supporting NICE recommendations to change people's lifestyle in clinical practice: cross sectional survey.

Objectives: To assess whether recommendations of individually oriented lifestyle interventions (IOLIs) in guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were underpinned by evidence of benefit, and whether harms and opportunity costs were considered. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: UK. Data sources: NICE guidelines and supporting evidence. Eligibility criteria: All NICE pathways for IOLI recommendations (ie, non-drug interventions that healthcare professionals administer to adults to achieve a healthier lifestyle and improve health) were searched systematically on 26 August 2020. One author screened all retrieved pathways for candidate guidelines, while a second author verified these judgments. Two authors independently and in duplicate screened all retrieved guidelines and recommendations for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the evidence cited and the outcomes considered. Disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus. Results: Within 57 guidelines, 379 NICE recommendations were found for IOLIs; almost all (n=374; 99%) recommended the lifestyle intervention and five (1%) recommended against the intervention. Of the 379 recommendations, 13 (3%) were supported by moderate or high certainty evidence of a beneficial effect on patient relevant outcomes (n=7; 2%) or surrogate outcomes (n=13; 3%). 19 (5%) interventions considered psychosocial harms, 32 (8%) considered physical harms, and one (<1%) considered the opportunity costs of implementation. No intervention considered the burden placed on individuals by these recommendations. Conclusion: Few NICE recommendations of lifestyle interventions are supported by reliable evidence. While this finding does not contest the beneficial effects of healthy habits, guidelines recommending clinicians to try to change people's lifestyle need to be reconsidered given the substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness, harms, and opportunity costs of such interventions.

Overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: Overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services harm individuals, take resources that could be used to address underuse, and threaten the sustainability of health systems. These problems are attracting increasing attention in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Unaware of any review of relevant evidence, we conducted a scoping review of the evidence around overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic and screening tests in LMICs. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus for relevant studies published until 24 May 2021, with no restrictions on date or language. We categorised included studies by major focus (overdiagnosis, overuse of tests, or both) and main themes (presence or estimates of extent; drivers; consequences and solutions). RESULTS: We identified 2763 unique records and included 162 articles reporting on 154 studies across 55 countries, involving over 2.8 million participants and/or requests for tests. Almost half the studies focused on overdiagnosis (70; 45.5%), one-third on overuse of tests (61; 39.6%) and one-fifth on both (23; 14.9%). Common overdiagnosed conditions included malaria (61; 39.6%) and thyroid cancer (25; 16.2%), estimated to be >70% in China. Overused tests included imaging (n=25 studies) such as CT and MRI; laboratory investigations (n=18) such as serological tests and tumour markers; and procedures (n=14) such as colonoscopy. Drivers included fear of conflict with patients and expanding disease definitions. Common consequences included unnecessary treatments such as antimalarials, and wasted resources, with costs of malaria overdiagnosis estimated at US$86 million in Sudan in 1 year alone. Only 9% of studies discussed solutions, which included addressing inappropriately lowered diagnostic thresholds and reforming test-ordering processes. CONCLUSIONS: Overdiagnosis and overuse of tests are widespread in LMICs and generate significant harm and waste. Better understanding of the problems and robust evaluation of solutions is needed, informed by a new global alliance of researchers and policy-makers.