Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

A Review of Transition Metal Boride, Carbide, Pnictide, and Chalcogenide Water Oxidation Electrocatalysts.

Transition metal borides, carbides, pnictides, and chalcogenides (X-ides) have emerged as a class of materials for the oxygen evolution reaction (OER). Because of their high earth abundance, electrical conductivity, and OER performance, these electrocatalysts have the potential to enable the practical application of green energy conversion and storage. Under OER potentials, X-ide electrocatalysts demonstrate various degrees of oxidation resistance due to their differences in chemical composition, crystal structure, and morphology. Depending on their resistance to oxidation, these catalysts will fall into one of three post-OER electrocatalyst categories: fully oxidized oxide/(oxy)hydroxide material, partially oxidized core@shell structure, and unoxidized material. In the past ten years (from 2013 to 2022), over 890 peer-reviewed research papers have focused on X-ide OER electrocatalysts. Previous review papers have provided limited conclusions and have omitted the significance of "catalytically active sites/species/phases" in X-ide OER electrocatalysts. In this review, a comprehensive summary of (i) experimental parameters (e.g., substrates, electrocatalyst loading amounts, geometric overpotentials, Tafel slopes, etc.) and (ii) electrochemical stability tests and post-analyses in X-ide OER electrocatalyst publications from 2013 to 2022 is provided. Both mono and polyanion X-ides are discussed and classified with respect to their material transformation during the OER. Special analytical techniques employed to study X-ide reconstruction are also evaluated. Additionally, future challenges and questions yet to be answered are provided in each section. This review aims to provide researchers with a toolkit to approach X-ide OER electrocatalyst research and to showcase necessary avenues for future investigation.

Health equity principles for oncology real world evidence studies.

BACKGROUND: Real-world research on cancer care in the community should address social determinants of health (SDOH) to advance health equity in cancer diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. We sought patient and stakeholder perspectives to co-develop research principles to guide researchers when using patient record data to address health equity in their research protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Key informant interviews with 13 individuals elicited perspectives and insights related to health equity and SDOH when conducting research using data from community-based oncology care. Interviews included a brief overview of a prior scoping review and related questions in the interview guide. Key informants included experts in health equity and SDOH, and patient and community advisory board members. Rapid qualitative analysis was used to identify key themes, patterns, and insights from the interview data. Principles were developed based on the results of the analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching categories for promoting health equity were (1) education; (2) community engagement; and (3) research design and implementation. Education principles highlight the necessity of training in relevant skills to address health equity. Community engagement principles highlight various actions that researchers can take to conduct research inclusive of community concerns regarding health equity. The research design and implementation category provides practical guidelines for researchers in planning, conducting, and disseminating community-based oncology research to address health equity. CONCLUSION: Our principles guide oncology real-world research protocols to address SDOH in community settings and promote health equity. These principles should be tailored to specific cancer topics and communities.

Demystifying the Digital Divide: Disparities in Telerehabilitation Readiness Among Older Adults in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate readiness of older rehabilitation users in the United States to participate in video-based telerehabilitation and assess disparities in readiness among racial and ethnic minoritized populations, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and rural-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using nationally representative survey data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study from 2015 and 2020. Survey-weighted regression models, accounting for complex survey design, were used to generate estimates of readiness and evaluate disparities across racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic subgroups. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for each comparison. SETTING: Home or community rehabilitation environments. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 5274 home or community-based rehabilitation users aged 70 years or older (N=5274), representing a weighted 33,576,313 older adults in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Video-based telerehabilitation readiness was defined consistent with prior work; unreadiness was defined as lacking ownership of internet-enabled devices, limited proficiency of use, or living with severe cognitive, visual, or hearing impairment. Telerehabilitation readiness was categorized as "Ready" or "Unready". RESULTS: Approximately 2 in 3 older rehabilitation users were categorized as ready to participate in video-based rehabilitation. Significantly lower rates of readiness were observed among those living in rural areas (OR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.60-0.94), financially strained individuals (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.53), and among individuals identifying as Black or Hispanic (as compared with non-Hispanic White older adults: Non-Hispanic Black [OR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.18-0.30]; Hispanic [OR=0.17, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.27]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight significant disparities in the readiness to uptake video-based telerehabilitation. Policy and practice interventions to address telerehabilitation readiness should focus not only on improving broadband access but also on technology ownership and training to ensure equitable adoption in populations with lower baseline readiness.

Mass Transfer Limitation within Molecular Crowding Electrolyte Reorienting (100) and (101) Texture for Dendrite-Free Zinc Metal Batteries.

Aqueous zinc metal batteries are emerging as a promising alternative for energy storage due to their high safety and low cost. However, their development is hindered by the formation of Zn dendrites and side reactions. Herein, a macromolecular crowding electrolyte (MCE40) is prepared by incorporating polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) into the aqueous solutions, exhibiting an enlarged electrochemical stability window and anti-freezing properties. Notably, through electrochemical measurements and characterizations, it is discovered that the mass transfer limitation near the electrode surface within the MCE40 electrolyte inhibits the (002) facets. This leads to the crystallographic reorientation of Zn deposition to expose the (100) and (101) textures, which undergo a "nucleation-merge-growth" process to form a uniform and compact Zn deposition. Consequently, the MCE40 enables highly reversible and stable Zn plating/stripping in Zn/Cu half cells over 600 cycles and in Zn/Zn symmetric cells for over 3000 hours at 1.0 mA cm-2. Furthermore, Na0.33V2O5/Zn and α-MnO2/Zn full cells display promising capacity and sustained stability over 500 cycles at room and sub-zero temperatures. This study highlights a novel electrochemical mechanism for achieving preferential Zn deposition, introducing a unique strategy for fabricating dendrite-free zinc metal batteries.

The association of major adverse limb events and combination stent and atherectomy in patients undergoing revascularization for lower extremity peripheral artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of combined atherectomy and stenting relative to use of each procedure alone for the treatment of lower extremity peripheral artery disease has not been evaluated. AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term major adverse limb event (MALE) following the receipt of stenting, atherectomy, and the combination of stent and atherectomy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients undergoing atherectomy, stent, and combination stent atherectomy for lower extremity peripheral artery disease was derived from the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data set. The primary outcome was MALE and was assessed in the short-term and long-term. Short-term MALE was assessed immediately following the procedure to discharge and estimated using logistic regression. Long-term MALE was assessed after discharge to end of follow-up and estimated using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model. RESULTS: Among the 46,108 included patients, 6896 (14.95%) underwent atherectomy alone, 35,774 (77.59%) received a stent, and 3438 (7.5%) underwent a combination of stenting and atherectomy. The adjusted model indicated a significantly higher odds of short-term MALE in the atherectomy group (OR = 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.16-1.57), and not significantly different odds (OR = 0.93; 95% CI:0.77-1.13) in the combination stent and atherectomy group when compared to stenting alone. With regard to long-term MALE, the model indicated that the likelihood of experiencing the outcome was slightly lower (HR = 0.90; 95% CI:0.82-0.98) in the atherectomy group, and not significantly different (HR = 0.92; 95% CI:0.82-1.04) in the combination stent and atherectomy group when compared to the stent group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the VQI data set who received combination stenting and atherectomy did not experience significantly different rates of MALE when compared with stenting alone. It is crucial to consider and further evaluate the influence of anatomical characteristics on treatment strategies and potential differential effects of comorbidities and other demographic factors on the short and long-term MALE risks.

The Association Between Altmetric Attention Scores and Public Engagement in the Medical Literature.

INTRODUCTION: With the advent of social media and the associated increase in connectivity between scientists and the lay public, the Altmetric Attention Score has been created as a way to measure these interactions between scholarly publications and media dissemination. Little is known, however, whether these types of media exchanges measured by Altmetrics may serve as a proxy for public engagement. As such, we have sought to determine whether or not an association exists between Altmetric scores and public engagement, as measured by article citation in a health policy document. METHODS: The top 100 highest scoring articles in the medical and health sciences with respect to Altmetric Attention Scores were selected from each of 3 y (2014, 2015, and 2016). Each article was then matched to an article from the same year and journal with the highest Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) for comparison. Bivariate analysis compared article groups with respect to citation in a public policy document, open-access status, and funding status, as well as Altmetric and RCR scores. A multivariable model was then constructed to identify significant factors associated with citation in a public policy document. Finally, a contour plot was generated in order to estimate the interaction between Altmetric Scores and RCR and their comparative effects on the probability of inclusion in a health policy document. RESULTS: Of the 600 articles included in the analysis, 286 (48%) had been cited by a public policy article. The only difference that existed between the cohorts was for funding status, with 55 articles (40%) in the RCR cohort having received funding compared to 81 (60%) in the Altmetric cohort (P = 0.011). On bivariate analysis, both Altmetric (P = 0.0018) and RCR (P < 0.0001) scores were independently predictive of policy citation. In a multivariable model, the interaction between Altmetric Scores and RCR with respect to policy inclusion was significant (OR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.08-1.38) and a contour plot demonstrates that either high Altmetric score or RCR alone is sufficient to generate a high probability of policy inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: Scholarly article Altmetric Scores may serve as a novel means to explore public engagement in scientific research and health policy. In addition, journals that aim to impact public policy through article dissemination may benefit from engagement in social media avenues in addition to traditional citation pathways in order to encourage broader inclusion.

Eliciting Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer Treatment Preferences Using Clinical Vignettes: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: While surgical resection has been the traditional standard treatment for small (≤1 cm), differentiated thyroid cancers, active surveillance (AS) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are increasingly considered. The aim of this study was to explore patient preferences in thyroid cancer treatment using a series of clinical vignettes. METHODS: Thyroid cancer survivors and general population volunteers were recruited to rank experience-driven clinical vignettes in order of preference. Rankings were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank. Formative qualitative methods were used to develop and refine clinical vignettes that captured 4 treatments-thyroid lobectomy (TL), total thyroidectomy (TT), AS, and RFA-along with 6 treatment complications. Content was validated via interviews with 5 academic subspecialists. RESULTS: Nineteen volunteers participated (10 survivors, 9 general population). Treatment complications were ranked lower than uncomplicated counterparts in 99.0% of cases, indicating excellent comprehension. Counter to our hypothesis, among uncomplicated vignettes, median rankings were 1 for AS, 2 for RFA, 3.5 for TL, and 5 for TT. Trends were consistent between thyroid cancer survivors and the general population. AS was significantly preferred over RFA (P = .02) and TT (P < .01). Among surgical options, TL was significantly preferred over TT (P < .01). CONCLUSION: When treatments for low-risk thyroid cancer are described clearly and accurately through clinical vignettes, patients may be more likely to choose less invasive treatment options over traditional surgical resection.

Stainless Steel-Like Passivation Inspires Persistent Silicon Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries.

Passivation of stainless steel by additives forming mass-transport blocking layers is widely practiced, where Cr element is added into bulk Fe-C forming the Cr2 O3 -rich protective layer. Here we extend the long-practiced passivation concept to Si anodes for lithium-ion batteries, incorporating the passivator of LiF/Li2 CO3 into bulk Si. The passivation mechanism is studied by various ex situ characterizations, redox peak contour maps, thickness evolution tests, and finite element simulations. The results demonstrate that the passivation can enhance the (de)lithiation of Li-Si alloys, induce the formation of F-rich solid electrolyte interphase, stabilize the Si/LiF/Li2 CO3 composite, and mitigate the volume change of Si anodes upon cycling. The 3D passivated Si anode can fully retain a high capacity of 3701 mAh g-1 after 1500 cycles and tolerate high rates up to 50C. This work provides insight into how to construct durable Si anodes through effective passivation.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Catalytic Reactions on Pd-Au Bimetallic Model Catalysts.

ConspectusThe enhanced catalytic activity of Pd-Au catalysts originates from ensemble effects related to the local composition of Pd and Au. The study of Pd-Au planar model catalysts in an ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) environment allows the observation of molecular level catalytic reactions between the Pd-Au surface and target molecules. Recently, there has been progress in understanding the behavior of simple molecules (H2, O2, CO, etc.) employing UHV surface science techniques, the results of which can be applied not only to heterogeneous catalysis but also to electro- and photochemical catalysis.Employing UHV methods in the investigation of Pd-Au model catalysts has shown that single Pd atoms can dissociatively adsorb H2 molecules. The recombinative desorption temperature of H2 varies with Pd ensemble size, which allows the use of H2 as a probe molecule for quantifying surface composition. In particular, H2 desorption from Pd-Au interface sites (or small Pd ensembles) is observed from 150-300 K, which is between the H2 desorption temperature from pure Au (∼110 K) and Pd (∼350 K) surfaces. When the Pd ensembles are large enough to form Pd(111)-like islands, H2 desorption occurs from 300-400 K, as with pure Pd surfaces. The different H2 desorption behavior, which depends on Pd ensemble size, has also been applied to the analysis of dehydrogenation mechanisms for potential liquid storage mediums for H2, namely formic acid and ethanol. In both cases, the Pd-Au interface is the main reaction site for generating H2 from formic acid and ethanol with less overall decomposition of the two molecules (compared to pure Pd).The chemistry behind O2 activation has also been informed through the control of Pd ensembles on a gold model catalyst for acetaldehyde and ethanol oxidation reactions under UHV conditions. O2 molecules molecularly adsorbed on continuous Pd clusters can be dissociated into O adatoms above 180 K. This O2 activation process is improved by coadsorbed H2O molecules. It is also possible to directly (through a precursor mechanism) introduce O adatoms on the Pd-Au surface by exposure to O2 at 300 K. The quantity of dissociatively adsorbed O adatoms is proportional to the Pd coverage. However, the O adatoms are more reactive on a less Pd covered surface, especially at the Pd-Au interface sites, which can initiate CO oxidation at temperatures as low as 140 K. Acetaldehyde molecules can be selectively oxidized to acetic acid on the Pd-Au surface with O adatoms, in which the selectivity toward acetic acid originates from preventing the decarboxylation of acetate species. Moreover, the O adatoms on the Pd-Au surface accelerate ethanol dehydrogenation, which causes the increase in acetaldehyde production. Hydrogen is continuously abstracted from the formed acetaldehyde and remaining ethanol molecules, and they ultimately combine as ethyl acetate on the Pd-Au surface.Using Pd-Au model catalysts under UHV conditions allows the discovery of molecular level mechanistic details regarding the catalytic behavior of H and O adatoms with other molecules. We also expect that these findings will be applicable regarding other chemistry on Pd-Au catalysts.

Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Cancer: Treatment De-Escalation and Cost Implications.

INTRODUCTION: The American Thyroid Association (ATA) updated consensus guidelines in 2015 for radioactive iodine (RAI) and resection for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer. The objective of this study was to describe the evolution of institutional practice patterns and estimate the cost implications of these trends. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cT1-T2N0 papillary thyroid cancer were identified via an institutional tumor registry. Incidences of total thyroidectomy or RAI were tracked longitudinally using cumulative sum. Real-world costs for RAI and each surgical encounter were adjusted for inflation and standardized to national average costs from National Inpatient Sample cost data. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria between 2007 and 2018. Among these, 28 patients underwent total thyroidectomies and received RAI treatments based on criteria pre-dating the 2015 ATA guidelines. Cumulative sum revealed significant decreases in the rate of total thyroidectomy following May 2015 (15.8% versus 59.5%, P = 0.002) and RAI following March 2013 (3.0% versus 32.1%, P = 0.002). There were no locoregional recurrences in either period. The average cost savings attributable to these institutional practice changes was $1580 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation in surgical and RAI utilization for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer according to 2015 ATA guidelines is associated with a substantial decrease in real-world costs.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Similar values, different expectations: How do patients and providers view 'health' and perceive the healthcare experience?

INTRODUCTION: No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with semi-structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in-depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts. RESULTS: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)-comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators-was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members-Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician-are coauthors.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. RESULTS: Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.