Unrestricted vs 3-day low-residue diet for colonoscopy preparation. Results of a feasibility randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the impact of an unrestricted diet with a 3-day low-residue diet before colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter, researcher-blinded, parallel-group feasibility trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of an unrestricted diet versus a 3-day low-residue diet for colonoscopy preparation. Participants, aged 50 to 69, were enrolled in a colorectal cancer screening program with no factors linked to poor bowel cleansing. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used to evaluate colon preparation during intubation and withdrawal. Secondary outcomes included bowel exploration time, adenoma and polyp detection rates, and preparation and diet tolerability. The trial is registered under Clinical Trials (NCT04664543). RESULTS: One hundred and two individuals (mean age 59.3 ± 5.5 years, 40.1% female) were randomly assigned to each diet. All participants in both groups achieved adequate preparation (Boston scores ≥ 2 in each segment). Complete adherence to preparation was observed in the majority of participants in both groups. No significant differences were noted between groups in withdrawal or cecal intubation times, or in adenoma detection rates. The unrestricted diet was better tolerated than the 3-day low-residue diet (82.5% vs. 32.3%). Preparation assessed during intubation was adequate in 82.5% of the unrestricted diet group and in 90.3% of the 3-day low-residue diet group. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to test the impact of an unrestricted diet for adequate bowel preparation. Comparable cleansing results were achieved, but the unrestricted diet showed better tolerability.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Introduction: Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes. Methods: In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer. Results: We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care. Discussion: Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Energy imparted and ionisation yield at the nanometre scale: results for extended beams.

The metrological problem of interpreting ionisation-based micro- and nanodosimetric measurements in terms of quantities proportional to energy imparted becomes particularly relevant when the sensitive volume (SV) size is in the nanometre range. At these scales, a constant W-value cannot be assumed, and the stochastics of the energy transfer per single collision could play a more important role. This problem was recently analysed by our group by means of track-structure Monte Carlo simulations with the Geant4-DNA code, finding a strong correlation between the energy imparted and ionisation yield also for SV diameters of 1 nm. As the previous study was limited to primary beams of radius zero crossing the sensitive sphere along its diameter, it is the aim of the present work to extend the analysis to beams with a radius larger than the dimensions of the SV, to better assess the role played by secondary electrons.

First microdosimetric measurements with a tissue-equivalent proportional counter at the MedAustron ion-beam therapy facility.

The aim of this work is to present the first microdosimetric spectra measured with a miniaturised tissue-equivalent proportional counter in the clinical environment of the MedAustron ion-beam therapy facility. These spectra were gathered with a 62.4-MeV proton beam and have been compared with microdosimetric spectra measured in the 62-MeV clinical proton beam of the CATANA beam line. Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the Geant4 toolkit GATE and a fully commissioned clinical beam line model. Finally, similarities and discrepancies of the measured data to simulations based on a simple and complex detector geometry are discussed.

Comparison of biological weighting functions to estimate the microdosimetric RBE in BNCT.

In the framework of the MUNES project, a prototype accelerator-based thermal neutron source was developed and installed at the Legnaro National Laboratories of INFN. The microdosimetric characterization of this radiation field was performed with a Tissue-Equivalent Proportional Counter with interchangeable cathode walls, either doped with 100 ppm of 10B or without boron doping. A suitable subtraction procedure allowed to discriminate the gamma, neutron and BNC dose components (Selva et al., 2022, Appl. Radiat. Isot. 182, 110144). The measured microdosimetric spectra can be weighted with a biological weighting function to estimate the Relative Biological Effectiveness of the radiation field, for the purpose of intercomparison between different thermal neutron sources. This work compares, therefore, the biological doses resulting from four different weighting functions applied to the same initial microdosimetric spectrum, discussing strengths and limitations of each of them.

Participants' satisfaction with colorectal cancer screening programs: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since satisfaction with cancer screening experience can increase adherence to programs and contribute to reduce morbidity and mortality, its assessment is crucial for programs´ effectiveness. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review about satisfaction of participants with organized colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: We searched relevant scientific databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) from inception to May 2022. We selected cross-sectional studies and clinical trials reporting a quantitative survey-based measure of satisfaction towards CRC screening. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies were included, being published from 1992 to 2019 for an overall number of 21 surveys. Of those, 16 (76%) investigated satisfaction with screening tests (fecal occult blood test, fecal immunochemical test, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, computed tomographic colonography), 4 (19%) with colonoscopy as assessment test after suspicious findings, and 2 (10%) with both the screening and assessment phase. None of the included surveys used a validated questionnaire. Most surveys reported a high level of satisfaction for both screening and further assessment phases. Temporary pain, discomfort, embarrassment, and anxiety while waiting for results were the commonest negative aspects perceived, with some variability across studies and considered procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Satisfaction with the information and communication about screening was generally good, but some authors reported participants' sub-optimal understanding of informative material. Satisfaction with CRC screening is generally high, but its evaluation is performed using non-validated instruments, which limits the interpretation of results and prevents comparability of the current body of evidence.

Track Structure of Light Ions: The Link to Radiobiology.

It is generally recognized that the biological response to irradiation by light ions is initiated by complex damages at the DNA level. In turn, the occurrence of complex DNA damages is related to spatial and temporal distribution of ionization and excitation events, i.e., the particle track structure. It is the aim of the present study to investigate the correlation between the distribution of ionizations at the nanometric scale and the probability to induce biological damage. By means of Monte Carlo track structure simulations, the mean ionization yield M1 and the cumulative probabilities F1, F2, and F3 of at least one, two and three ionizations, respectively, were calculated in spherical volumes of water-equivalent diameters equal to 1, 2, 5 and 10 nm. When plotted as a function of M1, the quantities F1, F2 and F3 are distributed along almost unique curves, largely independent of particle type and velocity. However, the shape of the curves depends on the size of the sensitive volume. When the site size is 1 nm, biological cross sections are strongly correlated to combined probabilities of F2 and F3 calculated in the spherical volume, and the proportionality factor is the saturation value of biological cross sections.

TOPAS simulations of the response of a mini-TEPC: benchmark with experimental data.

Objective. Microdosimetry offers a fast tool for radiation quality (RQ) verification to be implemented in treatment planning systems in proton therapy based on variable LET or RBE to move forward from the use of a fixed RBE of 1.1. It is known that the RBE of protons can increase up to 50% higher than that value in the last few millimetres of their range. Microdosimetry can be performed both experimentally and by means of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. This paper has the aim of comparing the two approaches.Approach. Experimental measurements have been performed using a miniaturized Tissue equivalent proportional counter developed at the Legnaro National Laboratories of the Italian National Institute for Nuclear Physics with the aim of being used as RQ monitors for high intensity beams. MC simulations have been performed using the microdosimetric extension of TOPAS which provides optimized parameters and scorers for this application.Main results. Simulations were compared with experimental microdosimetric spectra in terms of shape of the spectra and their average values. Moreover, the latter have been investigated as possible estimators of LET obtained with the same MC code. The shape of the spectra is in general consistent with the experimental distributions and the average values of the distributions in both cases can predict the RQ increase with depth.Significance. This study aims at the comparison of microdosimetric spectra obtained from both experimental measurements and the microdosimetric extension of TOPAS in the same radiation field.

Systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a scoping review and evidence map.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe, and organise currently available evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) (chemotherapy, targeted/biological therapies, and immunotherapy) compared to best supportive care (BSC) for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review and evidence mapping, adhering to PRISMA-ScR checklist. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO, and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. We included systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies evaluating SOTs compared to BSC or no treatment in patients with advanced PC. Two independent reviewers performed the screening process and data extraction. We developed evidence maps as an interactive visualization display, including the assessed interventions and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 50,601 records obtained from our search, we included 43 studies: 2 SRs, 16 RCTs, 4 quasi-experimental studies, 20 observational studies, and 1 protocol for a quasi-experimental study. Forty-two studies reported survival-related outcomes and most favoured SOTs, while five reported toxicity and most favoured BSC. Other patient-centred outcomes, such as quality of life, were scarcely reported. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the current evidence gaps in studies assessing treatments for patients with advanced PC, mainly the lack of reports of non-survival-related outcomes, pointing out research areas that need further attention to make better recommendations for these patients.

Women's values and preferences on low-molecular-weight heparin and pregnancy: a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of thrombotic events during pregnancy. LMWH has fewer adverse effects than other anticoagulants, does not cross the placenta, and is safe for the fetus. However, the use of LMWH during pregnancy is sensitive to womens' underlying preferences. The objective of this review is to systematically assess women's values and preferences research evidence on this topic. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from inception to March 2022, and included studies examining values and preferences of using LMWH among pregnant women at risk of VTE. We followed a convergent integrated mixed-methods design to compare and contrast quantitative outcomes (utility and non-utility measures) and qualitative findings. We assessed the certainty of the values and preferences evidence with the GRADE approach for quantitative findings, and with GRADE-CERqual for qualitative evidence. Results were presented in a conjoint display. RESULTS: We screened 3,393 references and identified seven eligible studies. The mixed methods analysis resulted in four themes. Datasets confirmed each other in that: 1) the majority of women consider that benefits of treatment outweigh the inconveniences of daily injections; and 2) main concerns around medication are safety and injections administration. Quantitative outcomes expanded on the qualitative findings in that: 3) participants who perceived a higher risk of VTE were more willing to take LMWH. Finally, we found a discrepancy between the datasets around: 4) the amount of information preferred to make the decision; however, qualitative data expanded to clarify that women prefer making informed decisions and receive support from their clinician in their decision-making process. CONCLUSIONS: We are moderately confident that in the context of pregnancy, using LMWH is preferred by women given its net beneficial balance. Integrating data from different sources of evidence, and representing them in a jointly manner helps to identify patient's values and preferences. Our results may inform clinical practice guidelines and support shared decision-making process in the clinical encounter for the management of VTE in the context of pregnancy.

Patient experience, satisfaction and shared decision-making in colorectal cancer screening: protocol of the mixed-methods study CyDESA.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes can reduce incidence and mortality from this condition if adherence to them is high. As patient experience and satisfaction are key factors in determining adherence to screening programmes, they need to be measured. Furthermore, to promote highly patient-centred healthcare, the perception of patients regarding shared decision-making during CRC screening needs to be known. This study aims to assess the experience, satisfaction and participation in decision-making of participants in a CRC screening programme and of patients diagnosed with CRC through this programme in relation to the diagnostic and therapeutic processes of cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CyDESA study is a mixed-methods study with a four phase sequential design. In phase 1, we will conduct a systematic review of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for patient experience or satisfaction with CRC screening. In case no located PREM can be applied, in phase 2, we will develop a new PREM. We will use the Delphi methodology to reach consensus among experts and patients and will conduct a pilot test of the developed PREM. Phase 3 is a multicentric cross-sectional study based on self-reported questionnaires that will be conducted at three Spanish hospitals (n=843). The objective is to find out about the experience, satisfaction and participation in decision-making of participants in the CRC screening programme who have had a positive screening test result according to their final screening diagnosis: false positives, colorectal polyps or CRC. Phase 4 is a qualitative phenomenological study based on individual interviews. It will explore the experiences of participants in the CRC screening programme and of those diagnosed with CRC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval by the Ethics Committees of Corporació Sanitària Parc Taulí, Hospital de Sant Pau and Parc de Salut Mar. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04610086.

Comparable quality of bowel preparation with single-day versus three-day low-residue diet: Randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is controversy about the length of low-residue diet (LRD) for colonoscopy preparation. The aim of the study was to compare one-day vs. three-day LRD associated to standard laxative treatment for achieving an adequate colonoscopy preparation in average risk subjects with positive fecal immunochemical test undergoing screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A non-inferiority, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was performed in the setting of average risk colorectal cancer screening program. Participants were randomized to receive 1-day vs. 3-day LRD in addition to standard polyethilenglicol treatment. Adequacy of preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Primary outcome was achieving a BBPS ≥ 2 in all colon segments. Analysis was performed for a non-inferiority margin of 5%, a 95% statistical power and one-sided 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: A total of 855 patients were randomized. Adequate bowel preparation was similar between groups: 97.9% of patients in the 1-day LRD group vs 96.9% in the 3-day LRD group achieved the primary outcome (P-value for non-inferiority < 0.001). The percentage of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 was superior in the 1-day LRD group (254 vs 221 in the 3-day LRD group, P = 0.032). The 1-day regimen was better tolerated than the 3-day diet. 47.7% (vs 28.7%, P < 0.05) of patients rated the 1-day LRD as very easy to follow. CONCLUSION: The 1-day LRD is non-inferior to 3-day LRD for achieving an adequate colon cleansing before average risk screening colonoscopy and it is better tolerated.

The UpPriority tool was developed to guide the prioritization of clinical guideline questions for updating.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritize clinical guideline (CG) questions for updating, the UpPriority tool. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of this tool consisted of the following: (1) establishment of the working group, (2) generation of the initial version, (3) optimization of the tool (including an initial feasibility test, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, second feasibility test, external review, and pilot test), and (4) approval of the final version. RESULTS: A total of 87 participants including methodologists, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders contributed to the development of the UpPriority tool. The tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care. The UpPriority tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item (using a 7-point Likert scale), for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results. CONCLUSION: The UpPriority tool could be useful for standardizing prioritization processes when updating CGs and for fostering more efficient use of resources in the CG field.

A systematic review of how patients value COPD outcomes.

Our objective was to summarise systematically all research evidence related to how patients value outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).We conducted a systematic review (systematic review registration number CRD42015015206) by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL, and included reports that assessed the relative importance of outcomes from COPD patients' perspective. Two authors independently determined the eligibility of studies, abstracted the eligible studies and assessed risk of bias. We narratively summarised eligible studies, meta-analysed utilities for individual outcomes and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.We included 217 quantitative studies. Investigators most commonly used utility measurements of outcomes (n=136), discrete choice exercises (n=13), probability trade-off (n=4) and forced choice techniques (n=46). Patients rated adverse events as important but on average, less so than symptom relief. Exacerbation and hospitalisation due to exacerbation are the outcomes that COPD patients rate as most important. This systematic review provides a comprehensive registry of related studies.

Development of a prioritisation tool for the updating of clinical guideline questions: the UpPriority Tool protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Due to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To develop the tool, we will use the results and conclusions of a systematic review of methodological research on prioritisation processes for updating and will adopt a methodological approach we have successfully implemented in a previous experience.We will perform a multistep process including (1) generation of an initial version of the tool, (2) optimisation of the tool (feasibility test of the tool, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, external review by CG methodologists and users and pilot test of the tool) and (3) approval of the final version of the tool.At each step of the process, we will (1) calculate absolute frequencies and proportions (quantitative data), (2) use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions (qualitative data) and (3) draft a final report, discuss results and refine the previous versions of the tool. Finally, we will calculate intraclass coefficients with 95% CIs for each item and overall as indicators of agreement among reviewers. 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). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journal and communicated to interested stakeholders.The tool could support the standardisation of prioritisation processes for updating CGs and therefore have important implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CG field.

Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences.

BACKGROUND: Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence. METHODS: We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR). RESULTS: We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50. CONCLUSIONS: This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

Incorporating patients' views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how guidance documents for developing clinical guidelines (CGs) address the incorporation of patients' views in CGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review to identify the methodology provided in guidance documents for incorporating (1) patients or representatives and (2) patients' views in the CG development process. The search was performed in 2017 in five databases. Two authors selected the studies, and data extraction was double-checked. RESULTS: We included guidance documents from 56 institutions. Of those, 40 (71.4%) recommended the inclusion of patients or their representatives, mainly for developing recommendations (14/40, 35.0%); reviewing the final version (13/40, 32.5%); formulating clinical questions (13/40, 32.5%); defining the scope and objectives (10/40, 25.0%); and dissemination and implementation (10/40, 25.0%). Concrete methods on how to incorporate patients were provided by 47.5% (19/40) of institutions. Forty (71.4%) institutions provided additional strategies to incorporate patients' views. The majority (30/40, 75.0%) suggested sources for obtaining these views (consultation with patients [24/40, 60.0%], using panels' judgment [10/40, 25.0%], conducting de novo research [10/40, 25.0%], or a systematic review [9/40, 22.5%]). CONCLUSION: Although most institutions suggest incorporating patients and their views when developing CGs, little detail is provided on how to do this. Institutions should provide more guidance as this could have a positive impact in guideline applicability.

Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments (HTAs), or clinical guidelines (CGs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted an SR of studies describing one or more methods to prioritize SRs, HTAs, or CGs for updating. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed, from 1966 to August 2016) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2016). We hand searched abstract books, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Two reviewers independently screened the references and extracted data. RESULTS: We included 14 studies. Six studies were classified as descriptive (6 of 14, 42.9%) and eight as implementation studies (8 of 14, 57.1%). Six studies reported an updating strategy (6 of 14, 42.9%), six a prioritization process (6 of 14, 42.9%), and two a prioritization criterion (2 of 14, 14.2%). Eight studies focused on SRs (8 of 14, 57.1%), six studies focused on CGs (6 of 14, 42.9%), and none were about HTAs. We identified 76 prioritization criteria that can be applied when prioritizing documents for updating. The most frequently cited criteria were as follows: available evidence (19 of 76, 25.0%), clinical relevance (10 of 76; 13.2%), and users' interest (10 of 76; 13.2%). CONCLUSION: There is wide variability and suboptimal reporting of the methods used to develop and implement processes to prioritize updating of SRs, HTAs, and CGs.

Forty-two systematic reviews generated 23 items for assessing the risk of bias in values and preferences' studies.

OBJECTIVES: In systematic reviews of studies of patients' values and preferences, the objective of the study was to summarize items and domains authors have identified when considering the risk of bias (RoB) associated with primary studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey of systematic reviews of patients' values and preference studies. Our search included three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) from their inception to August 2015. We conducted duplicate data extraction, focusing on items that authors used to address RoB in the primary studies included in their reviews and the associated underlying domains, and summarized criteria in descriptive tables. RESULTS: We identified 42 eligible systematic reviews that addressed 23 items relevant to RoB and grouped the items into 7 domains: appropriate administration of instrument; instrument choice; instrument-described health state presentation; choice of participants group; description, analysis, and presentation of methods and results; patient understanding; and subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: The items and domains identified provide insight into issues of RoB in patients' values and preference studies and establish the basis for an instrument to assess RoB in such studies.

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts.

OBJECTIVES: Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm. RESULTS: We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSION: SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.