Physical Exercise After Solid Organ Transplantation: A Cautionary Tale.

An increasing body of randomized controlled trials suggests the safety of engaging in moderate to vigorous intensity exercise training following solid organ transplantation. Fueled by emerging sport events designed for transplant recipients and the ever-growing body of research highlighting the diverse health benefits of physical activity, transplant recipients are now increasingly participating in strenuous and occasionally competitive physical endeavors that largely surpass those evaluated in controlled research settings. This viewpoint article adopts a cautionary stance to counterbalance the prevalent one-sided optimistic perspective regarding posttransplant physical activity. While discussing methodological limitations, we explore plausible adverse impacts on the cardiovascular, immunological, and musculoskeletal systems. We also examine the physiological consequences of exercising in the heat, at high altitude, and in areas with high air pollution. Risks associated with employing performance-enhancing strategies and the conceivable psychological implications regarding physical activity as a tribute to the 'gift of life' are discussed. With a deliberate focus on the potential adverse outcomes of strenuous posttransplant physical activity, this viewpoint aims to restore a balanced dialogue on our comprehension of both beneficial and potentially detrimental outcomes of physical activity that ultimately underscores the imperative of well-informed decision-making and tailored exercise regimens in the realm of posttransplant care.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on surgical treatments for spinal metastasis.

PURPOSE: As an important treatment for spinal metastasis, surgery has strict applicable conditions. Although various organizations have formulated different guidelines on surgical treatment for spinal metastasis (SM), there are certain differences in the content, standardization and quality of the guidelines and it is necessary to make a critical appraisal of them. We aim to systematically review and appraise the current guidelines on surgical treatments of SM and summarize the related recommendations with the quality evaluation of supporting evidence, as to provide a reference for the standardization of surgical treatment plans, and help clinical front-line medical workers can make safe and effective clinical decisions faster. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Web of Science, and Embase for three major databases and online guideline databases. According to certain inclusion and exclusion criteria, the latest guidelines on the surgical treatment of SM were sorted out. AGREE II was used to evaluated the guideline's quality, and we extracted and compared the recommended treatment content of each guideline with evaluating by the evidence-grading scale. RESULTS: Eight guidelines from 2013 to 2019 were included. Seven guidelines are comprehensive guidelines and one related to the reconstructive surgery of SM. Five guidelines were evaluated as "recommended," and three guidelines were evaluated as "recommended with modifications." Regarding the indications of surgery with SM, four guidelines, seven guidelines, seven guidelines, three guidelines and three guidelines recommended surgical treatment for patients with SM with intractable pain, mechanical instability, metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC), recurrent spinal metastasis (RSM), and survival predication, respectively. Regarding the surgical strategies, three guidelines recommended minimally invasive therapy but had strict indications. Six guidelines and five guidelines recommend palliative surgery and with receiving radiation therapy, respectively. For the aggressive surgery, only one guideline recommended to apply to patients in good general conditions who has isolated symptomatic SM. Regarding the surgical reconstructions, one guideline didn't recommend iliac bone graft and three guidelines recommended PMMA bone cement. CONCLUSION: Most of the guidelines do not provide clear criteria for surgical application and provide more of a basic framework. The level of evidence for these surgical recommendations ranges from LOE B to D, and almost all guidelines recommend vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, but for palliative and more aggressive surgery, which recommended to personalize specific surgical strategies with multidisciplinary collaboration.

Critically appraising and utilising qualitative health research evidence in nutrition practice.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based decision-making and practice recommendations are commonly based on findings from quantitative studies or reviews. In the present study, we provide an overview of how to incorporate findings from qualitative research into the evidence-based decision-making process. METHODS: To illustrate how qualitative evidence can be integrated into the decision-making process, we have outlined a clinical nutrition scenario and the process for sourcing credible evidence to inform decision-making. A qualitative health research study was selected and appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) appraisal tool for qualitative research. Based on the results of the critical appraisal, the study quality is considered, and we discuss whether the qualitative evidence can be applied to practice. RESULTS: A detailed description of how the qualitative findings can be used conceptually and instrumentally in practice to address the clinical nutrition scenario is provided. CONCLUSIONS: Developing skills in critically appraising findings from qualitative studies will increase awareness and utilisation of this type of evidence in practice and policy, with a goal to ensure that patient/client perceptions are considered, leading to enhanced person-centred care or systems.

Suggestions from Experience and AI Tools to Teach Evidence Based Practice to Nurses.

Hospital librarians receive invites to teach thinking and searching in an evidence-based way and critical appraisal of the literature to nurses. With these invitations, the hospital librarians play a central role in establishing an evidence-based culture in the hospital and contribute to the nursing staff feeling competent and confident in fulfilling evidence-based competencies. This author just prepared a 17-minute online talk as part of an international nursing webinar on "searching nursing literature in an evidence-based way." Using this experience, remembering other teaching and presentation experiences, and some "help" from AI tools, this experienced hospital librarian suggests decision points for colleagues to create a meaningful, practical information session for nurses and introduce to some AI tools along the way.

Promoting evidence-based practice and nursing excellence: How involvement in a Magnet4Europe® research study led to development of critically appraised topics sessions for health care staff.

BACKGROUND: Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GHNHSFT) is actively participating in the Magnet4Europe® research study, which aims to advance nursing excellence and promote evidence-based practice. OBJECTIVES: As part of this initiative, the Nursing, Allied Health Professional and Midwifery Research Council at GHNHSFT has been actively engaging colleagues in evidence-based practice and research. METHODS: This has been achieved through the development of sessions using the Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) framework, where clinical questions and relevant research articles are discussed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This article describes the collaborative approach between the Lead Nurse for Continual Professional Development and the Deputy Manager of the Library and Knowledge Services to develop and run the sessions. CONCLUSION: Collaboration between clinical staff and library and knowledge teams can be useful in encouraging healthcare professionals' engagement with the evidence base in order to consider changes to practice.

The use of practice evidence by Australian occupational therapists: Perspectives and actions.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based practice supports clinical decision-making by using multiple sources of evidence arising from research and practice. Research evidence develops through empirical study while practice evidence arises through clinical experience, client preferences, and the practice context. Although occupational therapists have embraced the paradigm of evidence-based practice, some studies have identified limits in the availability and use of research, which can lead to reliance on other forms of evidence. This study aimed to understand how Australian occupational therapists use practice evidence, manage potential bias, and enhance trustworthiness. Potential use of a critical appraisal tool for practice evidence was also explored. METHODS: A 42-item questionnaire was developed to address the study aims. It consisted of a 7-point Likert scale, ordinal and free text questions. Likert scales were collapsed into binary scales and analysed using SPSS. Ordinal data were graphed and free text responses were analysed using manifest content analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents (82%) indicated that practice evidence was an important informant of practice and is used alongside research evidence. Almost all respondents (98%) expressed confusion when reconciling discrepancies between research and practice evidence. There was general acknowledgement that practice evidence is prone to bias (82%), yet 92% were confident in trusting their own practice evidence. Most respondents (74.5%) undertook some measures to appraise practice evidence, and almost all respondents (90%) agreed they would refer to a critical appraisal tool that helped them evaluate practice evidence. CONCLUSION: Occupational therapists in this study routinely use practice evidence arising from their own experience, client perspectives, and their practice context to inform clinical decision-making. While they agreed that practice evidence was prone to bias and misinterpretation, they generally trusted their own practice evidence. Participants indicated they needed guidance to critically appraise their practice evidence and supported the development of a critical appraisal tool for this purpose.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Rivaroxaban in Valvular Atrial Fibrillation - a Critical Appraisal of the INVICTUS Trial.

PURPOSE: The efficacy of factor Xa inhibitors in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and rheumatic heart disease (RHD) is unknown. METHODS/RESULTS: The objective of this article was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the INVICTUS trial, an open-label randomized controlled study that compared vitamin K antagonists (VKA) to rivaroxaban in patients with AF and RHD while also considering the existing evidence from literature in this particular area of research. CONCLUSION: The findings of the INVICTUS trial indicated that rivaroxaban was found to be inferior in efficacy to VKA. However, it is important to note that the primary outcome of the trial was driven by sudden death and death caused by mechanical pump failure. As a result, it is necessary to approach the data from this study with caution, and it would be inappropriate to draw parallel conclusions for other causes of valvular AF. Particularly, the perplexing issue of how rivaroxaban could have contributed to both pump failure and sudden cardiac death requires further explanation. Additional data regarding changes in heart failure medication and ventricular function would be essential for proper interpretation.

Critical appraisal of knowledge, attitude and practice studies for blood donation in India.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A critical appraisal of the literature helps to assess the strength and weakness of the research and suggests ways to improve future research. Our aim was to critically appraise the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) studies conducted in India for blood donation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 70 articles identified in our search on PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar, 32 were assessed for quality using an appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS) and questionnaire items. RESULTS: Quality assessment revealed that only 6 of 32 studies had acceptable reporting (≥80% score on the AXIS tool). The most frequently identified shortcomings were failure to address the non-responders, lack of justification for sample size, assessment of outcome variables and demographic results for the survey. Our evaluation of questionnaires revealed that knowledge for need for blood donation, its benefits and site/place for blood donation were assessed by very few studies. With this, issues such as parental/family consent, religious beliefs, and indifference to blood donation process were amongst the common reasons for non-donation. Many studies also failed to ask questions related to procedural information/instructions, which are necessary for promoting voluntary blood donations. CONCLUSION: Most published KAP studies for blood donation in India were not appropriately described, especially the methodology and result section. These deficiencies could have led to suboptimal interpretation of the prevalent issues. Use of an open-ended and validated KAP questionnaire with a problem-based approach and inclusion of participants from various socio-cultural backgrounds is required for good quality of evidence.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews.

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

A consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a consensus-based checklist that can be used as a minimum standard to appraise the comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency of cost-of-illness (COI) studies. This is important when, for instance, reviewing and assessing COI studies as part of a systematic review or when building an economic model. METHODS: The development process of the consensus-based checklist involved six steps: (i) a scoping review, (ii) an assessment and comparison of the different checklists and their questions, (iii) the development of a (preliminary) checklist, (iv) expert interviews, (v) the finalization of the checklist, and (vi) the development of guidance statements explaining each question. RESULTS: The result was a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies, comprising seventeen main questions (and some additional subquestions) across three domains: (i) study characteristics; (ii) methodology and cost analysis; and (iii) results and reporting. Guidance statements were developed describing the purpose and meaning behind each question and listing examples of best practice. The following answer categories were suggested to be applied when answering the questions in the checklist: Yes, Partially, No, Not Applicable, or Unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus-based checklist for COI studies is a first step toward standardizing the critical appraisal of COI studies and is one that could be considered a minimum standard. The checklist can help to improve comprehensiveness, transparency and consistency in COI studies, to address heterogeneity, and to enable better comparability of methodological approaches across international studies.

Expert opinion on a consensus-based checklist for the critical appraisal of cost-of-illness (COI) studies: qualitative interviews.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored experts' views on the development of a proposed checklist for cost-of-illness (COI) studies. It also investigated experts' perspectives on the use of COI studies and quality/critical appraisal tools used for COI studies as well as their experiences with the use of these tools. METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with health economists and other experts working with COI studies and with experience of developing health economic guidelines or checklists. Participants were selected purposively using network and snowball sampling. A framework approach was applied for the thematic data analysis. Findings were reported narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one experts from eleven different countries were interviewed. COI studies were found to be relevant to estimate the overall burden of a disease, to draw attention to disease areas, to understand different cost components, to explain cost variability, to inform decision making, and to provide input for full economic evaluations. Experts reported a lack of a standardized critical appraisal tool for COI studies. Their experience related predominantly to guidelines and checklists designed for full economic evaluations to review and assess COI studies. The following themes emerged when discussing the checklist: (i) the need for a critical appraisal tool, (ii) format and practicality, (iii) assessing the questions, (iv) addressing subjectivity, and (v) guidance requirements. CONCLUSIONS: The interviews provided relevant input for the development of a checklist for COI studies that could be used as a minimum standard and for international application. The interviews confirmed the important need for a checklist for the critical appraisal of COI studies.

Systematic review and appraisal of quality, definitions and treatment recommendations of clinical guidelines for glaucoma suspects.

BACKGROUND: To appraise the quality of clinical practice guidelines for glaucoma suspects, and to assess their consistency for how a 'glaucoma suspect' is defined and their recommendations for treatment initiation for such individuals. METHODS: This study included all documents that self-identified as a 'guideline' and provided recommendation(s) for the clinical care of glaucoma suspects. The quality of eligible guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. RESULTS: From 1196 records retrieved from comprehensive searches and two records manually included, 20 clinical practice guidelines were deemed eligible. Based on an appraisal using the AGREE II instrument, 16 (80%) guidelines had ≤2 domains with scores >66%. Overall, the lowest scoring domains were for applicability, editorial independence and stakeholder involvement. There was relatively poor agreement across the guidelines for what defines a 'glaucoma suspect' or 'primary open angle glaucoma [POAG] suspect', as well as the recommendations and criteria for treatment initiation in these populations. There was better agreement for the definition and recommendations for treatment initiation for 'primary angle closure suspects'. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial room to improve the methodological quality of most current international clinical guidelines for glaucoma suspects. Clinicians should consider this finding when using such guidelines to inform their care of glaucoma suspects. Substantial variation in the definition of a POAG suspect and recommendations for treatment initiation underscores important gaps in the current evidence for the accurate prediction of glaucoma development and treatment effectiveness in these individuals.

Automating Quality Assessment of Medical Evidence in Systematic Reviews: Model Development and Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the quality of medical evidence available on the web is a critical step in the preparation of systematic reviews. Existing tools that automate parts of this task validate the quality of individual studies but not of entire bodies of evidence and focus on a restricted set of quality criteria. OBJECTIVE: We proposed a quality assessment task that provides an overall quality rating for each body of evidence (BoE), as well as finer-grained justification for different quality criteria according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation formalization framework. For this purpose, we constructed a new data set and developed a machine learning baseline system (EvidenceGRADEr). METHODS: We algorithmically extracted quality-related data from all summaries of findings found in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Each BoE was defined by a set of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria and assigned a quality grade (high, moderate, low, or very low) together with quality criteria (justification) that influenced that decision. Different statistical data, metadata about the review, and parts of the review text were extracted as support for grading each BoE. After pruning the resulting data set with various quality checks, we used it to train several neural-model variants. The predictions were compared against the labels originally assigned by the authors of the systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our quality assessment data set, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Quality of Evidence, contains 13,440 instances, or BoEs labeled for quality, originating from 2252 systematic reviews published on the internet from 2002 to 2020. On the basis of a 10-fold cross-validation, the best neural binary classifiers for quality criteria detected risk of bias at 0.78 F1 (P=.68; R=0.92) and imprecision at 0.75 F1 (P=.66; R=0.86), while the performance on inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias criteria was lower (F1 in the range of 0.3-0.4). The prediction of the overall quality grade into 1 of the 4 levels resulted in 0.5 F1. When casting the task as a binary problem by merging the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation classes (high+moderate vs low+very low-quality evidence), we attained 0.74 F1. We also found that the results varied depending on the supporting information that is provided as an input to the models. CONCLUSIONS: Different factors affect the quality of evidence in the context of systematic reviews of medical evidence. Some of these (risk of bias and imprecision) can be automated with reasonable accuracy. Other quality dimensions such as indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias prove more challenging for machine learning, largely because they are much rarer. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload in the future and expedite quality assessment as part of evidence synthesis.

Consideration of Sex, Gender, or Age on Outcomes of Digital Technologies for Treatment and Monitoring of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Several systematic reviews have addressed digital technology use for treatment and monitoring of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if systematic reviews considered the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD through an overview of such systematic reviews. The objectives of this overview were to (1) describe the definitions of sex or gender used in reviews; (2) determine whether the consideration of sex, gender, or age was planned in reviews; (3) determine whether sex, gender, or age was reported in review results; (4) determine whether sex, gender, or age was incorporated in implications for clinical practice in reviews; and (5) create an evidence map for development of individualized clinical recommendations for COPD based on sex, gender, or age diversity. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Web of Science, and the bibliographies of the included systematic reviews were searched to June 2022. Inclusion was based on the PICOS framework: (1) population (COPD), (2) intervention (any digital technology), (3) comparison (any), (4) outcome (any), and (5) study type (systematic review). Studies were independently selected by 2 authors based on title and abstract and full-text screening. Data were extracted by 1 author and checked by another author. Data items included systematic review characteristics; PICOS criteria; and variables related to sex, gender, or age. Systematic reviews were appraised using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Data were synthesized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 1439 records, 30 systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2022 were included in this overview. The confidence in the results of 25 of the 30 (83%) reviews was critically low according to AMSTAR 2. The reviews focused on user outcomes that potentially depend on sex, gender, or age, such as efficacy or effectiveness (25/30, 83%) and acceptance, satisfaction, or adherence (3/30, 10%) to digital technologies for COPD. Reviews reported sex or gender (19/30 systematic reviews) or age (25/30 systematic reviews) among primary study characteristics. However, only 1 of 30 reviews included age in a subgroup analysis, and 3 of 30 reviews identified the effects of sex, gender, or age as evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: This overview shows that the effects of sex, gender, or age were rarely considered in 30 systematic reviews of digital technologies for COPD treatment and monitoring. Furthermore, systematic reviews did not incorporate sex, gender, nor age in their implications for clinical practice. We recommend that future systematic reviews should (1) evaluate the effects of sex, gender, or age on the outcomes of digital technologies for treatment and monitoring of COPD and (2) better adhere to reporting guidelines to improve the confidence in review results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022322924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=322924. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/40538.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of animal studies within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 quality standard checklist.

AIM: To critically evaluate the reporting quality of a random sample of animal studies within the field of endodontics against the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 checklist and to investigate the association between the quality of reporting and several characteristics of the selected studies. METHODOLOGY: Fifty animal studies related to endodontics were randomly selected from the PubMed database with publication dates from January 2017 to December 2021. For each study, a score of '1' was given when the item of the PRIASE 2021 checklist was fully reported, whereas a score of '0' was given when an item was not reported; when the item was inadequately or partially reported, a score of '0.5' was given. Based on the overall scores allocated to each manuscript, they were allocated into three categories of reporting quality: low, moderate and high. Associations between study characteristics and reporting quality scores were also analysed. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact tests were used to describe the data and determine associations. The probability value of .05 was selected as the level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Based on the overall scores, four (8%) and 46 (92%) of the animal studies evaluated were categorized as 'High' and 'Moderate' reporting quality, respectively. A number of items were adequately reported in all studies related to background (Item 4a), relevance of methods/results (7a) and interpretation of images (11e), whereas only one item related to changes in protocol (6d) was not reported in any. No associations were confirmed between reporting quality scores and number of authors, origin of the corresponding author, journal of publication (endodontic specialty vs. non- specialty), impact factor or year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: Animal studies published in the specialty of endodontics were mostly of 'moderate' quality in terms of the quality of reporting. Adherence to the PRIASE 2021 guidelines will enhance the reporting of animal studies in the expectation that all future publications will be high quality.

Critical thinking in musicians' health education. Findings from four workshops with experts (Part I).

Health education encompasses building health knowledge, but also training skills such as critical thinking, that guide individuals' ability to access, understand and use health information to take care of their own health (WHO, 1998). This study aimed to document expert discussions on the content of an ideal health education curriculum for higher music education (HME) students in the UK, integrating critical thinking. Four interdisciplinary workshops were conducted, where 67 experts in relevant fields discussed the content of four lists created based on literature reviews (cognitive biases, logical fallacies, critical appraisal tools and health topics). Notes taken during the discussions were thematically analysed. Most of the participants thought that the topics and tools were relevant. Two of four identified themes are reported in this paper, which represents the first of a two-part series: (1) critical thinking applied to health; and (2) misconceptions. This is the first attempt to document conversations aimed at using the applied knowledge of key stakeholders to discuss the content of an ideal health education curriculum integrating critical thinking, for conservatoire students.

Professional classical musicians struggle with a range of occupational health issues, but clear guidelines around health education in HME are still missing. This paper reports the first attempt to document a series of four interdisciplinary discussions between 67 experts on (1) the ideal health education content for music students, and (2) the integration of critical thinking as part of music students' health education. Discussions were facilitated by comprehensive lists based on literature reviews. Notes were taken during discussions and were thematically analysed. Four themes were identified, two of which are discussed here: (1) critical thinking applied to health; and (2) misconceptions.

Use of simulation scenarios and vote cards in teaching critical appraisal concepts in evidence-based medicine.

BACKGROUND: The most effective method of teaching critical appraisal concepts remains unclear. We used simulation scenarios in a Risk-of-Bias (RoB) 2.0 framework to teach the various biases that may affect randomized controlled trials and assessed whether including this interactive session in an evidence-based medicine (EBM) course for third-year preclinical medical students can optimize their understanding of critical appraisal concepts. METHODS: The session had 13 modules, each corresponding to a particular risk of bias in RoB 2.0. Each module included a simulated scenario, followed by data presentation and a generalized conclusion. The students were subsequently asked to use colored vote cards to indicate whether they agreed, had some concern, or disagreed with the conclusion and to justify their answers. On the basis of the students' answers, the facilitator debriefed the scenario and addressed the specific bias. In each module, the students were required to demonstrate critical thinking in analyzing the claims and quality of the supporting evidence and in justifying their decisions, thus conceptualizing their understanding of research biases. RESULTS: We included 306 students across two pilot sessions in spring 2020 and 2021, and the response rate was 97.4%. The students were least able to discern the following problems: baseline imbalances when assessing allocation bias (correct answers: 9.06%), missing outcome data when assessing attrition bias (correct answers: 11.65%), and balanced nonprotocol interventions when assessing performance bias (correct answers: 14.88%). The postcourse survey revealed several aspects of the interactive session that the students appreciated or found challenging. CONCLUSION: Preclinical medical students generally appreciated the inclusion of simulation scenarios and vote cards in an EBM course. The use of vote cards facilitated medical students' understanding of critical appraisal concepts, uncovered areas that they found challenging to understand, and encouraged their active participation. Such interactive sessions should be increasingly included in medical education.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence: Quality Improvement Projects.

Critical appraisal of the literature is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. There are 2 types of Level VI evidence, such as single qualitative studies and quality improvement (QI) projects. The process for critical appraisal of a single qualitative study is the same as that for an appraisal of a systematic review or metasynthesis of qualitative studies, as described in a previous evidence-based practice column. This column will describe the critical appraisal of QI projects.

Menstrual migraine is caused by estrogen withdrawal: revisiting the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and critically appraise the evidence supporting the role of estrogen withdrawal in menstrual migraine. MAIN BODY: Menstrual migraine, impacting about 6% of reproductive-age women, manifests as migraine attacks closely related to the menstrual cycle. The estrogen withdrawal hypothesis posits that the premenstrual drop in estrogen levels serves as a trigger of migraine attacks. Despite its wide acceptance, the current body of evidence supporting this hypothesis remains limited, warranting further validation. Estrogen is believed to exert a modulatory effect on pain, particularly within the trigeminovascular system - the anatomic and physiologic substrate of migraine pathogenesis. Nevertheless, existing studies are limited by methodologic inconsistencies, small sample sizes, and variable case definitions, precluding definitive conclusions. To improve our understanding of menstrual migraine, future research should concentrate on untangling the intricate interplay between estrogen, the trigeminovascular system, and migraine itself. This necessitates the use of robust methods, larger sample sizes, and standardized case definitions to surmount the limitations encountered in previous investigations. CONCLUSION: Further research is thus needed to ascertain the involvement of estrogen withdrawal in menstrual migraine and advance the development of effective management strategies to address unmet treatment needs.