Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a more recent cross-section of SRs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE to identify potentially eligible SRs indexed during the month of February 2014. Citations were screened using prespecified eligibility criteria. Epidemiological and reporting characteristics of a random sample of 300 SRs were extracted by one reviewer, with a 10% sample extracted in duplicate. We compared characteristics of Cochrane versus non-Cochrane reviews, and the 2014 sample of SRs versus a 2004 sample of SRs. We identified 682 SRs, suggesting that more than 8,000 SRs are being indexed in MEDLINE annually, corresponding to a 3-fold increase over the last decade. The majority of SRs addressed a therapeutic question and were conducted by authors based in China, the UK, or the US; they included a median of 15 studies involving 2,072 participants. Meta-analysis was performed in 63% of SRs, mostly using standard pairwise methods. Study risk of bias/quality assessment was performed in 70% of SRs but was rarely incorporated into the analysis (16%). Few SRs (7%) searched sources of unpublished data, and the risk of publication bias was considered in less than half of SRs. Reporting quality was highly variable; at least a third of SRs did not report use of a SR protocol, eligibility criteria relating to publication status, years of coverage of the search, a full Boolean search logic for at least one database, methods for data extraction, methods for study risk of bias assessment, a primary outcome, an abstract conclusion that incorporated study limitations, or the funding source of the SR. Cochrane SRs, which accounted for 15% of the sample, had more complete reporting than all other types of SRs. Reporting has generally improved since 2004, but remains suboptimal for many characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: An increasing number of SRs are being published, and many are poorly conducted and reported. Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research.

Optimizing Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections Following Rapid Molecular Diagnostic Testing and an Antimicrobial Stewardship Program Intervention.

Pending antibiotic susceptibility results, vancomycin is often used for bloodstream infections (BSIs) to ensure treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). As rapid discrimination of methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) from MRSA in BSIs could decrease vancomycin use and allow early optimization of beta-lactam therapy, this study evaluated the impact of the use of rapid molecular testing for MSSA and MRSA coupled with an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) intervention. Between January and July 2020, the Cepheid Xpert MRSA/SA blood culture assay was performed on blood cultures with Gram-positive cocci in clusters that were identified as S. aureus using matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS). The ASP team member then consulted with the treating physician. The time to optimal therapy (TTOT) and clinical outcomes, including length of hospital stay (LOS), were compared between the intervention (n = 29) and historical (n = 27) cohorts. TTOT was defined as the time from the first blood culture draw to the use of appropriately dosed antistaphylococcal beta-lactam monotherapy without vancomycin. Molecular testing significantly reduced the median time to MSSA and MRSA discrimination to 7.8 h, compared to 24.3 h with culture-based methods (P < 0.001). Compared to the control group, the median TTOT in the ASP intervention group was significantly shorter (P = 0.041) at 38.0 h (versus 50.1 h). Rapid discrimination between MRSA and MSSA using molecular testing, paired with an ASP intervention, significantly reduced the TTOT in patients with MSSA BSIs. IMPORTANCE Our research shows that time to optimal antibiotic treatment for serious bloodstream infections can be improved with rapid molecular sensitivity testing and feedback to prescribers. This can be implemented in laboratories without full microbiology services or training to improve patient outcomes by improving antimicrobial use.

Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of the Role of the Clinical Pharmacist and Expanded Pharmacist Coverage in Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, coverage by critical care pharmacists (CCPs) was expanded in 2 medical-surgical intensive care units at the Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, in Halifax, Nova Scotia, from 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, excluding holidays, to 8 hours per day, 7 days per week, including holidays. OBJECTIVES: To describe health care professionals' opinions about and perceived impacts of the expanded CCP coverage on patient care, as well as their opinions about the role of the CCP as a member of the critical care team. METHODS: An electronic 22-item survey was distributed to critical care health care professionals to capture opinions and perceived impacts of expanded CCP coverage. The perceived importance of 25 evidence-informed CCP activities was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Thirty-eight complete responses were included (15% response rate, based on distribution of the survey to 249 health care professionals). Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements: CCPs are integral members of the critical care team (34/38 [89%]), CCPs play an important role in improving patient outcomes (34/38 [89%]), the presence of CCPs on the unit and on patient care rounds allows other health care professionals to concentrate on their own professional responsibilities (33/38 [87%]), and the expanded CCP coverage improved patient care (29/35 [83%]). Respondents most frequently categorized 23 of the 25 CCP activities as very important. CONCLUSIONS: Expanded CCP coverage was perceived to have a positive effect on both patient care and members of the critical care team. Most CCP activities were perceived as very important. Given the findings of this quality project, novel staffing models are being explored to optimize CCP coverage.

CONTEXTE: Au cours de la première vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, la couverture par les pharmaciens de soins intensifs (PSI) a été étendue dans 2 unités de soins intensifs médico-chirurgicaux du Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, à Halifax (Nouvelle-Écosse) : de 8 heures par jour, 5 jours par semaine, hors jours fériés, la couverture est passée à 8 heures par jour, 7 jours par semaine, y compris les jours fériés. OBJECTIFS: Décrire les opinions des professionnels de la santé sur la couverture élargie des PSI et leurs perceptions des incidences de celle-ci sur les soins aux patients, ainsi que le rôle des PSI en tant que membres de l'équipe de soins intensifs. MÉTHODES: Un sondage électronique comportant 22 questions a été distribué aux professionnels de la santé en soins intensifs pour recueillir les opinions et les impacts perçus de l>élargissement de la couverture des PSI. L'importance perçue des 25 activités des PSI fondées sur des données probantes a été évaluée à l'aide d'une échelle de Likert à 5 points. RÉSULTATS: Trente-huit réponses complètes ont été incluses (taux de réponse de 15 %, basé sur une distribution de l'enquête à 249 professionnels de la santé). La plupart des répondants étaient d'accord ou fortement d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes : « les PSI font partie intégrante de l'équipe de soins intensifs ¼ (34/38, 89 %); « les PSI jouent un rôle important dans l'amélioration des résultats pour les patients ¼ (34/38, 89 %); « la présence des PSI dans l'unité et lors des tournées de soins aux patients permet à d'autres professionnels de la santé de se concentrer sur leurs propres responsabilités professionnelles ¼ (33/38, 87 %); et « la couverture élargie des PSI a amélioré les soins aux patients ¼ (29/35, 83 %). Les répondants ont le plus souvent classé 23 des 25 activités du PSI comme « très importantes ¼. CONCLUSIONS: L'élargissement de la couverture des PSI était perçu comme ayant un effet positif à la fois sur les soins aux patients et sur les membres de l'équipe de soins intensifs. La plupart des activités des PSI étaient perçues comme très importantes. Compte tenu des résultats de ce projet de qualité, de nouveaux modèles de dotation en personnel sont à l'étude pour optimiser la couverture des PSI.

Bibliometric study of 'overviews of systematic reviews' of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor.

Overviews synthesising the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of overviews, including their prevalence and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor (JIF). We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, JIF and six predictor variables. We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) were published in the most recent 5-year period. We extracted a selection of these overviews (n = 541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; CDSR (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) were the most prevalent. The majority (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. We found a mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean JIF of 4.4. In multivariable analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and JIFs had more authors, larger sample sizes, were open access and reported the funding source. An eightfold increase in the number of overviews was found between 2009 and 2020. We identified 332 overviews published in 2020, which is equivalent to one overview published per day. Overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish.

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta-research study of research waste.

Multiple 'overviews of reviews' conducted on the same topic ("overlapping overviews") represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesized reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was defined as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was defined as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. Of 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classified as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. One third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time, and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied, which do not need to be duplicated.

Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups.

BACKGROUND: Selective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in part by applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool to each included randomised trial. The Cochrane Handbook outlines strategies for a comprehensive risk of bias assessment, but the extent to which these are followed by Cochrane review groups (CRGs) has not been assessed to date. The objective of this study was to determine the methods which CRGs require of their authors to address SRB within systematic reviews, and how SRB risk assessments are verified. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed electronically to the 52 CRGs involved in intervention reviews. RESULTS: Responses from 42 CRGs show that the majority refer their authors to the Cochrane Handbook for specific instruction regarding assessments of SRB. The handbook strategies remain variably enforced, with 57 % (24/42) of CRGs not requiring review authors to search for included trial protocols and 31 % (13/42) not requiring that contact with individual study authors be attempted. Only half (48 %, 20/42) of the groups consistently verify review authors' assessments of the risk of SRB to ensure completeness. CONCLUSIONS: A range of practices are used by CRGs for addressing SRB, with many steps outlined in the Cochrane Handbook being encouraged but not required. The majority of CRGs do not consider their review authors to be sufficiently competent to assess for SRB, yet risk of bias assessments are not always verified by editors before publication. The implications of SRB may not be fully appreciated by all CRGs, and resolving the identified issues may require an approach targeting several steps in the systematic review process.