Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%). CONCLUSION: De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/ueq32 .

Assessment of Studies Evaluating Incremental Costs, Effectiveness, or Cost-Effectiveness of Systemic Therapies in Breast Cancer Based on Claims Data: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Large secondary databases, such as those containing insurance claims data, are increasingly being used to compare the effects and costs of treatments in routine clinical practice. Despite their appeal, however, caution must be exercised when using these data. In this study, we aimed to identify and assess the methodological quality of studies that used claims data to compare the effectiveness, costs, or cost-effectiveness of systemic therapies for breast cancer. METHODS: We searched Embase, the Cochrane Library, Medline, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for English-language publications and assessed the methodological quality using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness principles. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under number CRD42018103992. RESULTS: We identified 1251 articles, of which 106 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the United States (74%) and Taiwan (9%) and were based on claims data sets (35%) or claims data linked to cancer registries (58%). Furthermore, most included large samples (mean 17 130 patients) and elderly patients, and they covered various outcomes (eg, survival, adverse events, resource use, and costs). Key methodological shortcomings were the lack of information on relevant confounders, the risk of immortal time bias, and the lack of information on the validity of outcomes. Only a few studies performed sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Many comparative studies of cost, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness have been published in recent decades based on claims data, and the number of publications has increased over time. Despite the availability of guidelines to improve quality, methodological issues persist and are often inappropriately addressed or reported.

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.

Most guideline organizations lack explicit guidance in how to incorporate cost considerations.

OBJECTIVES: Resource use and cost (RUC) evidence is one of the factors that can be considered when formulating recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, it is unclear how CPG developers incorporate this information. The purpose of this study was to identify available guidance from guideline organizations on how to incorporate RUC in CPGs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a methodological survey. We searched MEDLINE, the G-I-N library, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and gray literature from inception to 2017. We included the most recent version of guidance documents. We excluded those that only reported methodology for adapting, endorsing, or updating CPGs, and documents reporting methods followed in the development of one or more specific CPGs. RESULTS: We included 77 documents from 67 organizations. Fifty-nine organizations (88.1%) include information regarding RUC during the CPG development process. Fifty-five (82.1%) organizations report taking RUC into account when developing recommendations: 44 (65.7%) do this explicitly, 5 (7.5%) implicitly, and 6 (9.0%) explicitly as optional. Twelve of the 44 organizations that explicitly consider RUC (27.3%) provide guidance to identify, assess and use the RUC evidence when developing recommendations. Twenty-three consider RUC when moving from the evidence to recommendations (52.3%). Seventeen of the 44 (38.6%) recommend making qualitative judgments about whether the desirable effects of interventions were worth the associated costs. CONCLUSION: More explicit guidance is needed alongside tools to help CPGs developers incorporate RUC evidence when formulating recommendations. Our results may be of use for guideline developers to improve this guidance.

Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a worldwide public health problem. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are being developed and implemented in order to improve clinical practice related to the detection and treatment of CKD. The objective of our study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs regarding the CKD and to examine whether there are factors which influence their quality. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted to identify all CPGs regarding the early diagnosis and treatment of CKD. The CPGs quality were evaluated by three reviewers using the AGREE II instrument to decide if the guidelines are recommended for their use in clinical practice. RESULTS: In total, 13 CPGs were identified: five from America, six from Europe, one from Asia, and one from Oceania. Five CPGs were recommended for their use in clinical practice; since all their domains achieved the medium or high category. Furthermore, six CPGs were recommended with modifications, as the stakeholders' involvement, applicability, and editorial independence domains were evaluated as low category. These domains, as well as the rigor of the development domain, reached the very low category in those CPGs that were not recommended for its use in clinical practice. In all CPGs, the domains with the lowest average were the stakeholder involvement and the applicability. When comparing the domains of the CPGs according to the origin, type of developer group, the checklist used during the development and the publication period, a significantly higher average in the domain stakeholder involvement was found in the CPGs from Asia and Oceania compared to the ones in Latin America. Additionally, a significantly higher average in the applicability domain was found in the CPGs developed by CPGs developer organizations compared to those developed by medical societies. CONCLUSIONS: In total, 85% of the CPGs regarding CKD were recommended or recommended with modifications. The stakeholder involvement and applicability domains are assessed in the low category, which might affect the CPGs implementation. In order to save resources in low- and middle-income countries, an adaptation of the recommended CPGs should be considered.

Effects of oncological care pathways in primary and secondary care on patient, professional, and health systems outcomes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The high impact of a cancer diagnosis on patients and their families and the increasing costs of cancer treatment call for optimal and efficient oncological care. To improve the quality of care and to minimize healthcare costs and its economic burden, many healthcare organizations introduce care pathways to improve efficiency across the continuum of cancer care. However, there is limited research on the effects of cancer care pathways in different settings. METHODS: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis described in this protocol is to synthesize existing literature on the effects of oncological care pathways. We will conduct a systematic search strategy to identify all relevant literature in several biomedical databases, including Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We will follow the methodology of Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), and we will include randomized trials, non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies. In addition, we will include full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses), cost analyses, and comparative resource utilization studies, if available. Two reviewers will independently screen all studies and evaluate those included for risk of bias. From these studies, we will extract data regarding patient, professional, and health systems outcomes. Our systematic review will follow the PRISMA set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DISCUSSION: Following the protocol outlined in this article, we aim to identify, assess, and synthesize all available evidence in order to provide an evidence base on the effects of oncological care pathways as reported in the literature. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017057592 .

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.

Nutrition in critically ill adults: A systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nutritional support in the acutely ill is a complex topic. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to assist healthcare professionals working in this field. However, the quality of these clinical guidelines has not yet been systematically assessed. The objective of our study was to identify and assess the quality of CPGs on nutrition in critically ill adult patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic search to identify CPGs on nutrition in critically ill adult patients. Three independent appraisers assessed six domains (scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, clarity of presentation, applicability and editorial independence) of the eligible CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. RESULTS: Nine CPGs were selected. Overall agreement among appraisers was very good (ICC: 0.853; 95% CI: 0.820-0.881). The mean scores for each AGREE domain were the following: "scope and purpose" 76.2% ± 13.7%; "stakeholder involvement" 42.8% ± 16.5%; "rigour of development" 57.9% ± 18.1%; "clarity of presentation" 76.9% ± 13.7%; "applicability" 30.1% ± 22.8%; and 42.1% ± 23.9% for "editorial independence". Four CPGs were deemed "Recommended"; three "Recommended with modifications"; and two "Not recommended". We did not observe improvement over time in the overall quality of the CPGs. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of CPGs on nutrition in critically ill adults is suboptimal, with only four CPGs being recommended for clinical use. Our results highlight the need to revise and improve CPG development processes in this field.

Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects.

OBJECTIVES: Expressing treatment effects in relative terms yields larger numbers than expressions in absolute terms, affecting the judgment of the clinicians and patients regarding the treatment options. It is uncertain how authors of systematic reviews (SRs) absolute effect estimates are reported in. We therefore undertook a systematic survey to identify and describe the reporting and methods for calculating absolute effect estimates in SRs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two reviewers independently screened title, abstract, and full text and extracted data from a sample of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. We used regression analyses to examine the association between study characteristics and the reporting of absolute estimates for the most patient-important outcome. RESULTS: We included 202 SRs (98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane), most of which (92.1%) included standard meta-analyses including relative estimates of effect. Of the 202 SRs, 73 (36.1%) reported absolute effect estimates for the most patient-important outcome. SRs with statistically significant effects were more likely to report absolute estimates (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 4.74). The most commonly reported absolute estimates were: for each intervention, risk of adverse outcomes expressed as a percentage (41.1%); number needed to treat (26.0%); and risk for each intervention expressed as natural units or natural frequencies (24.7%). In 12.3% of the SRs that reported absolute effect estimates for both benefit and harm outcomes, harm outcomes were reported exclusively as absolute estimates. Exclusively reporting of beneficial outcomes as absolute estimates occurred in 6.8% of the SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Most SRs do not report absolute effects. Those that do often report them inadequately, thus requiring users of SRs to generate their own estimates of absolute effects. For any apparently effective or harmful intervention, SR authors should report both absolute and relative estimates to optimize the interpretation of their findings.