Antibiotics for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain, as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of antibiotics on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) for management of acute COPD exacerbations, as well as their effects on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay, time to next exacerbation). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and other electronically available databases up to 26 September 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought to find randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo and providing follow-up of at least seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients, and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised as a single group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation, and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. When authors of primary studies did not report outcomes or study details, we contacted them to request missing data. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (ORs) for rare events (mortality and adverse events), and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes using random-effects models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials with 2663 participants (11 with outpatients, seven with inpatients, and one with ICU patients).For outpatients (with mild to moderate exacerbations), evidence of low quality suggests that currently available antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.94; I² = 31%; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 295 to 212 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 165 to 277). Studies providing older antibiotics not in use anymore yielded an RR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; I² = 31%). Evidence of low quality from one trial in outpatients suggested no effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30). One trial reported no effects of antibiotics on re-exacerbations between two and six weeks after treatment initiation. Only one trial (N = 35) reported health-related quality of life but did not show a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups.Evidence of moderate quality does not show that currently used antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure among inpatients with severe exacerbations (i.e. for inpatients excluding ICU patients) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.12; I² = 50%), but trial results remain uncertain. In turn, the effect was statistically significant when trials included older antibiotics no longer in clinical use (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.00; I² = 39%). Evidence of moderate quality from two trials including inpatients shows no beneficial effects of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 2.48, 95% CI 0.94 to 6.55). Length of hospital stay (in days) was similar in antibiotic and placebo groups.The only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; moderate-quality evidence; in absolute terms, reduction in treatment failures from 565 to 107 per 1000 treated participants, 95% CI 45 to 254). Results of this trial show a statistically significant effect on mortality (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72; moderate-quality evidence) and on length of hospital stay (MD -9.60 days, 95% CI -12.84 to -6.36; low-quality evidence).Evidence of moderate quality gathered from trials conducted in all settings shows no statistically significant effect on overall incidence of adverse events (Peto OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.63; moderate-quality evidence) nor on diarrhoea (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.07; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Researchers have found that antibiotics have some effect on inpatients and outpatients, but these effects are small, and they are inconsistent for some outcomes (treatment failure) and absent for other outcomes (mortality, length of hospital stay). Analyses show a strong beneficial effect of antibiotics among ICU patients. Few data are available on the effects of antibiotics on health-related quality of life or on other patient-reported symptoms, and data show no statistically significant increase in the risk of adverse events with antibiotics compared to placebo. These inconsistent effects call for research into clinical signs and biomarkers that can help identify patients who would benefit from antibiotics, while sparing antibiotics for patients who are unlikely to experience benefit and for whom downsides of antibiotics (side effects, costs, and multi-resistance) should be avoided.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is an acquired degeneration of the optic nerve and a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Medical and surgical treatments that decrease intraocular pressure may prevent visual impairment and blindness. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of medical, laser, and surgical treatments in adults with open-angle glaucoma with regard to decreasing intraocular pressure and preventing optic nerve damage, vision loss, and visual impairment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and an existing database for systematic reviews (through 2 March 2011); MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL for primary studies (through 30 July 2012). STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews; randomized, controlled trials; and quasi-randomized, controlled trials for most outcomes and observational studies for quality of life and harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators abstracted or checked information about study design, participants, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: High-level evidence suggests that medical, laser, and surgical treatments decrease intraocular pressure and that medical treatment and trabeculectomy reduce the risk for optic nerve damage and visual field loss compared with no treatment. The direct effect of treatments on visual impairment and the comparative efficacy of different treatments are not clear. Harms of medical treatment are primarily local (ocular redness, irritation); surgical treatment carries a small risk for more serious complications. LIMITATION: Heterogeneous outcome definitions and measurements among the included studies; exclusion of many treatment studies that did not stratify results by glaucoma type. CONCLUSION: Medical and surgical treatments for open-angle glaucoma lower intraocular pressure and reduce the risk for optic nerve damage over the short to medium term. Which treatments best prevent visual disability and improve patient-reported outcomes is unclear.

Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases. METHODS: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences. RESULTS: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.

A systematic review of communication quality improvement interventions for patients with advanced and serious illness.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication is an interaction between two or more people that produces a desired effect and is a key element of quality of care for patients with advanced and serious illness and their family members. Suboptimal provider-patient/family communication is common, with negative effects on patient/family-centered outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for effectiveness of communication-related quality improvement interventions for patients with advanced and serious illness and to explore the effectiveness of consultative and integrative interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through December 2011 and reference list of eligible articles and reviews. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Prospective, controlled quality improvement studies in populations with life-limiting or severe life-threatening illness with a primary intervention focus of improving communication with patients and/or families. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two investigators independently screened and abstracted data on patient/family-centered outcomes. RESULTS: We included 20 studies; 13 (65 %) were in intensive care. We found four intervention types: (1) family meetings with the usual team (11 studies, 77 % found improvement in healthcare utilization), (2) palliative care teams (5 studies, 50 % found improvement in healthcare utilization), (3) ethics consultation (2 studies, 100 % found improvement in healthcare utilization), and (4) physician-patient communication (2 studies, no significant improvement in healthcare utilization). Among studies addressing the outcomes of patient/family satisfaction, 22 % found improvement; among studies addressing healthcare utilization (e.g., length of stay), 73 % found improvement. Results suggest that consultative interventions, as opposed to integrative ones, may be more effective, but more research is needed. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity did not allow quantitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Communication in the care of patients with advanced and serious illness can be improved using quality improvement interventions, particularly for healthcare utilization as an outcome. Interventions may be more effective using a consultative approach.

Dealing with heterogeneous populations in randomized wound trials: challenges and potential solutions.

Chronic wounds have a great variety of etiologies and manifestations that influence wound healing. Such heterogeneity potentially threatens the validity and clinical usefulness of trials if not considered appropriately. In 82 randomized wound trials retrieved from 10 Cochrane reviews, we assessed if and how authors considered wound and other prognostically important characteristics in the conduct and analysis of wound trials. We assessed whether these characteristics were discussed, reflected in the eligibility criteria, used for prestratification or for adjustments to ensure comparability of treatment groups, and whether subgroup analyses were conducted to identify heterogeneity of treatment effects. Nine percent of all trials explicitly discussed characteristics that influence wound healing in the introduction and 43% in the Discussion section. Ninety percent of trials had at least one prognostically important characteristic as eligibility criterion. Only 11% of trials used prestratification, and 6% adjusted the results for imbalances between treatment groups. Twenty-seven percent performed subgroup analyses with prognostically important characteristics defining subgroups. Chronic wound trials use simple randomization, but rarely adapt the study design and analysis to take the heterogeneity of patients into consideration. Collaborative multicenter trials would overcome many of the limitations and provide statistical power to detect important treatment effects both overall and in subgroups.

Antibiotics for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are treated with antibiotics. However, the value of antibiotics remains uncertain as systematic reviews and clinical trials have shown conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antibiotics in the management of acute COPD exacerbations on treatment failure as observed between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (primary outcome) and on other patient-important outcomes (mortality, adverse events, length of hospital stay). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and other electronically available databases up to September 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people with acute COPD exacerbations comparing antibiotic therapy and placebo with a follow-up of at least seven days. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references and extracted data from trial reports. We kept the three groups of outpatients, inpatients and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) separate for benefit outcomes and mortality because we considered them to be clinically too different to be summarised in one group. We considered outpatients to have a mild to moderate exacerbation, inpatients to have a severe exacerbation and ICU patients to have a very severe exacerbation. Where outcomes or study details were not reported we requested missing data from the authors of the primary studies. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for treatment failure, Peto odds ratios (OR) for rare events (mortality and adverse events) and weighted mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes using fixed-effect models. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials with 2068 participants were included. In outpatients (mild to moderate exacerbations), there was evidence of low quality that antibiotics did statistically significantly reduce the risk for treatment failure between seven days and one month after treatment initiation (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.94; I(2) = 35%) but they did not significantly reduce the risk when the meta-analysis was restricted to currently available drugs (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I(2) = 33%). Evidence of high quality showed that antibiotics statistically significantly reduced the risk of treatment failure in inpatients with severe exacerbations (ICU not included) (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; I(2) = 47%) regardless of whether restricted to current drugs. The only trial with 93 patients admitted to the ICU showed a large and statistically significant effect on treatment failure (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.45; high-quality evidence).Evidence of low-quality from four trials in inpatients showed no effect of antibiotics on mortality (Peto OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.79). High-quality evidence from one trial showed a statistically significant effect on mortality in ICU patients (Peto OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.72). Length of hospital stay (in days) was similar in the antibiotics and placebo groups except for the ICU study where antibiotics statistically significantly reduced length of hospital stay (mean difference -9.60 days; 95% CI -12.84 to -6.36 days). One trial showed no effect of antibiotics on re-exacerbations between two and six weeks after treatment initiation. Only one trial (N = 35) reported health-related quality of life but did not show a statistically significant difference between the treatment and control group.Evidence of moderate quality showed that the overall incidence of adverse events was higher in the antibiotics groups (Peto OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.27). Patients treated with antibiotics experienced statistically significantly more diarrhoea based on three trials (Peto OR 2.62; 95% CI 1.11 to 6.17; high-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotics for COPD exacerbations showed large and consistent beneficial effects across outcomes of patients admitted to an ICU. However, for outpatients and inpatients the results were inconsistent. The risk for treatment failure was significantly reduced in both inpatients and outpatients when all trials (1957 to 2012) were included but not when the analysis for outpatients was restricted to currently used antibiotics. Also, antibiotics had no statistically significant effect on mortality and length of hospital stay in inpatients and almost no data on patient-reported outcomes exist. These inconsistent effects call for research into clinical signs and biomarkers that help identify patients who benefit from antibiotics and patients who experience no effect, and in whom downsides of antibiotics (side effects, costs and multi-resistance) could be avoided.

High prevalence of potential biases threatens the interpretation of trials in patients with chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: The complexity of chronic diseases is a challenge for investigators conducting randomized trials. The causes for this include the often difficult control for confounding, the selection of outcomes from many potentially important outcomes, the risk of missing data with long follow-up and the detection of heterogeneity of treatment effects. Our aim was to assess such aspects of trial design and analysis for four prevalent chronic diseases. METHODS: We included 161 randomized trials on drug and non-drug treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, stroke and heart failure, which were included in current Cochrane reviews. We assessed whether these trials defined a single outcome or several primary outcomes, statistically compared baseline characteristics to assess comparability of treatment groups, reported on between-group comparisons, and we also assessed how they handled missing data and whether appropriate methods for subgroups effects were used. RESULTS: We found that only 21% of all chronic disease trials had a single primary outcome, whereas 33% reported one or more primary outcomes. Two of the fifty-one trials that tested for statistical significance of baseline characteristics adjusted the comparison for a characteristic that was significantly different. Of the 161 trials, 10% reported a within-group comparison only; 17% (n = 28) of trials reported how missing data were handled (50% (n = 14) carried forward last values, 27% (n = 8) performed a complete case analysis, 13% (n = 4) used a fixed value imputation and 10% (n = 3) used more advanced methods); and 27% of trials performed a subgroup analysis but only 23% of them (n = 10) reported an interaction test. Drug trials, trials published after wide adoption of the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement (2001 or later) and trials in journals with higher impact factors were more likely to report on some of these aspects of trial design and analysis. CONCLUSION: Our survey showed that an alarmingly large proportion of chronic disease trials do not define a primary outcome, do not use appropriate methods for subgroup analyses, or use naïve methods to handle missing data, if at all. As a consequence, biases are likely to be introduced in many trials on widely prescribed treatments for patients with chronic disease.

Where is the supporting evidence for treating mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with antibiotics? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials comparing different drugs head-to-head are extremely valuable for clinical decision-making. However, it is scientifically and ethically sensible to demand strong evidence that a drug is effective by showing superiority over a placebo before embarking on head-to-head comparisons of potentially ineffective drugs. Our aim was to study the evolvement of evidence from placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials on the effects of antibiotics for the treatment of mild to moderate exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: We conducted a historical systematic review. Through electronic databases and hand-searches, we identified placebo-controlled and head-to-head antibiotic trials for the treatment of mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. We compared the numbers of patients recruited in placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials between 1957 and 2005. Using cumulative meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, we determined when, if ever, placebo-controlled trials had shown convincing evidence that antibiotics are effective in preventing treatment failure in patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. RESULTS: The first head-to-head trial was published in 1963. It was followed by another 100 trials comparing different antibiotics in a total of 34,029 patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. Over time, the cumulative odds ratio in placebo-controlled trials remained inconclusive throughout with odds ratios ranging from 0.39 (95% confidence intervals 0.04-4.22) to the most recent estimate (1995) of 0.81 (95% confidence intervals 0.52-1.28, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Placebo-controlled trials do not support the use of antibiotics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with mild to moderate exacerbations. Conducting head-to-head trials is, therefore, scientifically and ethically questionable. This underscores the requirement to perform or study systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials before conducting head-to-head trials.

Exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: when are antibiotics indicated? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For decades, there is an unresolved debate about adequate prescription of antibiotics for patients suffering from exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The aim of this systematic review was to analyse randomised controlled trials investigating the clinical benefit of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effects of antibiotics on clinically relevant outcomes in patients with an exacerbation. We searched bibliographic databases, scrutinized reference lists and conference proceedings and asked the pharmaceutical industry for unpublished data. We used fixed-effects models to pool results. The primary outcome was treatment failure of COPD exacerbation treatment. RESULTS: We included 13 trials (1557 patients) of moderate to good quality. For the effects of antibiotics on treatment failure there was much heterogeneity across all trials (I(2) = 75%) [corrected] Meta-regression revealed severity of exacerbation as significant explanation for this heterogeneity (p = 0.038) [corrected] Antibiotics did not reduce treatment failures in outpatients with mild to moderate exacerbations (pooled odds ratio 1.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.18, I(2) = 13%) [corrected] Inpatients with severe exacerbations had a substantial benefit on treatment failure rates (pooled odds ratio of 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.39, I2 = 0%; number-needed to treat of 4, 95% CI 3-5) and on mortality (pooled odds ratio of 0.20, 95% CI 0.06-0.62, I2 = 0%; number-needed to treat of 14, 95% CI 12-30). CONCLUSION: Antibiotics effectively reduce treatment failure and mortality rates in COPD patients with severe exacerbations. For patients with mild to moderate exacerbations, antibiotics may not be generally indicated and further research is needed to guide antibiotic prescription in these patients.

Evidence-based palliative care in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years, multiple interventions to better integrate palliative care and intensive care unit (ICU) care have been evaluated. This systematic review summarizes these studies and their outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science; performed a search of articles published by opinion leaders in the field; and reviewed hand-search articles as of August 13, 2012. The terms "palliative care" and "intensive care unit" were mapped to MeSH subject headings and "exploded." We included trials of adult patients that evaluated an ICU intervention and addressed Robert Wood Johnson group-identified domains of high-quality end-of-life care in the ICU. We excluded case series, editorials, and review articles. We compared two types of interventions, integrative and consultative, focusing on the outcomes of patient and family satisfaction, mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), because these were most prevalent among studies. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 3328 references, of which we included 37 publications detailing 30 unique interventions. Interventions and outcome measures were heterogeneous, and many studies were underpowered and/or subject to multiple biases. Most of the interventions resulted in a decrease in hospital and ICU LOS. Few interventions significantly affected satisfaction. With one exception, the interventions decreased or had no effect on mortality. There was no evidence of harm from any intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity of interventions made comparison of ICU-based palliative care interventions difficult. However, existing evidence suggests proactive palliative care in the ICU, using either consultative or integrative palliative care interventions, decrease hospital and ICU LOS, do not affect satisfaction, and either decrease or do not affect mortality.

Methods for improving the quality of palliative care delivery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness for improving the outcomes across palliative care domains remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of different types of quality improvement interventions relevant to palliative care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane for relevant articles published between 2000 and 2011. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized controlled trials were included. Of the 5 studies using relay of clinical information, 1 reported significant improvement in patient quality of life. Of the 5 studies targeting education and self-management, 4 found significant improvements in quality of life or patient symptoms. CONCLUSION: A minority of quality improvement interventions have succeeded in improving the quality of palliative care delivery. More studies are needed on specific quality improvement types, including organizational change and multiple types of interventions.

A systematic review of health care interventions for pain in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Poorly controlled pain is common in advanced cancer. The objective of this article was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pain-focused interventions in this population. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through December 2011. We included prospective, controlled health care intervention studies in advanced cancer populations, focusing on pain. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria; most focused on nurse-led patient-centered interventions. In all, 9 (47%) of the 19 studies found a significant effect on pain. The most common intervention type was patient/caregiver education, in 17 (89%) of 19 studies, 7 of which demonstrated a significant decrease in pain. CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate strength of evidence that pain in advanced cancer can be improved using health care interventions, particularly nurse-led patient-centered interventions.

All that glitters isn't gold: a survey on acknowledgment of limitations in biomedical studies.

BACKGROUND: Acknowledgment of all serious limitations to research evidence is important for patient care and scientific progress. Formal research on how biomedical authors acknowledge limitations is scarce. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which limitations are acknowledged in biomedical publications explicitly, and implicitly by investigating the use of phrases that express uncertainty, so-called hedges; to assess the association between industry support and the extent of hedging. DESIGN: We analyzed reporting of limitations and use of hedges in 300 biomedical publications published in 30 high and medium -ranked journals in 2007. Hedges were assessed using linguistic software that assigned weights between 1 and 5 to each expression of uncertainty. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of publications (81/300) did not mention any limitations, while 73% acknowledged a median of 3 (range 1-8) limitations. Five percent mentioned a limitation in the abstract. After controlling for confounders, publications on industry-supported studies used significantly fewer hedges than publications not so supported (p = 0.028). LIMITATIONS: Detection and classification of limitations was--to some extent--subjective. The weighting scheme used by the hedging detection software has subjective elements. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of limitations in biomedical publications is probably very incomplete. Transparent reporting of limitations may protect clinicians and guideline committees against overly confident beliefs and decisions and support scientific progress through better design, conduct or analysis of new studies.

Informing evidence-based decision-making for patients with comorbidity: availability of necessary information in clinical trials for chronic diseases.

BACKGROUND: The population with multiple chronic conditions is growing. Prior studies indicate that patients with comorbidities are frequently excluded from trials but do not address whether information is available in trials to draw conclusions about treatment effects for these patients. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a literature survey of trials from 11 Cochrane Reviews for four chronic diseases (diabetes, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke). The Cochrane Reviews systematically identified and summarized trials on the effectiveness of diuretics, metformin, anticoagulants, longacting beta-agonists alone or in combination with inhaled corticosteroids, lipid lowering agents, exercise and diet. Eligible studies were reports of trials included in the Cochrane reviews and additional papers that described the methods of these trials. We assessed the exclusion and inclusion of people with comorbidities, the reporting of comorbidities, and whether comorbidities were considered as potential modifiers of treatment effects. Overall, the replicability of both the inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 6.0 (2.1), range (min-max): 1-9.5) and exclusion criteria (mean(SD): 5.3 (2.1), range: 1-9.5) was only moderate. Trials excluded patients with many common comorbidities. The proportion of exclusions for comorbidities ranged from 0-42 percent for heart failure, 0-55 percent for COPD, 0-44 percent for diabetes, and 0-39 percent for stroke. Seventy of the 161 trials (43.5%) described the prevalence of any comorbidity among participants with the index disease. The reporting of comorbidities in trials was very limited, in terms of reporting an operational definition and method of ascertainment for the presence of comorbidity and treatments for the comorbidity. It was even less common that the trials assessed whether comorbidities were potential modifiers of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities receive little attention in chronic disease trials. Given the public health importance of people with multiple chronic conditions, trials should better report on comorbidities and assess the effect comorbidities have on treatment outcomes.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 8: improving health care and palliative care for advanced and serious illness).

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of health care and palliative care interventions to improve outcomes for patients with advanced and serious illness. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through 2011. We identified additional studies from reference lists of eligible articles and relevant reviews, as well as from technical experts. REVIEW METHODS: We developed questions in collaboration with technical experts. We excluded retrospective and uncontrolled studies. Two investigators independently screened search results and abstracted data from eligible studies. We adapted previous frameworks to categorize included studies (e.g., by improvement target, setting). Because many studies did not report effect sizes and almost all studies were small (lt 200 studies), in order to be able to quantitatively describe the literature, we calculated the percentage of studies with a significant improvement in outcomes with the intervention compared to control group for each category. We also checked that all other studies did not report significant results in the opposite direction and checked that there were not differences between larger and smaller studies. RESULTS: We included 90 studies described in 96 articles. Of the 23 studies targeting continuity, coordination, and transitions, 33 percent of studies that evaluated quality of life as an outcome, 67 percent that evaluated patient satisfaction, and 31 percent that evaluated health care utilization (admissions and length of stay) found a statistically significant improvement with the intervention. Of the 21 studies targeting pain, almost all focused on patient education and self-management; 48 percent of them found a statistically significant improvement with the intervention. Findings for larger (>100) and smaller (le 100) studies were similar. For distress, only 29 percent of the seven included studies found a statistically significant impact. Of the 20 studies in communication and decisionmaking, only 22 percent of studies addressing patient or family satisfaction found a statistically significant improvement for this outcome, compared to 73 percent for the outcome of health care utilization. We found only two studies within hospice programs, both of which found a statistically significant improvement in at least one outcome; nine studies were in nursing homes, 78 percent of which demonstrated a significant improvement with the intervention. In terms of types of quality improvement, for the target of continuity, studies including patient-centered quality improvement types, such as education and self-management, had the strongest evidence of effectiveness on patient- and family-centered domains such as satisfaction and quality of life. Studies of provider-focused interventions (e.g., education, reminders) were more likely to have an impact on health care utilization. Only one of five studies addressing multiple targets and focusing on facilitated relay of clinical data to providers demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in either quality of life or satisfaction. In terms of consultative and integrative interventions, for the target of communication and decisionmaking, three-quarters of consultative interventions showed a statistically significant improvement with the intervention, compared to half of integrative interventions. The literature was too heterogeneous and effect sizes were too infrequently reported for quantitative synthesis. There was moderate strength of evidence for the target of continuity, coordination, and transitions and the outcome of patient and caregiver satisfaction but low strength of evidence for other outcomes. For the target of pain, there was moderate strength of evidence for pain as an outcome. For the target of communication and decisionmaking, there was moderate strength of evidence for the outcome of health care utilization but low strength of evidence for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found that evidence was strongest (moderate strength of evidence) for interventions for pain, and for the targets of communication and decisionmaking and continuity for selected outcomes. While a few high- and medium-quality, well-designed health care and palliative care interventions have been conducted to improve outcomes for patients with advanced and serious illness, this report highlights the continued presence of variable findings, quality deficiencies, vaguely defined interventions, and variable outcome measurement tools and reporting in much of this intervention literature. The evidence has a number of gaps, including few studies in the hospice setting or pediatrics. Future research needs include techniques for improving recruitment and retention to assure adequate sample size, better development and description of interventions, and further development and standardization of outcome measures and tools.