A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. BACKGROUND: The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. CONCLUSION: Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

Performance of Fracture Risk Assessment Tools by Race and Ethnicity: A Systematic Review for the ASBMR Task Force on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk.

The American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Professional Practice Committee charged an ASBMR Task Force on Clinical Algorithms for Fracture Risk to review the evidence on whether current approaches for differentiating fracture risk based on race and ethnicity are necessary and valid. To help address these charges, we performed a systematic literature review investigating performance of calculators for predicting incident fractures within and across race and ethnicity groups in middle-aged and older US adults. We included English-language, controlled or prospective cohort studies that enrolled US adults aged >40 years and reported tool performance predicting incident fractures within individual race and ethnicity groups for up to 10 years. From 4838 identified references, six reports met eligibility criteria, all in women. Just three, all from one study, included results in non-white individuals. In these three reports, non-white women experienced relatively few major osteoporotic fractures (MOFs), especially hip fractures, and risk thresholds for predicting fractures in non-white women were derived from risks in the overall, predominantly white study population. One report suggested the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD) overestimated hip fracture similarly across race and ethnicity groups (black, Hispanic, American Indian, Asian, white) but overestimated MOF more in non-white than White women. However, these three reports were inconclusive regarding whether discrimination of FRAX or the Garvan calculator without BMD or of FRAX with BMD for MOF or hip fracture differed between white versus black women. This uncertainty was at least partly due to imprecise hip fracture estimates in black women. No reports examined whether ratios of observed to predicted hip fracture risks within each race or ethnicity group varied across levels of predicted hip fracture risk. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Yoga as an intervention for psychological symptoms following trauma: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis.

Despite evidence of the physiologic impact of trauma, treatments are only beginning to focus on the impact of trauma on the body. Yoga may be a promising treatment for trauma sequelae, given research that supports yoga for general distress. The present study aims to systematically assess and quantitatively synthesize the effectiveness of yoga interventions for psychological symptoms (posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], depression, anxiety symptoms) following potentially traumatic life events. The following electronic databases were systematically searched: PsycINFO, Ovid Medline/PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Embase/Embase Classic. Google Scholar, Mendeley, Open Research and Contributor Identification, and Fig Share were hand searched post hoc. The review focused on studies with a comparison group that measured psychological symptoms before and after intervention. After screening and reviewing, 12 articles (N = 791) were included, with interventions ranging from 2 days to 16 weeks. If a study contained multiple conditions, between-groups differences were only examined between the yoga and inactive control group. Though overall between-groups (yoga vs. comparison) effect sizes ranged from ds = 0.40-1.06, the systematic review and quantitative synthesis did not find strong evidence for the effectiveness of yoga as an intervention for PTSD, depression, and anxiety symptoms following traumatic life experiences due to low quality and high risk of bias of studies. As yoga has promise for managing psychological symptoms among trauma survivors, this review calls for more rigorous design of future studies to allow definitive conclusions regarding the use of yoga in mental health treatment of trauma survivors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist.

BACKGROUND: Complex interventions are widely used in health systems, public health, education, and communities and are increasingly the subject of systematic reviews. Oversimplification and inconsistencies in reporting about complex interventions can limit the usability of review findings. RATIONALE: Although guidance exists to ensure that reports of individual studies and systematic reviews adhere to accepted scientific standards, their design-specific focus leaves important reporting gaps relative to complex interventions in health care. This paper provides a stand-alone extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting tool for complex interventions-PRISMA-CI-to help authors, publishers, and readers understand and apply to systematic reviews of complex interventions. DISCUSSION: PRISMA-CI development followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network guidance for extensions and focused on adding or modifying only essential items that are truly unique to complex interventions and are not covered by broader interpretation of current PRISMA guidance. PRISMA-CI provides an important structure and guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the highly prevalent and dynamic field of complex interventions.

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 2: defining complexity, formulating scope, and questions.

BACKGROUND: The early stages of a systematic review set the scope and expectations. This can be particularly challenging for complex interventions given their multidimensional and dynamic nature. RATIONALE: This paper builds on concepts introduced in paper 1 of this series. It describes the methodological, practical, and philosophical challenges and potential approaches for formulating the questions and scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Furthermore, it discusses the use of theory to help organize reviews of complex interventions. DISCUSSION: Many interventions in medicine, public health, education, social services, behavioral health, and community programs are complex, and they may not fit neatly within the established paradigm for reviews of straightforward interventions. This paper provides conceptual and operational guidance for these early stages of scope formulation to assist authors of systematic reviews of complex interventions.

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 4: selecting analytic approaches.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of complex interventions can vary widely in purpose, data availability and heterogeneity, and stakeholder expectations. RATIONALE: This article addresses the uncertainty that systematic reviewers face in selecting methods for reviews of complex interventions. Specifically, it lays out parameters for systematic reviewers to consider when selecting analytic approaches that best answer the questions at hand and suggests analytic techniques that may be appropriate in different circumstances. DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews of complex interventions comprising multiple questions may use multiple analytic approaches. Parameters to consider when choosing analytic methods for complex interventions include nature and timing of the decision (clinical practice guideline, policy, or other); purpose of the review; extent of existing evidence; logistic factors such as the timeline, process, and resources for deciding the scope of the review; and value of information to be obtained from choosing specific systematic review methods. Reviewers may elect to revise their analytic approach based on new or changing considerations during the course of the review but should guard against bias through transparency of reporting.