Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. INFORMATION SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. RESULTS: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021289712.

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

A programme to improve quality of care for patients with chronic diseases, Kazakhstan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a disease management programme in Kazakhstan on quality indicators for patients with hypertension, diabetes and chronic heart failure. METHODS: A supportive, interdisciplinary, quality improvement programme was implemented between November 2014 and November 2015 at seven polyclinics in Pavlodar and Petropavlovsk. Quality improvement teams were established at each clinic and quality improvement tools were introduced, including patient flowsheets, decision support tools, patient registries, a patient recall process, support for patient self-management and patient follow-up with intensity adjusted for level of disease control. Clinic teams met for four 3-day interactive learning sessions within 1 year, with additional coaching visits. Implementation was managed by five local coordinators and consultants trained by international consultants. National and regional steering committees monitored progress. FINDINGS: Between July and October 2015, the proportion of hypertensive patients with the recommended blood pressure increased from 24% (101/424) to 56% (228/409). Among patients with diabetes, the proportion who recently underwent eye examinations increased from 26% (101/391) to 71% (308/433); the proportion who had their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measured increased from 57% (221/391) to 85% (369/433); and the proportion who had their albumin : creatinine ratio measured increased from 11% (44/391) to 49% (212/433). The proportion of chronic heart failure patients who underwent echocardiography rose from 91% (128/140) to 99% (157/158). All patients set themselves self-management goals. CONCLUSION: This intensive, supportive, multifaceted programme was associated with significant improvements in quality of care for patients with chronic disease. Further investment in coaching capacity is needed to extend the programme nationally.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Interventions to increase the use of electronic health information by healthcare practitioners to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is a large volume of health information available, and, if applied in clinical practice, may contribute to effective patient care. Despite an abundance of information, sub-optimal care is common. Many factors influence practitioners' use of health information, and format (electronic or other) may be one such factor. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions aimed at improving or increasing healthcare practitioners' use of electronic health information (EHI) on professional practice and patient outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and LISA (EBSCO) up to November 2013. We contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to improve or increase the use of EHI by healthcare practitioners on professional practice and patient outcomes. We defined EHI as information accessed on a computer. We defined 'use' as logging into EHI. We considered any healthcare practitioner involved in patient care. We included randomized, non-randomized, and cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs, NRCTs, CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs).The comparisons were: electronic versus printed health information; EHI on different electronic devices (e.g. desktop, laptop or tablet computers, etc.; cell / mobile phones); EHI via different user interfaces; EHI provided with or without an educational or training component; and EHI compared to no other type or source of information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included studies. We reassessed previously excluded studies following our decision to define logins to EHI as a measure of professional behavior. We reported results in natural units. When possible, we calculated and reported median effect size (odds ratio (OR), interquartile ranges (IQR)). Due to high heterogeneity across studies, meta-analysis was not feasible. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs and four CRCTs involving 352 physicians, 48 residents, and 135 allied health practitioners. Overall risk of bias was low as was quality of the evidence. One comparison was supported by three studies and three comparisons were supported by single studies, but outcomes across the three studies were highly heterogeneous. We found no studies to support EHI versus no alternative. Given these factors, it was not possible to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions. All studies reported practitioner use of EHI, two reported on compliance with electronic practice guidelines, and none reported on patient outcomes.One trial (139 participants) measured guideline adherence for an electronic versus printed guideline, but reported no difference between groups (median OR 0.85, IQR 0.74 to 1.08). One small cross-over trial (10 participants) reported increased use of clinical guidelines when provided with a mobile versus stationary, desktop computer (mean use per shift: intervention group (IG) 3.6, standard deviation (SD) 1.7 vs. control group (CG) 2.0 (SD 1.9), P value = 0.033). One cross-over trial (203 participants) reported that using a customized versus a generic interface had little impact on practitioners' use of EHI (mean difference in adjusted end-of-study rate: 0.77 logins/month/user, 95% confidence interval (CI) CI 0.43 to 1.11). Three trials included education or training and reported increased use of EHI by practitioners following training. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provided no evidence that the use of EHI translates into improved clinical practice or patient outcomes, though it does suggest that when practitioners are provided with EHI and education or training, the use of EHI increases. We have defined use as the activity of logging into an EHI resource, but based on our findings use does not automatically translate to the application of EHI in practice. While using EHI may be an important component of evidence-based medicine, alone it is insufficient to improve patient care or clinical practices. For EHI to be applied in patient care, it will be necessary to understand why practitioners' are reluctant to apply EHI when treating people, and to determine the most effective way(s) to reduce this reluctance.

Mentoring a health technology assessment initiative in Kazakhstan.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assist in the development of a health technology assessment (HTA) program for the Ministry of Health (MOH) of the Republic of Kazakhstan METHODS: Mentoring of an initial HTA program in Kazakhstan was provided by the Canadian Society for International Health (CSIH) by means of a partnership with the Kazakhstan MOH. HTA materials, courses, and one-on-one support for the preparation of a series of initial HTA reports by MOH HTA staff were provided by a seven-member CSIH team over a 2.5-year project. RESULTS: Guidance documents on HTA and institutional strengthening were prepared in response to an extensive set of deliverables developed by the MOH and the World Bank. Introductory and train-the-trainer workshops in HTA and economic evaluation were provided for MOH staff members, experts from Kazakhstan research institutes and physicians. Five short HTA reports were successfully developed by staff in the Ministry's HTA Unit with assistance from the CSIH team. Challenges that may be relevant to other emerging HTA programs included lack of familiarity with some essential underlying concepts, organization culture, and limited time for MOH staff to do HTA work. CONCLUSIONS: The project helped to define the need for HTA and mentored MOH staff in taking the first steps to establish a program to support health policy decision making in Kazakhstan. This experience offers practical lessons for other emerging HTA programs, although these should be tailored to the specific context.

Decision making in family medicine: randomized trial of the effects of the InfoClinique and Trip database search engines.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of users of 2 medical search engines, InfoClinique and the Trip database, to provide correct answers to clinical questions and to explore the perceived effects of the tools on the clinical decision-making process. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Three family medicine units of the family medicine program of the Faculty of Medicine at Laval University in Quebec city, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Fifteen second-year family medicine residents. INTERVENTION: Residents generated 30 structured questions about therapy or preventive treatment (2 questions per resident) based on clinical encounters. Using an Internet platform designed for the trial, each resident answered 20 of these questions (their own 2, plus 18 of the questions formulated by other residents, selected randomly) before and after searching for information with 1 of the 2 search engines. For each question, 5 residents were randomly assigned to begin their search with InfoClinique and 5 with the Trip database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ability of residents to provide correct answers to clinical questions using the search engines, as determined by third-party evaluation. After answering each question, participants completed a questionnaire to assess their perception of the engine's effect on the decision-making process in clinical practice. RESULTS: Of 300 possible pairs of answers (1 answer before and 1 after the initial search), 254 (85%) were produced by 14 residents. Of these, 132 (52%) and 122 (48%) pairs of answers concerned questions that had been assigned an initial search with InfoClinique and the Trip database, respectively. Both engines produced an important and similar absolute increase in the proportion of correct answers after searching (26% to 62% for InfoClinique, for an increase of 36%; 24% to 63% for the Trip database, for an increase of 39%; P = .68). For all 30 clinical questions, at least 1 resident produced the correct answer after searching with either search engine. The mean (SD) time of the initial search for each question was 23.5 (7.6) minutes with InfoClinique and 22.3 (7.8) minutes with the Trip database (P = .30). Participants' perceptions of each engine's effect on the decision-making process were very positive and similar for both search engines. CONCLUSION: Family medicine residents' ability to provide correct answers to clinical questions increased dramatically and similarly with the use of both InfoClinique and the Trip database. These tools have strong potential to increase the quality of medical care.

Implemented machine learning tools to inform decision-making for patient care in hospital settings: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify ML tools in hospital settings and how they were implemented to inform decision-making for patient care through a scoping review. We investigated the following research questions: What ML interventions have been used to inform decision-making for patient care in hospital settings? What strategies have been used to implement these ML interventions? DESIGN: A scoping review was undertaken. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 2009 until June 2021. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted data independently. Conflicts were resolved by another reviewer. Data were summarised descriptively using simple content analysis. SETTING: Hospital setting. PARTICIPANT: Any type of clinician caring for any type of patient. INTERVENTION: Machine learning tools used by clinicians to inform decision-making for patient care, such as AI-based computerised decision support systems or "'model-based'" decision support systems. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and study characteristics, as well as intervention characteristics including the type of machine learning tool, implementation strategies, target population. Equity issues were examined with PROGRESS-PLUS criteria. RESULTS: After screening 17 386 citations and 3474 full-text articles, 20 unique studies and 1 companion report were included. The included articles totalled 82 656 patients and 915 clinicians. Seven studies reported gender and four studies reported PROGRESS-PLUS criteria (race, health insurance, rural/urban). Common implementation strategies for the tools were clinician reminders that integrated ML predictions (44.4%), facilitated relay of clinical information (17.8%) and staff education (15.6%). Common barriers to successful implementation of ML tools were time (11.1%) and reliability (11.1%), and common facilitators were time/efficiency (13.6%) and perceived usefulness (13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence related to the implementation of ML tools to assist clinicians with patient healthcare decisions in hospital settings. Future research should examine other approaches to integrating ML into hospital clinician decisions related to patient care, and report on PROGRESS-PLUS items. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Foundation grant awarded to SES and the CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented-Research Initiative (GSR-154442). SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/e2mna.

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research.

BACKGROUND: Transparent reporting of rapid reviews enables appropriate use of research findings and dissemination strategies can strengthen uptake and impact for the targeted knowledge users, including policy-makers and health system managers. The aim of this literature review was to understand reporting and dissemination approaches for rapid reviews and provide an overview in the context of health policy and systems research. METHODS: A literature review and descriptive summary of the reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews was conducted, focusing on available guidance and methods, considerations for engagement with knowledge users, and optimizing dissemination. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, as well as relevant websites and reference lists were searched from January 2017 to March 2021 to identify the relevant literature with no language restrictions. Content was abstracted and charted. RESULTS: The literature review found limited guidance specific to rapid reviews. Building on the barriers and facilitators to systematic review use, we provide practical recommendations on different approaches and methods for reporting and disseminating expedited knowledge synthesis considering the needs of health policy and systems knowledge users. Reporting should balance comprehensive accounting of the research process and findings with what is "good enough" or sufficient to meet the requirements of the knowledge users, while considering the time and resources available to conduct a review. Typical approaches may be used when planning the dissemination of rapid review findings; such as peer-reviewed publications or symposia and clear and ongoing engagement with knowledge users in crafting the messages is essential so they are appropriately tailored to the target audience. Consideration should be given to providing different products for different audiences. Dissemination measures and bibliometrics are also useful to gauge impact and reach. CONCLUSIONS: Limited guidance specific to the reporting and dissemination of rapid reviews is available. Although approaches to expedited synthesis for health policy and systems research vary, considerations for the reporting and dissemination of findings are pertinent to all.

Electronic search strategies to identify reports of cluster randomized trials in MEDLINE: low precision will improve with adherence to reporting standards.

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) present unique methodological and ethical challenges. Researchers conducting systematic reviews of CRTs (e.g., addressing methodological or ethical issues) require efficient electronic search strategies (filters or hedges) to identify trials in electronic databases such as MEDLINE. According to the CONSORT statement extension to CRTs, the clustered design should be clearly identified in titles or abstracts; however, variability in terminology may make electronic identification challenging. Our objectives were to (a) evaluate sensitivity ("recall") and precision of a well-known electronic search strategy ("randomized controlled trial" as publication type) with respect to identifying CRTs, (b) evaluate the feasibility of new search strategies targeted specifically at CRTs, and (c) determine whether CRTs are appropriately identified in titles or abstracts of reports and whether there has been improvement over time. METHODS: We manually examined a wide range of health journals to identify a gold standard set of CRTs. Search strategies were evaluated against the gold standard set, as well as an independent set of CRTs included in previous systematic reviews. RESULTS: The existing strategy (randomized controlled trial.pt) is sensitive (93.8%) for identifying CRTs, but has relatively low precision (9%, number needed to read 11); the number needed to read can be halved to 5 (precision 18.4%) by combining with cluster design-related terms using the Boolean operator AND; combining with the Boolean operator OR maximizes sensitivity (99.4%) but would require 28.6 citations read to identify one CRT. Only about 50% of CRTs are clearly identified as cluster randomized in titles or abstracts; approximately 25% can be identified based on the reported units of randomization but are not amenable to electronic searching; the remaining 25% cannot be identified except through manual inspection of the full-text article. The proportion of trials clearly identified has increased from 28% between the years 2000-2003, to 60% between 2004-2007 (absolute increase 32%, 95% CI 17 to 47%). CONCLUSIONS: CRTs should include the phrase "cluster randomized trial" in titles or abstracts; this will facilitate more accurate indexing of the publication type by reviewers at the National Library of Medicine, and efficient textword retrieval of the subset employing cluster randomization.

Interventions to improve question formulation in professional practice and self-directed learning.

BACKGROUND: Formulating questions is fundamental to the daily life of a healthcare worker and is a defining characteristic of professional competence and meaningful learning. With high expectations for healthcare providers to remain up-to-date with current evidence and the movement towards formalizing reflective practice as part of physician revalidation, it is important that curricula developed for improving the ability to formulate well-constructed questions are based on the best evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the frequency and quality of questions formulated by healthcare providers in practice and the context of self-directed learning. SEARCH STRATEGY: We obtained studies from searches of electronic bibliographic databases, and supplemented these with handsearching, checking reference lists, and consultation with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time-series (ITS), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies of any language examining interventions for increasing the quality and frequency of questions formulated by health professionals involved with direct patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook all relevancy screening and 'Risk of bias' assessment in duplicate. Intervention characteristics, follow-up intervals, and measurement outcomes were diverse and precluded quantitative analysis. We have summarized data descriptively. MAIN RESULTS: Searches identified four studies examining interventions to improve question formulation in healthcare professionals. Interventions were mostly multi-component, limited within the context of EBM and primarily in physician and resident populations. We did not identify studies examining changes in frequency of questions formulated or those within the context of reflection. Risk of bias was generally rated to be 'high risk'. Three of the four studies showed improvements in question formulation in physicians, residents, or mixed allied health populations in the short- to moderate term follow up. Only one study examined sustainability of effects at one year and reported that skills had eroded over time. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from our review suggests that interventions to increase the quality of questions formulated in practice produce mixed results at both short- (immediately following intervention), and moderate-term follow up (up to nine months), comparatively. Although three studies reported effectiveness estimates of an educational intervention for increasing the quality of question formulation within the short term, only one study examined the effectiveness in the longer term (one year) and revealed that search skills had eroded over time. Data suggests that sustainability of effects from educational interventions for question formulation are unknown.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity has now achieved international political importance with endorsement from the World Health Assembly in 2009.  The failure of systematic reviews to consider effects on health equity is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To systematically review methods to assess effects on health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to July 2 2010: MEDLINE, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Index to Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on October 7 2010. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using a pre-tested form by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four methodological studies were included.  The methods used by these included studies were: 1) Targeted approaches (n=22); 2) gap approaches (n=12) and gradient approach (n=1).  Gender or sex was assessed in eight out of 34 studies, socioeconomic status in ten studies, race/ethnicity in seven studies, age in seven studies, low and middle income countries in 14 studies, and two studies assessed multiple factors across health inequity may exist.Only three studies provided a definition of health equity. Four methodological approaches to assessing effects on health equity were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (all 34 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (12/34 studies); 3) analytic approaches (10/34 studies); and 4) applicability assessment (11/34 studies). Both analytic and applicability approaches were not reported transparently nor in sufficient detail to judge their credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to assess and report effects on health equity in systematic reviews.

A rapid evidence-based service by librarians provided information to answer primary care clinical questions.

BACKGROUND: A librarian consultation service was offered to 88 primary care clinicians during office hours. This included a streamlined evidence-based process to answer questions in fewer than 20 min. This included a contact centre accessed through a Web-based platform and using hand-held devices and computers with Web access. Librarians were given technical training in evidence-based medicine, including how to summarise evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the process and lessons learned from developing and operating a rapid response librarian consultation service for primary care clinicians. METHODS: Evaluation included librarian interviews and a clinician exit satisfaction survey. RESULTS: Clinicians were positive about its impact on their clinical practice and decision making. The project revealed some important 'lessons learned' in the clinical use of hand-held devices, knowledge translation and training for clinicians and librarians. CONCLUSIONS: The Just-in-Time Librarian Consultation Service showed that it was possible to provide evidence-based answers to clinical questions in 15 min or less. The project overcame a number of barriers using innovative solutions. There are many opportunities to build on this experience for future joint projects of librarians and healthcare providers.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

Electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care.

BACKGROUND: The movement towards evidence-based practice makes explicit the need for access to current best evidence to improve health. Advances in electronic technologies have made health information more available, but does availability affect the rate of use of evidence in practice? OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions intended to provide electronic retrieval (access to information) to health information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We obtained studies from computerized searches of multiple electronic bibliographic databases, supplemented by checking reference lists, and consultation with experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including cluster randomized trials (CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCT), and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) of any language publication status examining interventions of effectiveness of electronic retrieval of health information by healthcare providers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Duplicate relevancy screening of searches, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment was undertaken. MAIN RESULTS: We found two studies that examined this question. Neither study found any changes in professional behavior following an intervention that facilitated electronic retrieval of health information. There was some evidence of improvements in knowledge about the electronic sources of information reported in one study. Neither study assessed changes in patient outcomes or the costs of provision of the electronic resource and the implementation of the recommended evidence-based practices. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall there was insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of electronic retrieval of healthcare information by healthcare providers to improve practice and patient care.

Barriers to the effective treatment and prevention of malaria in Africa: A systematic review of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: In Africa, an estimated 300-500 million cases of malaria occur each year resulting in approximately 1 million deaths. More than 90% of these are in children under 5 years of age. To identify commonly held beliefs about malaria that might present barriers to its successful treatment and prevention, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies examining beliefs and practices concerning malaria in sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS: We searched Medline and Scopus (1966-2009) and identified 39 studies that employed qualitative methods (focus groups and interviews) to examine the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of people living in African countries where malaria is endemic. Data were extracted relating to study characteristics, and themes pertaining to barriers to malaria treatment and prevention. RESULTS: The majority of studies were conducted in rural areas, and focused mostly or entirely on children. Major barriers to prevention reported included a lack of understanding of the cause and transmission of malaria (29/39), the belief that malaria cannot be prevented (7/39), and the use of ineffective prevention measures (12/39). Thirty-seven of 39 articles identified barriers to malaria treatment, including concerns about the safety and efficacy of conventional medicines (15/39), logistical obstacles, and reliance on traditional remedies. Specific barriers to the treatment of childhood malaria identified included the belief that a child with convulsions could die if given an injection or taken to hospital (10/39). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that large-scale malaria prevention and treatment programs must account for the social and cultural contexts in which they are deployed. Further quantitative research should be undertaken to more precisely measure the impact of the themes uncovered by this exploratory analysis.

Improving healthcare consumer effectiveness: an Animated, Self-serve, Web-based Research Tool (ANSWER) for people with early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) should use DMARDs (disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs) within the first three months of symptoms in order to prevent irreversible joint damage. However, recent studies report the delay in DMARD use ranges from 6.5 months to 11.5 months in Canada. While most health service delivery interventions are designed to improve the family physician's ability to refer to a rheumatologist and prescribe treatments, relatively little has been done to improve the delivery of credible, relevant, and user-friendly information for individuals to make treatment decisions. To address this care gap, the Animated, Self-serve, Web-based Research Tool (ANSWER) will be developed and evaluated to assist people in making decisions about the use of methotrexate, a type of DMARD. The objectives of this project are: 1) to develop ANSWER for people with early RA; and 2) to assess the extent to which ANSWER reduces people's decisional conflict about the use of methotrexate, improves their knowledge about RA, and improves their skills of being 'effective healthcare consumers'. METHODS/DESIGN: Consistent with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, the development process of ANSWER will involve: 1.) creating a storyline and scripts based on the best evidence on the use of methotrexate and other management options in RA, and the contextual factors that affect a patient's decision to use a treatment as found in ERAHSE; 2.) using an interactive design methodology to create, test, analyze and refine the ANSWER prototype; 3.) testing the content and user interface with health professionals and patients; and 4.) conducting a pilot study with 51 patients, who are diagnosed with RA in the past 12 months, to assess the extent to which ANSWER improves the quality of their decisions, knowledge and skills in being effective consumers. DISCUSSION: We envision that the ANSWER will help accelerate the dissemination of knowledge and skills necessary for people with early RA to make informed choices about treatment and to manage their health. The latest in animation and online technology will ensure ANSWER fills a knowledge translation gap, focusing on the next generation of people living with RA.

No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: The reporting of the search methods used in systematic reviews has implications for how systematic reviews are critically appraised, their reproducibility and how easily they may be updated. The objective of this paper was to identify validated or evaluated search reporting instruments used in reporting systematic review searches and to compare reported and recommended searching practices. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This cohort study was a systematic review. The search strategy to identify instruments addressing the reporting of search strategies was developed first in the Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISAs) database and then adapted for MEDLINE and five additional databases. Additional instruments were identified through experts. Current reporting practice data were analyzed from a cohort of 297 recent systematic reviews. RESULTS: Of the 11 instruments examined, 7 cited supporting evidence but only 4 were validated. Eighteen different reporting items were identified but only one item, "databases used," appeared in all instruments. There was a trend toward including more items in more recent instruments (r=0.41). Current search reporting practices ranged from a high of 98.7% for databases used to a low of 11.4% for qualifications of the searcher. CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear consensus regarding optimum reporting of systematic review search methods and commonly recommended items show suboptimal reporting.

Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports on literature surveillance methods to identify new evidence eligible for updating systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Five surveillance search approaches are tested in the context of identifying studies that would signal major or invalidating new evidence for existing systematic reviews of health care interventions. Recall for each search approach was assessed as proportion of a composite yield of relevant studies across all search approaches that were identified by that approach. Screening burden was the number of studies that would need to be reviewed to identify the evidence that would necessitate updating. RESULTS: Searches were tested in a cohort of 77 systematic reviews. No one method yielded consistently high recall of relevant new evidence, so combinations of the strategies were examined. A search algorithm based on PubMed's related article search in combination with a subject searching using clinical queries was the most effective combination, retrieving all relevant new records in 68 cases. Screening burden was a median of 71 new records per review (inter-quartile range: 42-161). CONCLUSION: Surveillance for emerging evidence that signals the need to update systematic reviews is feasible using a combination of subject searching and searching based on the PubMed's related article function.