Evidence reversals in primary care research: a study of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-Based Medicine is built on the premise that clinicians can be more confident when their decisions are grounded in high-quality evidence. Furthermore, evidence from studies involving patient-oriented outcomes is preferred when making decisions about tests or treatments. Ideally, the findings of relevant and valid trials should be stable over time, that is, unlikely to be reversed in subsequent research. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the stability of evidence from trials relevant to primary healthcare and to identify study characteristics associated with their reversal. METHODS: We studied synopses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2002 to 2005 as "Daily POEMs" (Patient Oriented Evidence that Matters). The initial evidence (E1) from these POEMs (2002-2005) was compared with the updated evidence (E2) on that same topic in a summary resource (DynaMed 2019). Two physician-raters independently categorized each POEM-RCT as (i) reversed when E1 ≠ E2, or as (ii) not reversed, when E1 = E2. For all "Evidence Reversals" (E1 ≠ E2), we assessed the direction of change in the evidence. RESULTS: We evaluated 408 POEMs on RCTs. Of those, 35 (9%; 95% confidence interval [6-12]) were identified as reversed, 359 (88%) were identified as not reversed, and 14 (3%) were indeterminate. On average, this represents about 2 evidence reversals per annum for POEMs about RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Over 12-17 years, 9% of RCTs summarized as POEMs are reversed. Information alerting services that apply strict criteria for relevance and validity of clinical information are likely to identify RCTs whose findings are stable over time.

We studied the extent to which evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relevant to primary care is contradicted in subsequent research. When it was, we identified this event as an evidence reversal. In addition, we sought to identify characteristics of RCTs associated with their reversal. From 408 RCTs published during the period 2002­2005, study characteristics such as sample size were identified and extracted. Subsequently, we compared the evidence reported in each of these RCTs with the evidence on that same topic in an online summary resource in 2019. This allowed us to classify each RCT in one of the following 3 categories: evidence confirmed, reversed, or uncertain if this evidence is confirmed or reversed. Over 12­17 years of follow-up time, the findings of about 9 in 10 RCTs summarized as POEMs are stable. We found no statistically significant associations between trial characteristics and their subsequent reversal. This low rate of evidence reversal is good news for the RCTs that are used to inform decision-making.

Caring for older cancer patients: A scoping review.

There is a growing recognition among oncologists that older patients differ from other cancer patients. Older patients present age-specific issues affecting the prevention and management of their cancer. Over the years, this has led to the development of the discipline of geriatric oncology, which is the set of practices elaborated to evaluate, treat, follow-up and rehabilitate the population of older cancer patients. Geriatric oncology is still struggling to establish itself in healthcare settings managing older cancer patients. Efforts are currently being made to make it a recognized medical specialty. Health policy makers have to have a grasp of the evolution of this discipline because it concerns a fast growing segment of the cancer patient population. To shed light on the literature about this field, we undertook a scoping review in which we identified relevant studies; charted the data from the selected studies, collated, summarized and reported the results. From 2043 references initially identified, we included 92 articles in our scoping review and extracted data from 88 articles. The included articles were classified into three major categories, namely Advancing the discipline, Organization of care and Nursing and support services for patient and their caregivers. This review affords researchers and policy makers a foundation to help conduct many other conversations on each theme and sub-theme.