Online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review). CONCLUSIONS: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).

In Cochrane nutrition reviews assessment of dietary adherence varied considerably.

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate if and how Cochrane nutrition reviews assess dietary adherence to a specific dietary regimen. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cochrane nutrition reviews fulfilling the following criteria were included: systematic review of randomized controlled trials including adults and investigating the effect of caloric restriction, dietary pattern, foods, nutrients, supplements, or other nutrition-related-interventions. Extensive data extraction and descriptive statistics were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 226 Cochrane reviews were included. Most reviews mentioned dietary adherence in the main text (n = 174), predominantly in the Methods and Results. Dietary adherence was assessed in 76 reviews and defined in 19. It was included in the risk of bias (RoB) assessment in 20 reviews with nine using a newly created RoB domain for dietary adherence, and considered as outcome in 37 reviews. Seventy-five reviews addressed degree of adherence and five treatment effects considering the degree of adherence. CONCLUSION: Dietary adherence was reported in a heterogeneous manner in Cochrane nutrition reviews. Due to its high importance, we suggest that systematic reviews report the assessment and degree of dietary adherence measured in primary studies. Dietary adherence can further be examined as outcome, evaluated within the RoB (deviations from intended interventions) and included in sensitivity analyses.

Barriers and Facilitators for Conducting Implementation Science in German-Speaking Countries: Findings from the Promote ImpSci Interview Study.

On a global scale, implementation science has developed considerably as a discipline in recent years. In German-speaking countries, the field has been gaining significance as well, but respective efforts in building capacity and advancing the research infrastructure are still rare. The present study investigates barriers and facilitators for conducting implementation science in German-speaking countries with the goal of formulating recommendations for creating a more supportive research infrastructure. We conducted an interview study with nine well-established implementation researchers affiliated with universities in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland. The interviews were held via Zoom or phone in November and December 2020, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Barriers that relate to characteristics of the discipline were difficulties in building a common understanding of the field and the complexity of implementation research projects. Although supportive scientific networks were important facilitators, interviewees mentioned challenges in connecting with likeminded researchers. A further barrier was the lack of opportunities for education and training in implementation science, especially in the German language. Also, participants reported a missing readiness in academia for establishing implementation science that should be addressed by advocacy of the discipline toward academic decision makers. Moreover, since most national funding agencies prioritize basic research over applied research, some interviewees named flexibility in handling research funds as a facilitator for implementation research. The results inform an agenda for promoting implementation science in German-speaking countries and can be beneficial to other countries that are currently advancing their implementation research capacity and infrastructure. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00046-3.

Dissemination of Evidence by Cochrane Public Health Europe in German-Speaking Countries: An Online Stakeholder Survey.

Objectives: To investigate the reach and impact of "Infomails", email summaries of Cochrane reviews in German, regularly disseminated by Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE) to stakeholders in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. Methods: We analysed email campaign reports from 15 Infomails delivered until November 2020. Furthermore, we invited all previous Infomail recipients to participate in an online survey on the impact and perceptions regarding our Infomails in November 2020. We analysed the results using descriptive statistics. Results: The Infomails' open rate ranged from 10.9% to 39.3% (median 26.0%), and the median click rate on the embedded links was 28.0% (range 8.6-53.8%), highest for nutrition and prevention topics. Out of 1259 recipients, 267 (21.2%) completed our survey. Infomails were most used in discussions, writing reports or statements, for policy or strategy development or programme or guideline development. Persons who remembered receiving Infomails rated them as useful, comprehensible or informative. Conclusion: Infomails summarising recent Cochrane reviews were considered useful for the daily work of public health stakeholders in German-speaking countries. Regular targeted messaging may increase the perceived usefulness.

Evidence-based occupational health and safety interventions: a comprehensive overview of reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Occupational injuries and diseases are a huge public health problem and cause extensive suffering and loss of productivity. Nevertheless, many occupational health and safety (OHS) guidelines are still not based on the best available evidence. In the last decade, numerous systematic reviews on behavioural, relational and mixed interventions to reduce occupational injuries and diseases have been carried out, but a comprehensive synopsis is yet missing. The aim of this overview of reviews is to provide a comprehensive basis to inform evidence-based decision-making about interventions in the field of OHS. METHODS: We conducted an overview of reviews. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Cochrane Library (Wiley), epistemonikos.org and Scopus (Elsevier) for relevant systematic reviews published between January 2008 and June 2018. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews with the ROBIS (Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews) tool. RESULTS: We screened 2287 abstracts and 200 full-texts for eligibility. Finally, we included 25 systematic reviews with a low risk of bias for data synthesis and analysis. We identified systematic reviews on the prevention of occupational injuries, musculoskeletal, skin and lung diseases, occupational hearing impairment and interventions without specific target diseases. Several interventions led to consistently positive results on individual diseases; other interventions did not show any effects, or the studies are contradictory. We provide detailed results on all included interventions. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive overview of behavioural, relational and mixed interventions and their effectiveness in preventing occupational injuries and diseases. It provides policymakers with an important basis for making evidence-based decisions on interventions in this field. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018100341.

[Evidence-based recommendations for the revision of the Austrian periodic health examination]. / Evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zur Überarbeitung der österreichischen Vorsorgeuntersuchung.

The Austrian periodic health examination (PHE) was introduced in 1974 as a health insurance benefit and was redesigned for the last time in 2005. Therefore, the aim of this work was to revise the scientific basis of the PHE using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We updated the scientific evidence of examinations and consultations that are currently part of the PHE and searched and integrated new examinations. We assessed the expectations of the population towards the PHE in three focus groups. A panel of experts developed evidence-based recommendations for the revised PHE. They formulated 26 recommendations on 20 target diseases or risk factors. In comparison to the previous PHE, the panel added screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, osteoporotic fracture risk, and chronic kidney disease to the recommendations, while screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, screening for iron deficiency/pernicious anaemia, and risk identification of glaucoma should no longer be included.

Prevalence of mental disorders in young refugees and asylum seekers in European Countries: a systematic review.

The European Union member states received about 385,000 asylum applications from children and adolescents below 18 years in 2015, and 398,000 in 2016. The latest political crises and war have led to an upsurge in refugee movements into European countries, giving rise to a re-evaluation of the epidemiology of psychiatric disorders and mental health problems among young refugees and asylum seekers. We systematically searched five electronic databases and reference lists of pertinent review articles. We then screened the results of forward citation tracking of key articles for relevant studies in the field for the period from January 1990 to October 2017. We dually reviewed citations and assessed risk of bias. We reported the results narratively, as meta-analyses were impeded due to high heterogeneity. We included 47 studies covered in 53 articles. Overall, the point prevalence of the investigated psychiatric disorders and mental health problems varied widely among studies (presenting interquartile ranges): for posttraumatic stress disorder between 19.0 and 52.7%, for depression between 10.3 and 32.8%, for anxiety disorders between 8.7 and 31.6%, and for emotional and behavioural problems between 19.8 and 35.0%. The highly heterogeneous evidence base could be improved by international, methodologically comparable studies with sufficiently large sample sizes drawn randomly among specific refugee populations. The prevalence estimates suggest, nevertheless, that specialized mental health care services for the most vulnerable refugee and asylum-seeking populations are needed. REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19th, 2017 with the number: CRD42017080039 and is available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=80039.

Pathways leading to success and non-success: a process evaluation of a cluster randomized physical activity health promotion program applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion programs can only lead to improvements in health outcomes if they are effectively implemented. However, most studies assessing implementation success focus on only one condition, although more conditions influence this process. Therefore, evidence is scarce on what conditions play a role in successful implementation and how they interact. Hence, we aimed to identify which combinations of teacher and implementation process characteristics affected the emotional and social school experience (SCE) of pupils participating in a school-based health promotion program. METHODS: This study was part of an effectiveness and process evaluation including 24 intervention and 27 control classes. We used fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify combinations of conditions that were associated with either an increase or no increase in the outcome SCE in comparison to the control group at 20 months post intervention. We deductively selected five conditions based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research: teachers' perceived self-efficacy, teachers' expectations of the benefits of the intervention, teachers' previous knowledge about the intervention, dosage of physical activity breaks, and quality of the implementation. RESULTS: We identified five different pathways that led to no increase in the pupils' outcome (parameters of fit: consistency 94%, coverage 66%). The combination of an unsatisfying quality of implementing the intervention and a low previous knowledge about the intervention showed the highest empirical relevance. Similarly, fewer physical activity breaks in combination with other conditions impeded the program's success. Furthermore, we identified two different pathways characterizing ways to success (consistency: 81%, coverage: 52%). The most relevant combination was good quality implementation of physical activity breaks, implemented by teachers with a high self-efficacy, and a good previous knowledge about the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: QCA has potential for an in-depth analysis of complex interventions as it can rely on small to medium sample sizes and analyze pathways to success and non-success separately. The investigated program can be improved by considering the following suggestions: The quality of the implementation process should be monitored during the implementation phase, and regular feedback loops and learning opportunities for teachers should accompany a program. Clear recommendations regarding the dosage should be established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German register of clinical studies: DRKS00000622 . Retrospectively registered: December 3, 2010, ( http://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do ). Approved by the Ethics Committee of Lower Austria (GS4-EK-4/107-2010).

German language questionnaires for assessing implementation constructs and outcomes of psychosocial and health-related interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past years, implementation science has gained more and more importance in German-speaking countries. Reliable and valid questionnaires are needed for evaluating the implementation of evidence-based practices. On an international level, several initiatives focused on the identification of questionnaires used in English-speaking countries but limited their search processes to mental health and public health settings. Our aim was to identify questionnaires used in German-speaking countries measuring the implementation of interventions in public health and health care settings in general and to assess their psychometric properties. METHODS: We searched five different bibliographic databases (from 1985 to August 2017) and used several other search strategies (e.g., reference lists, forward citation) to obtain our data. We assessed the instruments, which were identified in an independent dual review process, using 12 psychometric rating criteria. Finally, we mapped the instruments' scales and subscales in regard to the constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Implementation Outcome Framework (IOF). RESULTS: We identified 31 unique instruments available for the assessment of implementation science constructs. Hospitals and other health care settings were the ones most often investigated (23 instruments), while education and childcare settings, workplace settings, and community settings lacked published instruments. Internal consistency, face and content validity, usability, and structural validity were the aspects most often described. However, most studies did not report on test-retest reliability, known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, or responsiveness. Overall, the majority of studies did not reveal high-quality instruments, especially regarding the psychometric criteria internal consistency, structural validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we seldom detected instruments operationalizing the CFIR domains intervention characteristics, outer setting, and process, and the IOF constructs adoption, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a sustained and continuous effort is needed to improve the reliability and validity of existing instruments to new ones. Instruments applicable to the assessment of implementation constructs in public health and community settings are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO on October 19, 2017, under the following number: CRD42017075208 .

Implementing prevention of seasonal affective disorder from patients' and physicians' perspectives - a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonally recurrent type of major depression that has detrimental effects on patients' lives during winter. Little is known about how it affects patients during summer and about patients' and physicians' perspectives on preventive SAD treatment. The aim of our study was to explore how SAD patients experience summers, what type of preventive treatment patients implement, which preventive treatment methods, if any, physicians recommend, and what factors facilitate or hinder implementation/recommendation of SAD prevention. METHODS: We conducted 15 semi-structured interviews, ten with adult patients with a history of SAD and five with physicians. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using an inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: One group of patients was able to enjoy summer and ignore thoughts of the upcoming winter. The other group feared the impending depressive episode in winter, and this fear negatively impacted these patients' well-being during the summer. Preventive treatment was a relevant issue for all patients, and all but one person implemented SAD prevention during summer. We identified six factors that influenced patient use of preventive treatment of SAD. Four factors occur on an individual level (knowledge about disease and preventive treatment options, experience with treatment in acute phase, acceptability of intervention, willingness to take responsibility for oneself), one on an interpersonal level (social and work environment), and one on a structural level (healthcare system). All psychiatrists recommended some kind of preventive intervention, most commonly, lifestyle changes. Four factors influenced psychiatrists in recommending prevention of SAD (patient expectations, disease history and stability, risk/benefit ratio, lack of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Success in the implementation of SAD prevention does not solely depend on the willingness of the patients, but is also influenced by external factors. Raising awareness of SAD among general practitioners and low-level access to mental-health support could help patients find appropriate help sooner. To better guide the optimal treatment choice, comparative effectiveness research on treatments to prevent a new onset in patients with a history of SAD and clinical practice guidelines on SAD are needed.

Effects of lifestyle changes on adults with prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle intervention, compared with treatment as usual in people with prediabetes as defined by the American Diabetes Association. For older studies, we used the 1985 World Health Organization definition. METHODS: We systematically searched multiple electronic databases and referenced lists of pertinent review articles from January 1980 through November 2015. We performed an update search in MEDLINE on April 26, 2017. Based on a priori established eligibility criteria, we dually reviewed the literature, extracted data, and rated the risk of bias of included studies with validated checklists. To assess the efficacy of lifestyle intervention to prevent or delay further progression to type 2 diabetes, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. RESULT: Pooled results of 16 randomized controlled trials showed that people with prediabetes who received lifestyle intervention had a lower rate of progression to type 2 diabetes after one (4% vs. 10%, RR 0.46 [CI 0.32, 0.66]) and three years of follow-up (14% vs. 23%, RR 0.64 [95% CI 0.53, 0.77]). The majority of the studies also showed a greater weight loss in lifestyle intervention participants, with a great variation between studies. Costs per quality-adjusted life-year were lower when the benefits of lifestyle intervention were analyzed over a lifelong time horizon compared to only the period of lifestyle intervention (three years) or to modeling over a ten-year period. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle intervention is an efficacious, safe, and cost-effective measure to reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes in people diagnosed with prediabetes. More research is necessary to compare the efficacy of various modes, frequencies, and intensities of lifestyle intervention across studies.

Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for public health decision-making, but length and technical jargon tend to hinder their use. In non-English speaking countries, inaccessibility of information in the native language often represents an additional barrier. In line with our vision to strengthen evidence-based public health in the German-speaking world, we developed a German language summary format for systematic reviews of public health interventions and undertook user-testing with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. METHODS: We used several guiding principles and core elements identified from the literature to produce a prototype summary format and applied it to a Cochrane review on the impacts of changing portion and package sizes on selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Following a pre-test in each of the three countries, we carried out 18 user tests with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using the 'think-aloud' method. We analysed participants' comments according to the facets credibility, usability, understandability, usefulness, desirability, findability, identification and accessibility. We also identified elements that hindered the facile and satisfying use of the summary format, and revised it based on participants' feedback. RESULTS: The summary format was well-received; participants particularly appreciated receiving information in their own language. They generally found the summary format useful and a credible source of information, but also signalled several barriers to a positive user experience such as an information-dense structure and difficulties with understanding statistical terms. Many of the identified challenges were addressed through modifications of the summary format, in particular by allowing for flexible length, placing more emphasis on key messages and relevance for public health practice, expanding the interpretation aid for statistical findings, providing a glossary of technical terms, and only including graphical GRADE ratings. Some barriers to uptake, notably the participants' wish for actionable recommendations and contextual information, could not be addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Participants welcomed the initiative, but user tests also revealed their problems with understanding and interpreting the findings summarised in our prototype format. The revised summary format will be used to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews of public health interventions.

Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas.

INTRODUCTION: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

Vitamin D deficiency as a risk factor for dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sunlight exposure and high vitamin D status have been hypothesised to reduce the risk of developing dementia. The objective of our research was to determine whether lack of sunlight and hypovitaminosis D over time are associated with dementia. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ICONDA, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from 1990 to October 2015. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of published and unpublished data to evaluate the influence of sunlight exposure or vitamin D as a surrogate marker on dementia risk. RESULTS: We could not identify a single study investigating the association between sunlight exposure and dementia risk. Six cohort studies provided data on the effect of serum vitamin D concentration on dementia risk. A meta-analysis of five studies showed a higher risk for persons with serious vitamin D deficiency (<25 nmol/L or 7-28 nmol/L) compared to persons with sufficient vitamin D supply (≥50 nmol/L or 54-159 nmol/L) (point estimate 1.54; 95% CI 1.19-1.99, I2 = 20%). The strength of evidence that serious vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of developing dementia, however, is very low due to the observational nature of included studies and their lack of adjustment for residual or important confounders (e.g. ApoE ε4 genotype), as well as the indirect relationship between Vitamin D concentrations as a surrogate for sunlight exposure and dementia risk. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review show that low vitamin D levels might contribute to the development of dementia. Further research examining the direct and indirect relationship between sunlight exposure and dementia risk is needed. Such research should involve large-scale cohort studies with homogeneous and repeated assessment of vitamin D concentrations or sunlight exposure and dementia outcomes.

Effectiveness evaluation of a health promotion programme in primary schools: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Programmes based on the World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools framework (HPS) have been implemented in several countries but for evidence-based policy-making more research is required to determine the effectiveness of the HPS approach. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial. The units of randomisation were primary school classes recruited in May 2010. Eligible participants were Year 3 primary school classes in Lower Austria that had not participated in a similar programme during the last two years. After baseline assessment in September 2010, 53 classes from 45 primary schools in Lower Austria were randomly assigned to an intervention (n = 26 classes, 432 children) or waiting control arm (n = 27 classes, 493 children aged 8.7 years +/- 4 months). Over the course of 1.5 academic years, participating teachers received on-the-job training (20 h) and two workshops (8 h) to promote health related behaviour in students such as physical activity during the school day and to improve the quality of regular physical education classes. We assessed 15 outcomes grouped into five categories: Emotional and Social Experience in School, Physical Activity, Well-being, and Attention Performance measured by validated and standardised questionnaire and Motor Skills measured by validated and standardised motoric and coordination tests in the school gym. The primary outcome was Classroom Climate and part of the outcomecategory Emotional and Social Experience in School. The final assessment took place in April 2012. All assessors were blinded to the allocation of classes. Multilevel growth modelling was used to investigate programme effectiveness. RESULTS: We could not detect any statistically significant differences between groups for the outcomecategories Emotional and Social Experience in school (p = 0.22 to 0.78), Physical Activity, Well-being, and Attention Performance. Significant differences between groups were limited to the outcomecategory Motor Skills (Complex Reaction Ability, Spatial Orientation Skills, Coordination with Precision) which were higher in the intervention group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite small statistically significant differences in Motor Skills, our study could not detect any clinically relevant improvements in the Emotional and Social Experience at School (including the primary outcome ClassroomClimate), Physical Activity, Well-being, Motor Skills and Attention Performance of students. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German register of clinical studies: DRKS00000622 . Retrospectively registered: 03.12.2010. Approved by the Ethics Committee of Lower Austria (GS4-EK-4/107-2010).

The predictive validity of quality of evidence grades for the stability of effect estimates was low: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity of the U.S. Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) approach to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on Cochrane reports with outcomes graded as high quality of evidence (QOE), we prepared 160 documents which represented different levels of QOE. Professional systematic reviewers dually graded the QOE. For each document, we determined whether estimates were concordant with high QOE estimates of the Cochrane reports. We compared the observed proportion of concordant estimates with the expected proportion from an international survey. To determine the predictive validity, we used the Hosmer-Lemeshow test to assess calibration and the C (concordance) index to assess discrimination. RESULTS: The predictive validity of the EPC approach to GRADE was limited. Estimates graded as high QOE were less likely, estimates graded as low or insufficient QOE more likely to remain stable than expected. The EPC approach to GRADE could not reliably predict the likelihood that individual bodies of evidence remain stable as new evidence becomes available. C-indices ranged between 0.56 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.67) indicating a low discriminatory ability. CONCLUSION: The limited predictive validity of the EPC approach to GRADE seems to reflect a mismatch between expected and observed changes in treatment effects as bodies of evidence advance from insufficient to high QOE.

Health effects of cow's milk consumption in infants up to 3 years of age: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the best available evidence regarding the short- and long-term health effects of cow's milk intake in healthy, full-term infants up to 3 years of age. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE and the Cochrane Library between 1960 and July 2013 and manually reviewed reference lists of pertinent articles. Two researchers independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted relevant data. SUBJECTS: We included (randomized/non-randomized) controlled trials and observational studies. RESULTS: We included data from twenty-three studies (one randomized controlled trial, four non-randomized controlled trials, eight case-control studies and ten cohort studies) for the evidence synthesis. Pooled results of four studies revealed a higher risk of Fe-deficiency anaemia for infants consuming cow's milk compared with those consuming follow-on formula (relative risk=3·76; 95 % CI 2·73, 5·19). For type 1 diabetes mellitus, six out of seven case-control studies did not show a difference in the risk of developing this disease based on the age of introduction of cow's milk. We did not find negative associations for other health effects. CONCLUSIONS: Cow's milk consumption in infancy is associated with an increased risk of developing Fe-deficiency anaemia. Limiting cow's milk consumption may be important to ensure an adequate Fe intake for infants and toddlers. High-quality patient information for caregivers is needed on how infants' Fe requirements can be met.

[Practical experience with overviews of reviews--valuable decision aid or academic exercise?]. / Praxiserfahrungen mit Overviews of Reviews--wertvolle Entscheidungsunterstützung oder wissenschaftliche Fingerübung?

The "overview of reviews" has evolved as a method to aggregate information from systematic reviews. Based on research projects conducted by two Austrian institutions, this article aims to point out methods and perceived strengths and limitations of overviews of reviews and to discuss their application and constraints for different healthcare settings. The six analysed projects differed in their objectives as well as in the corresponding methodology. We identified the following strengths of the overviews of reviews performed: the overview of the evidence base on an issue, the rapid detection of the results of numerous reviews, the demonstration of evidence gaps and potential savings in time and resources. At the same time, the methodology could lead to a loss of information, limited relevance and to uncertainties regarding the robustness of the overall results. However, the heterogeneity of the methods used shows that the development of methods for overviews of reviews is still ongoing. Whether overviews of reviews provide valuable decision support depends on the research question and realistic expectations towards the method.

[Comparative evaluation of information products regarding cancer screening of German-speaking cancer organizations]. / Vergleichende Evaluierung von Informationsprodukten zu Krebsscreening der deutschsprachigen Krebs-Organisationen.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based information materials about the pros and cons of cancer screening are important sources for men and women to decide for or against cancer screening. The aim of this paper was to compare recommendations from different cancer institutions in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland) regarding screening for breast, cervix, colon, and prostate cancer and to assess the quality and development process of patient information materials. METHODS: Relevant information material was identified through web searches and personal contact with cancer institutions. To achieve our objective, we employed a qualitative approach. The quality of 22 patient information materials was analysed based on established guidance by Bunge et al. In addition, we conducted guided interviews about the process of developing information materials with decision-makers of cancer institutes. RESULTS: Overall, major discrepancies in cancer screening recommendations exist among the Austrian, German, and Swiss cancer institutes. Process evaluation revealed that crucial steps of quality assurance, such as assembling a multi-disciplinary panel, assessing conflicts of interest, or transparency regarding funding sources, have frequently not been undertaken. All information materials had substantial quality deficits in multiple areas. Three out of four institutes issued information materials that met fewer than half of the quality criteria. CONCLUSION: Most patient information materials of cancer institutes in German-speaking countries are fraught with substantial deficits and do not provide an objective source for patients to be able to make an informed decision for or against cancer screening.

[Comparative effectiveness and safety of screening and counselling interventions conducted by non-physicians and physicians: a systematic review]. / Vergleichende Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von Screeninguntersuchungen und Beratungsgesprächen durch nicht-ärztliches und ärztliches Personal. Eine systematische Übersichtsarbeit.

BACKGROUND: Current forecasts project a future shortage of physicians which might compromise the quality of health care if not addressed adequately by health policy decisions. One proposed measure is to shift selected tasks and responsibilities from physicians to other medical staff, a strategy that has proven successful in some areas (e. g., chronic disease management). To date, no studies have systematically and objectively assessed whether the application of a similar strategy to screening and counselling in preventive medicine compromises patients' health outcomes and experiences. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and EMBASE (January 2000 - June 2014). We dually reviewed articles and assessed the risk of bias. RESULTS: 3,315 citations were identified and five relevant articles located. Overall, the available evidence indicated that there were no substantial differences in benefits and harms of screening (colon cancer screening, sexual transmitted diseases, and mammography) and counselling (genetic breast cancer risk) between non-physicians and physicians. The quality of evidence, however, is very low for most comparisons. Reported statistically significant differences for some outcomes need to be viewed cautiously. CONCLUSION: Shifting tasks from physicians to other medical staff for screening and counselling could be a viable strategy to address the shortage of practicing physicians. Adequate training by a physician, however, is a prerequisite for the safe and beneficial screening and counselling conducted by non-physicians.