Skin Antisepsis before Surgical Fixation of Extremity Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating surgical-site infection have had conflicting results with respect to the use of alcohol solutions containing iodine povacrylex or chlorhexidine gluconate as skin antisepsis before surgery to repair a fractured limb (i.e., an extremity fracture). METHODS: In a cluster-randomized, crossover trial at 25 hospitals in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned hospitals to use a solution of 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol (iodine group) or 2% chlorhexidine gluconate in 70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine group) as preoperative antisepsis for surgical procedures to repair extremity fractures. Every 2 months, the hospitals alternated interventions. Separate populations of patients with either open or closed fractures were enrolled and included in the analysis. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection, which included superficial incisional infection within 30 days or deep incisional or organ-space infection within 90 days. The secondary outcome was unplanned reoperation for fracture-healing complications. RESULTS: A total of 6785 patients with a closed fracture and 1700 patients with an open fracture were included in the trial. In the closed-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 77 patients (2.4%) in the iodine group and in 108 patients (3.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.00; P = 0.049). In the open-fracture population, surgical-site infection occurred in 54 patients (6.5%) in the iodine group and in 60 patients (7.3%) in the chlorhexidine group (odd ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27; P = 0.45). The frequencies of unplanned reoperation, 1-year outcomes, and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with closed extremity fractures, skin antisepsis with iodine povacrylex in alcohol resulted in fewer surgical-site infections than antisepsis with chlorhexidine gluconate in alcohol. In patients with open fractures, the results were similar in the two groups. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; PREPARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03523962.).

Demystifying the Digital Divide: Disparities in Telerehabilitation Readiness Among Older Adults in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate readiness of older rehabilitation users in the United States to participate in video-based telerehabilitation and assess disparities in readiness among racial and ethnic minoritized populations, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and rural-dwelling older adults. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using nationally representative survey data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study from 2015 and 2020. Survey-weighted regression models, accounting for complex survey design, were used to generate estimates of readiness and evaluate disparities across racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic subgroups. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for each comparison. SETTING: Home or community rehabilitation environments. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 5274 home or community-based rehabilitation users aged 70 years or older (N=5274), representing a weighted 33,576,313 older adults in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Video-based telerehabilitation readiness was defined consistent with prior work; unreadiness was defined as lacking ownership of internet-enabled devices, limited proficiency of use, or living with severe cognitive, visual, or hearing impairment. Telerehabilitation readiness was categorized as "Ready" or "Unready". RESULTS: Approximately 2 in 3 older rehabilitation users were categorized as ready to participate in video-based rehabilitation. Significantly lower rates of readiness were observed among those living in rural areas (OR=0.75, 95% CI: 0.60-0.94), financially strained individuals (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.53), and among individuals identifying as Black or Hispanic (as compared with non-Hispanic White older adults: Non-Hispanic Black [OR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.18-0.30]; Hispanic [OR=0.17, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.27]). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight significant disparities in the readiness to uptake video-based telerehabilitation. Policy and practice interventions to address telerehabilitation readiness should focus not only on improving broadband access but also on technology ownership and training to ensure equitable adoption in populations with lower baseline readiness.

Eliciting Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer Treatment Preferences Using Clinical Vignettes: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: While surgical resection has been the traditional standard treatment for small (≤1 cm), differentiated thyroid cancers, active surveillance (AS) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are increasingly considered. The aim of this study was to explore patient preferences in thyroid cancer treatment using a series of clinical vignettes. METHODS: Thyroid cancer survivors and general population volunteers were recruited to rank experience-driven clinical vignettes in order of preference. Rankings were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank. Formative qualitative methods were used to develop and refine clinical vignettes that captured 4 treatments-thyroid lobectomy (TL), total thyroidectomy (TT), AS, and RFA-along with 6 treatment complications. Content was validated via interviews with 5 academic subspecialists. RESULTS: Nineteen volunteers participated (10 survivors, 9 general population). Treatment complications were ranked lower than uncomplicated counterparts in 99.0% of cases, indicating excellent comprehension. Counter to our hypothesis, among uncomplicated vignettes, median rankings were 1 for AS, 2 for RFA, 3.5 for TL, and 5 for TT. Trends were consistent between thyroid cancer survivors and the general population. AS was significantly preferred over RFA (P = .02) and TT (P < .01). Among surgical options, TL was significantly preferred over TT (P < .01). CONCLUSION: When treatments for low-risk thyroid cancer are described clearly and accurately through clinical vignettes, patients may be more likely to choose less invasive treatment options over traditional surgical resection.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Low-Risk Papillary Thyroid Cancer: Treatment De-Escalation and Cost Implications.

INTRODUCTION: The American Thyroid Association (ATA) updated consensus guidelines in 2015 for radioactive iodine (RAI) and resection for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer. The objective of this study was to describe the evolution of institutional practice patterns and estimate the cost implications of these trends. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cT1-T2N0 papillary thyroid cancer were identified via an institutional tumor registry. Incidences of total thyroidectomy or RAI were tracked longitudinally using cumulative sum. Real-world costs for RAI and each surgical encounter were adjusted for inflation and standardized to national average costs from National Inpatient Sample cost data. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients met inclusion criteria between 2007 and 2018. Among these, 28 patients underwent total thyroidectomies and received RAI treatments based on criteria pre-dating the 2015 ATA guidelines. Cumulative sum revealed significant decreases in the rate of total thyroidectomy following May 2015 (15.8% versus 59.5%, P = 0.002) and RAI following March 2013 (3.0% versus 32.1%, P = 0.002). There were no locoregional recurrences in either period. The average cost savings attributable to these institutional practice changes was $1580 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation in surgical and RAI utilization for low-risk papillary thyroid cancer according to 2015 ATA guidelines is associated with a substantial decrease in real-world costs.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) Statement: Updated Reporting Guidance for Health Economic Evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Similar values, different expectations: How do patients and providers view 'health' and perceive the healthcare experience?

INTRODUCTION: No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland. METHODS: This was a qualitative study with semi-structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in-depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts. RESULTS: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust. Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: A Stakeholder Advisory Board (SAB)-comprised of a patient, two community leaders, a physician and two healthcare administrators-was instrumental in codeveloping the study material (e.g., interview guides), engaging patients in the research process, identifying participants and codeveloping dissemination material. Two SAB members-Gail Graham, a patient consultant/professor, and Marcia Cort, a physician-are coauthors.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmaceuticals assessed in observational studies compared with randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. RESULTS: Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Pragmatic patient engagement in designing pragmatic oncology clinical trials.

Oncology trials are the cornerstone of effective and safe therapeutic discoveries. However, there is increasing demand for pragmatism and patient engagement in the design, implementation and dissemination of oncology trials. Many researchers are uncertain about making trials more practical and even less knowledgeable about how to meaningfully engage patients without compromising scientific rigor to meet regulatory requirements. The present work provides practical guidance for addressing both pragmaticism and meaningful patient engagement. Applying evidence-based approaches like PRECIS-2-tool and the 10-Step Engagement Framework offer practical guidance to make future trials in oncology truly pragmatic and patient-centered. Consequently, such patient-centered trials have improved participation, faster recruitment and greater retention, and uptake of innovative technologies in community-based care.

Patient and Provider Acceptability of a Patient Preauthorized Concealed Opioid Reduction.

OBJECTIVE: Limited research of how to best taper opioids brings about an ethical and clinical dilemma. Experiments using overt and concealed administration of opioids have demonstrated the benefits of a concealed reduction to eliminate negative expectations and prolong analgesic benefits. This may allow for opioid tapering without significant increases in pain. Based on this, we investigated patient and provider acceptance of a concealed opioid reduction for chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey via REDcap with 74 patients, who are currently taking or have taken high dose opioids, and 49 providers using a validated questionnaire based on two hypothetical clinical trials comparing a patient preauthorized concealed opioid reduction vs standard tapering. RESULTS: We found that patients and providers have positive attitudes toward a concealed reduction of opioid dosages. More than 60% of providers and patients surveyed viewed the hypothetical clinical trial as helpful to reduce pain, side effects, and withdrawal symptoms. Sixty-one percent of patients and 77.6% of providers recognized that there would be differences in pain relief depending upon which group the hypothetical participants would be enrolled in. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and providers appear to understand the benefits of a concealed opioid reduction. Our findings support future randomized controlled trials that compare concealed and overt opioid tapering in patients with chronic pain. More research is needed to understand the difference in attitudes between research and clinical practice and to test the acceptability of a concealed reduction following a participation in an active clinical trial.

Are Communities Willing to Transition Into Learning Health Care Communities? A Community-Based Participatory Evaluation of Stakeholders' Receptivity.

This article aims to determine receptivity for advancing the Learning Healthcare System (LHS) model to a novel evidence-based health care delivery framework-Learning Health Care Community (LHCC)-in Baltimore, as a model for a national initiative. Using community-based participatory, qualitative approach, we conducted 16 in-depth interviews and 15 focus groups with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analyzed the transcripts. Participants included community members (38%), health care professionals (29%), patients (26%), and other stakeholders (7%). The majority considered LHCC to be a viable model for improving the health care experience, outlining certain parameters for success such as the inclusion of home visits, presentation of research evidence, and incorporation of social determinants and patients' input. Lessons learned and challenges discussed by participants can help health systems and communities explore the LHCC aspiration to align health care delivery with an engaged, empowered, and informed community.

Criteria and Process for Initiating and Developing an ISPOR Good Practices Task Force Report.

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR)'s "Good Practices Task Force" reports are highly cited, multistakeholder perspective expert guidance reports that reflect international standards for health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) and their use in healthcare decision making. In this report, we discuss the criteria, development, and evaluation/consensus review and approval process for initiating a task force. The rationale for a task force must include a justification, including why this good practice guidance is important and its potential impact on the scientific community. The criteria include: (1) necessity (why is this task force required?); (2) a methodology-oriented focus (focus on research methods, approaches, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination); (3) relevance (to ISPOR's mission and its members); (4) durability over time; (5) broad applicability; and 6) an evidence-based approach. In addition, the proposal must be a priority specifically for ISPOR. These reports are valuable to researchers, academics, students, health technology assessors, medical technology developers and service providers, those working in other commercial entities, regulators, and payers. These stakeholder perspectives are represented in task force membership to ensure the report's overall usefulness and relevance to the global ISPOR membership. We hope that this discussion will bring transparency to the process of initiating, approving, and producing these task force reports and encourage participation from a diverse range of experts within and outside ISPOR.

Improving Transparency to Build Trust in Real-World Secondary Data Studies for Hypothesis Testing-Why, What, and How: Recommendations and a Road Map from the Real-World Evidence Transparency Initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Improving transparency to build trust in real-world secondary data studies for hypothesis testing-Why, what, and how: recommendations and a road map from the real-world evidence transparency initiative.

Real-world data (RWD) and the derivations of these data into real-world evidence (RWE) are rapidly expanding from informing healthcare decisions at the patient and health system level to influencing major health policy decisions, including regulatory approvals and coverage. Recent examples include the approval of palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy for male breast cancer and the inclusion of RWE in the label of paliperidone palmitate for schizophrenia. This interest has created an urgency to develop processes that promote trust in the evidence-generation process. Key stakeholders and decision-makers include patients and their healthcare providers; learning health systems; health technology assessment bodies and payers; pharmacoepidemiologists and other clinical reseachers, and policy makers interested in bioethical and regulatory issues. A key to optimal uptake of RWE is transparency of the research process to enable decision-makers to evaluate the quality of the methods used and the applicability of the evidence that results from the RWE studies. Registration of RWE studies-particularly for hypothesis evaluating treatment effectiveness (HETE) studies-has been proposed to improve transparency, trust, and research replicability. Although registration would not guarantee better RWE studies would be conducted, it would encourage the prospective disclosure of study plans, timing, and rationale for modifications. A joint task force of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) recommended that investigators preregister their RWE studies and post their study protocols in a publicly available forum before starting studies to reduce publication bias and improve the transparency of research methods. Recognizing that published recommendations alone are insufficient, especially without accessible registration options and with no incentives, a group of experts gathered on February 25 and 26, 2019, in National Harbor, Maryland, to explore the structural and practical challenges to the successful implementation of the recommendations of the ISPOR/ISPE task force for preregistration. This positioning article describes a plan for making registration of HETE RWE studies routine. The plan includes specifying the rationale for registering HETE RWE studies, the studies that should be registered, where and when these studies should be registered, how and when analytic deviations from protocols should be reported, how and when to publish results, and incentives to encourage registration. Table 1 summarizes the rationale, goals, and potential solutions that increase transparency, in addition to unique concerns about secondary data studies. Definitions of terms used throughout this report are provided in Table 2.

Participation and consultation engagement strategies have complementary roles: A case study of patient and public involvement in clinical practice guideline development.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is recommended when developing high-quality clinical practice guidelines, but the effects of different PPI strategies are largely unstudied. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of participation and consultation strategies on guideline question development. DESIGN: Instrumental case study design. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This study used a clinical practice guideline in development by the American Academy of Neurology. A patient, two caregivers and a dementia advocate participated in the guideline development group alongside clinicians. The guideline protocol was posted for public consultation for 30 days. INTERVENTIONS STUDIED: Participation (patient representatives on the guideline development group) and consultation (public comment, survey) PPI strategies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Public comment responses and guideline development group meeting transcripts were analysed descriptively. Transcript quotes were compared to the conceptual model of PPI in guideline development. The effects of participation and consultation strategies within the guideline case were compared. RESULTS: Participation strategies shaped discussions, set a patient-centred scope, highlighted personal aspects of disease, affected how professionals viewed PPI, identified issues overlooked by medical professionals, and contributed to selecting patient-relevant guideline populations and outcomes. Professionals responded to public comment more than patient representatives. Patient survey participants confirmed the priorities voiced by patient representatives on the guideline development group. Final guideline questions included populations and outcomes promoted by patient representatives despite negative feedback from professional public commenters. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Participation and consultation PPI strategies have different advantages. Congruence between strategies increases the strength of the patient voice. Guideline developers should prioritize using both strategies for successful PPI.

Receipt of Treatment for Depression Following Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Lack of evidence for efficacy and safety of treatment and limited clinical guidance have increased potential for undertreatment of depression following traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among individuals newly diagnosed with depression from 2008 to 2014 to assess the impact of TBI on receipt of treatment for incident depression using administrative claims data. We created inverse probability of treatment-weighted populations to evaluate the impact of TBI on time to receipt of antidepressants or psychotherapy following new depression diagnosis during 24 months post-TBI or matched index date (non-TBI cohort). RESULTS: Of 10 428 individuals with incident depression in the TBI cohort, 44.7% received 1 or more antidepressants and 20.0% received 1 or more psychotherapy visits. Of 10 463 in the non-TBI cohort, 41.2% received 1 or more antidepressants and 17.6% received 1 or more psychotherapy visits. TBI was associated with longer time to receipt of antidepressants compared with the non-TBI cohort (average 39.6 days longer than the average 126.2 days in the non-TBI cohort; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.6-54.7). Longer time to psychotherapy was also observed among individuals with TBI at 6 months post-TBI (average 17.1 days longer than the average 47.9 days in the non-TBI cohort; 95% CI, 4.2-30.0), although this association was not significant at 12 and 24 months post-TBI. CONCLUSIONS: This study raises concerns about the management of depression following TBI.