A systematic review of the accessibility, acceptability, safety, efficiency, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of private cataract and orthopedic surgery clinics.

OBJECTIVES: Many publicly funded health systems use a mix of privately and publicly operated providers of care to deliver elective surgical services. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of privately operated but publicly funded provision of surgical services for adult patients who had cataract or orthopedic surgery within publicly funded health systems in high-income countries. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and EBSCO EconLit) were searched on 26 March 2021, and gray literature sources were searched on 6 April 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies, and extracted data. The outcomes evaluated include accessibility, acceptability, safety, clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and cost/cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-nine primary studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized narratively. We found mixed results across each of our reported outcomes. Wait times were shorter for patients treated in private facilities. There was evidence that some private facilities cherry-pick or cream-skim by selecting less complex patients, which increases the postoperative length of stay and costs for public facilities, restricts access to private facilities for certain groups of patients, and increases inequality within the health system. Seven studies found improved safety outcomes in private facilities, noting that private patients had a lower preoperative risk of complications. Only two studies reported cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. One costing study concluded that private facilities' costs were lower than those of public facilities, and a cost-utility study showed that private contracting to reduce public waiting times for joint replacement was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence exists that private-sector contracts address existing healthcare delivery problems. Value for money also remains to be evaluated properly.

Methodological Issues in Rehabilitation Research: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, synthesize, and categorize the methodological issues faced by the rehabilitation field. DATA SOURCES: A scoping review was conducted using studies identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Google Scholar up to August 2018. STUDY SELECTION: We included all type of publications describing methodological issues in rehabilitation research where rehabilitation is described as a multimodal process. The methodological issues have been categorized and classified. DATA EXTRACTION: The synthesis included qualitative and quantitative analysis. To focus the attention on rehabilitation, we post hoc divided in "specific issues" (highly related to, even if not exclusive of, rehabilitation research) and "generic issues" (common in biomedical research). DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventy-one publications were included: 68% were narrative reviews, 15% systematic reviews, 7% editorials, 4% meta-epidemiologic studies, and 5% others. Specific methodological issues include the following: problematic application of randomized controlled trials (32%), absent definition of core outcome sets (28%), poor interventions description (22%), weak methodological (conducting) and reporting quality (21%), scarce clinical practice applicability (14%), lack of blinding assessor (10%), inadequate randomization methods or inadequate allocation concealment (8%), and inadequate participants description and recruitment (8%). "Generic" issues included the following: data and statistical description (31%), authors' methodological training (7%), peer review process (6%, n=4), funding declaration (6%), ethical statement (3%), protocol registration (3%), and conflict of interest declaration (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Methodological and reporting issues might influence the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The next steps to move forward in the field of rehabilitation could be to evaluate the influence of all these issues on the validity of trial results through meta-epidemiologic studies and to develop specific checklists to provide guidance to authors to improve the reporting and conduct of trials in this field.

Thiazide Diuretic-Induced Change in Fasting Plasma Glucose: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Prior meta-analyses measuring thiazide-induced glycemic change have demonstrated an increased risk of incident diabetes; however, this measure's definition has changed over time. AIM: To determine the magnitude of change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG) for thiazide diuretics. DATA SOURCES: A research librarian designed and conducted searches in Medline®, EMBASE, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception through July 2018) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (inception to December 2014). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials comparing a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic to any comparator reporting FPG were identified. Trials enrolling < 50 participants, those with a follow-up period of < 4 weeks, and conference abstracts were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent duplicate screening of citations and full-text articles, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias was conducted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ninety-five studies were included (N = 76,608 participants), with thiazides compared with placebo, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system inhibitors, potassium-sparing diuretic, and others alone or in combination. Thiazide diuretics marginally increased FPG (weighted mean difference 0.20 mmol/L (95% CI 0.15-0.25); I2 = 84%) (1 mmol/L = 18 mg/dL). Results did not change substantially when considering dose or duration, comparing thiazides with placebo or an active comparator, or using thiazides as monotherapy or combination therapy, even when combined with a potassium-correcting agent. CONCLUSION: Thiazide diuretics have a small and clinically unimportant impact on FPG.

Systematic review of community pharmacy-based and pharmacist-led foot care interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: To prevent diabetic foot disease, proper foot care is essential for early detection and treatment. Pharmacists are well suited to provide accessible foot care to adults with type 2 diabetes. Limited research has examined this role. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of community pharmacy-based and pharmacist-led foot care interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes compared to usual care. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete and Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition and Google Scholar, plus Google and hand-searching. Original research studies reported in English, focused on community pharmacy-based or pharmacist-led foot care interventions were eligible for review. Participants were adults with type 2 diabetes. Studies were summarized narratively; pooled data were not possible. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this review, 3 focusing on improving foot self-care behaviours and 4 on promoting foot examinations by the health care provider. Only 2 studies were randomized and were assessed as high quality. Six out of 7 studies reported significantly positive findings related to foot care practices. DISCUSSION: An opportunity to influence foot care exists at each clinical encounter. Pharmacists are accessible health care practitioners and appropriate to provide a range of diabetes foot care interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Seven studies examined community pharmacy-based and pharmacist-led foot care interventions for people with type 2 diabetes. Community pharmacies and pharmacists are capable of providing a variety of foot care interventions to patients with diabetes, helping detect problems early and leading to prompt intervention.

Nutritional support for critically ill children.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support in the critically ill child has not been well investigated and is a controversial topic within paediatric intensive care. There are no clear guidelines as to the best form or timing of nutrition in critically ill infants and children. This is an update of a review that was originally published in 2009. . OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the impact of enteral and parenteral nutrition given in the first week of illness on clinically important outcomes in critically ill children. There were two primary hypotheses:1. the mortality rate of critically ill children fed enterally or parenterally is different to that of children who are given no nutrition;2. the mortality rate of critically ill children fed enterally is different to that of children fed parenterally.We planned to conduct subgroup analyses, pending available data, to examine whether the treatment effect was altered by:a. age (infants less than one year versus children greater than or equal to one year old);b. type of patient (medical, where purpose of admission to intensive care unit (ICU) is for medical illness (without surgical intervention immediately prior to admission), versus surgical, where purpose of admission to ICU is for postoperative care or care after trauma).We also proposed the following secondary hypotheses (a priori), pending other clinical trials becoming available, to examine nutrition more distinctly:3. the mortality rate is different in children who are given enteral nutrition alone versus enteral and parenteral combined;4. the mortality rate is different in children who are given both enteral feeds and parenteral nutrition versus no nutrition. SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review we searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2); Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to February 2016); Ovid EMBASE (1988 to February 2016); OVID Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews; ISI Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded (1965 to February 2016); WebSPIRS Biological Abstracts (1969 to February 2016); and WebSPIRS CAB Abstracts (1972 to February 2016). We also searched trial registries, reviewed reference lists of all potentially relevant studies, handsearched relevant conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the area and manufacturers of enteral and parenteral nutrition products. We did not limit the search by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they were randomized controlled trials; involved paediatric patients, aged one day to 18 years of age, who were cared for in a paediatric intensive care unit setting (PICU) and had received nutrition within the first seven days of admission; and reported data for at least one of the pre-specified outcomes (30-day or PICU mortality; length of stay in PICU or hospital; number of ventilator days; and morbid complications, such as nosocomial infections). We excluded studies if they only reported nutritional outcomes, quality of life assessments, or economic implications. Furthermore, we did not address other areas of paediatric nutrition, such as immunonutrition and different routes of delivering enteral nutrition, in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the searches, applied the inclusion criteria, and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We resolved discrepancies through discussion and consensus. One author extracted data and a second checked data for accuracy and completeness. We graded the evidence based on the following domains: study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only one trial as relevant. Seventy-seven children in intensive care with burns involving more than 25% of the total body surface area were randomized to either enteral nutrition within 24 hours or after at least 48 hours. No statistically significant differences were observed for mortality, sepsis, ventilator days, length of stay, unexpected adverse events, resting energy expenditure, nitrogen balance, or albumin levels. We assessed the trial as having unclear risk of bias. We consider the quality of the evidence to be very low due to there being only one small trial. In the most recent search update we identified a protocol for a relevant randomized controlled trial examining the impact of withholding early parenteral nutrition completing enteral nutrition in pediatric critically ill patients; no results have been published. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was only one randomized trial relevant to the review question. Research is urgently needed to identify best practices regarding the timing and forms of nutrition for critically ill infants and children.

Macrolides and mortality in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Some studies suggest better outcomes with macrolide therapy for critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia. To further explore this, we performed a systematic review of studies with mortality endpoints that compared macrolide therapy with other regimens in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified via electronic databases, grey literature, and conference proceedings through May 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Using prespecified criteria, two reviewers selected studies; studies of outpatients and hospitalized noncritically ill patients were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random effects models were used to generate pooled risk ratios and evaluate heterogeneity (I). DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight observational studies (no randomized control trials) were included. Average age ranged from 58 to 78 years and 14-49% were women. In our primary analysis of 9,850 patients, macrolide use was associated with statistically significant lower mortality compared with nonmacrolides (21% [846 of 4,036 patients] vs 24% [1,369 of 5,814]; risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97; p = 0.02; I = 63%). When macrolide monotherapy was excluded, the macrolide mortality benefit was maintained (21% [737 of 3,447 patients] vs 23% [1,245 of 5,425]; risk ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-1.00; p = 0.05; I = 60%). When broadly guideline-concordant regimens were compared, there was a trend to improved mortality and heterogeneity was reduced (20% [511 of 2,561 patients] mortality with beta-lactam/macrolide therapy vs 23% [386 of 1,680] with beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone; risk ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.03; p = 0.09; I = 25%). When adjusted risk estimates were pooled from eight studies, macrolide therapy was still associated with a significant reduction in mortality (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96; p = 0.02; I = 57%). CONCLUSIONS: In observational studies of almost 10,000 critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia, macrolide use was associated with a significant 18% relative (3% absolute) reduction in mortality compared with nonmacrolide therapies. After pooling data from studies that provided adjusted risk estimates, an even larger mortality reduction was observed. These results suggest that macrolides be considered first-line combination treatment in critically ill patients with community-acquired pneumonia and support current guidelines.

Cardiovascular medication utilization and adherence among adults living in rural and urban areas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rural residents face numerous barriers to healthcare access and studies suggest poorer health outcomes for rural patients. Therefore we undertook a systematic review to determine if cardiovascular medication utilization and adherence patterns differ for rural versus urban patients. METHODS: A comprehensive search of major electronic datasets was undertaken for controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing utilization or adherence to cardiovascular medications in rural versus urban adults with cardiovascular disease or diabetes. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data, and evaluated quality using the STROBE checklist. Risk estimates were abstracted and pooled where appropriate using random effects models. Methods and reporting were in accordance with MOOSE guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included of fair to good quality (median STROBE score 17.5). Although pooled unadjusted analyses suggested that patients in rural areas were less likely to receive evidence-based cardiovascular medications (23 studies, OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79, 0.98), pooled data from 21 studies adjusted for potential confounders indicated no rural-urban differences (adjusted OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91, 1.13). The high heterogeneity observed (I(2) = 97%) was partially explained by treatment setting (hospital, ambulatory care, or community-based sample), age, and disease. Adherence did not differ between urban versus rural patients (3 studies, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.39, 2.27, I(2) = 91%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no consistent differences in rates of cardiovascular medication utilization or adherence among adults with cardiovascular disease or diabetes living in rural versus urban settings. Higher quality evidence is needed to determine if differences truly exist between urban and rural patients in the use of, and adherence to, evidence-based medications.

A systematic review of interventions to support siblings of children with chronic illness or disability.

AIM: Chronic illness or disability in children can have a deleterious effect on the psychosocial health of well siblings. This systematic review synthesised evidence from studies evaluating sibling-oriented care aimed at improving behavioural and emotional outcomes in well siblings of children with chronic illness or disability. METHODS: Twenty electronic databases were searched. Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Five controlled and nine uncontrolled studies were included. In higher-quality controlled trials, benefits of sibling-oriented care included reduced anxiety, improved mood and behavioural adjustment; however, these findings were not consistently demonstrated across studies. Study differences made it difficult to determine which sibling care features were most salient. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings highlight the potential for enhancing emotional and behavioural outcomes in well siblings. Future evaluations need to clearly identify the intended purpose of the care (what improvements are intended) and which types of siblings are most likely to benefit. This approach may yield more consistent and clinically important results.

Online active learning in undergraduate dental education: A scoping review.

PURPOSE: Research on online active learning (OAL) in dental education has increased in recent years; however, this literature has yet to be comprehensively summarized to document the available evidence and identify research gaps. This scoping review aimed to comprehensively map the extent and depth of the research activity on OAL in undergraduate dental education. METHODS: The review adhered to Arksey & O'Malley's multi-step framework and followed the PRISMA Extension Scoping Reviews guidelines. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ERIC databases for peer-reviewed primary research articles in English published between December 2013 and 2023. Four trained researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for eligibility and extracted relevant data. All activities and information were cross-checked by the same researchers. A tested, methodologically-informed form was used for data extraction. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to summarize the extracted data. RESULTS: Thirty-five articles were included in the review. Most studies focused on dental students exclusively, with only two studies involving students and faculty. All studies performed outcome evaluations at reaction and/or learning levels. Problem-based learning, case-based learning, small group discussion, flipped learning, and blended learning were the most common active learning strategies employed. Dental students were satisfied with OAL and perceived it as beneficial for knowledge acquisition and skill development. Test results confirmed the improvement of knowledge through OAL. CONCLUSION: OAL has shown to improve learning outcomes in dental education; however, robust research designs are needed to further demonstrate its effectiveness in this educational context.

Barriers to calling emergency services amongst people who use substances in the event of overdose: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: North America is grappling with an ongoing drug overdose crisis. While harm reduction measures like take-home naloxone kits, and supervised consumption sites, have helped reduce mortality, other strategies to address this public health emergency are required. Good Samaritan Laws (GSLs) offer legal protection for individuals who report overdoses, yet people who use substances (PWUS) may still hesitate to seek help due to concerns about existing legislation. This scoping review explores barriers preventing PWUS from calling emergency services for overdoses, along with potential solutions and facilitators to address this challenge. METHODS: PRISMA-ScR was used as a guide to conduct this study. Health sciences librarians searched Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS to identify relevant articles. Six reviewers contributed to screening and extracting the articles through Covidence. Two reviewers performed thematic analysis using NVivo software to identify key barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: An initial search found 6275 articles for title and abstract screening, resulting in 48 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The primary barrier to calling 911 pertained to concerns about police arrivng with other first responders, especially regarding their presence and involvement at the scene of overdose. This was followed by legal repercussions, including fear of arrest, incarceration, and fear of eviction, amongst others. Some studies noted the lack of knowledge or trust in GSLs as a deterrent to seeking medical assistance. Additional barriers included concerns about privacy and confidentiality, preference to manage an overdose alone/receive help from another peer, confidence in naloxone effectiveness, limited access to cell phones, peer pressure to not call for help, and identifying as Black, Indigenous, or a Person of Colour (BIPOC). Facilitators include increased GSL awareness among PWUS and law enforcement, expanded legal safeguards for 911 callers, reduced police intervention in overdose cases, and enhanced naloxone availability at key access points. CONCLUSION: Despite the good intentions of GSLs, PWUS continue to experience significant barriers to calling emergency services in the event of an overdose. Understanding these barriers and key facilitators is necessary to inform future drug policy and advocacy efforts.

Glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis in infants and young children.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have not shown clear benefit of glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis, but their use remains considerable. Recent large trials add substantially to current evidence and suggest novel glucocorticoid-including treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids in children with acute viral bronchiolitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2012, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1950 to January week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to January 2013), LILACS (1982 to January 2013), Scopus® (1823 to January 2013) and IRAN MedEx (1998 to November 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids versus placebo or another intervention in children under 24 months with acute bronchiolitis (first episode with wheezing). Our primary outcomes were: admissions by days 1 and 7 for outpatient studies; and length of stay (LOS) for inpatient studies. Secondary outcomes included clinical severity parameters, healthcare use, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data on study and participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence. We meta-analysed inpatient and outpatient results separately using random-effects models. We pre-specified subgroup analyses, including the combined use of bronchodilators used in a protocol. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials (2596 participants); three had low overall risk of bias. Baseline severity, glucocorticoid schemes, comparators and outcomes were heterogeneous. Glucocorticoids did not significantly reduce outpatient admissions by days 1 and 7 when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratios (RRs) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.08 and 0.86; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.06, respectively). There was no benefit in LOS for inpatients (mean difference -0.18 days; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.04). Unadjusted results from a large factorial low risk of bias RCT found combined high-dose systemic dexamethasone and inhaled epinephrine reduced admissions by day 7 (baseline risk of admission 26%; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95; number needed to treat 11; 95% CI 7 to 76), with no differences in short-term adverse effects. No other comparisons showed relevant differences in primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support a clinically relevant effect of systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids on admissions or length of hospitalisation. Combined dexamethasone and epinephrine may reduce outpatient admissions, but results are exploratory and safety data limited. Future research should further assess the efficacy, harms and applicability of combined therapy.

Brief emergency department interventions for youth who use alcohol and other drugs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Brief intervention (BI) is recommended for use with youth who use alcohol and other drugs. Emergency departments (EDs) can provide BIs at a time directly linked to harmful and hazardous use. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of ED-based BIs. METHODS: We searched 14 electronic databases, a clinical trial registry, conference proceedings, and study references. We included randomized controlled trials with youth 21 years or younger. Two reviewers independently selected studies and assessed methodological quality. One reviewer extracted and a second verified data. We summarized findings qualitatively. RESULTS: Two trials with low risk of bias, 2 trials with unclear risk of bias, and 5 trials with high risk of bias were included. Trials evaluated targeted BIs for alcohol-positive (n = 3) and alcohol/other drug-positive youth (n = 1) and universal BIs for youth reporting recent alcohol (n = 4) or cannabis use (n = 1). Few differences were found in favor of ED-based BIs, and variation in outcome measurement and poor study quality precluded firm conclusions for many comparisons. Universal and targeted BIs did not significantly reduce alcohol use more than other care. In one targeted BI trial with high risk of bias, motivational interviewing (MI) that involved parents reduced drinking quantity per occasion and high-volume alcohol use compared with MI that was delivered to youth only. Another trial with high risk of bias reported an increase in abstinence and reduction in physical altercations when youth received peer-delivered universal MI for cannabis use. In 2 trials with unclear risk of bias, MI reduced drinking and driving and alcohol-related injuries after the ED visit. Computer-based MI delivered universally in 1 trial with low risk of bias reduced alcohol-related consequences 6 months after the ED visit. CONCLUSIONS: Clear benefits of using ED-based BI to reduce alcohol and other drug use and associated injuries or high-risk behaviours remain inconclusive because of variation in assessing outcomes and poor study quality.

Macrolide-based regimens and mortality in hospitalized patients with community-acquired pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Macrolides are used to treat pneumonia despite increasing antimicrobial resistance. However, the immunomodulatory properties of macrolides may have a favorable effect on pneumonia outcomes. Therefore, we systematically reviewed all studies of macrolide use and mortality among patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: All randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing macrolides to other treatment regimens in adults hospitalized with CAP were identified through electronic databases and gray literature searches. Primary analysis examined any macrolide use and mortality; secondary analysis compared Infectious Diseases Society of America/American Thoracic Society guideline-concordant macrolide/beta-lactam combinations vs respiratory fluoroquinolones. Random effects models were used to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and evaluate heterogeneity (I(2)). RESULTS: We included 23 studies and 137,574 patients. Overall, macrolide use was associated with a statistically significant mortality reduction compared with nonmacrolide use (3.7% [1738 of 47,071] vs 6.5% [5861 of 90,503]; RR, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], .64-.95; P = .01; I(2)= 85%). There was no survival advantage and heterogeneity was reduced when analyses were restricted to RCTs (4.6% [22 of 479] vs 4.1% [25 of 613]; RR, 1.13; 95% CI, .65-1.98; P = .66; I(2)= 0%) or to patients treated with guideline-concordant antibiotics (macrolide/beta-lactam, 5.3% [297 of 5574] vs respiratory fluoroquinolones, 5.8% [408 of 7050]; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .91-1.50; P = .22; I(2)= 43%). CONCLUSIONS: In hospitalized patients with CAP, macrolide-based regimens were associated with a significant 22% reduction in mortality compared with nonmacrolides; however, this benefit did not extend to patients studied in RCTs or patients that received guideline-concordant antibiotics. Our findings suggest guideline concordance is more important than choice of antibiotic when treating CAP.

Comparative effectiveness of pain management interventions for hip fracture: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pain management is integral to the management of hip fracture. PURPOSE: To review the benefits and harms of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for managing pain after hip fracture. DATA SOURCES: 25 electronic databases (January 1990 to December 2010), gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists, with no language restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Multiple reviewers independently and in duplicate screened 9357 citations to identify randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); nonrandomized, controlled trials (non-RCTs); and cohort studies of pain management techniques in older adults after acute hip fracture. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent, duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted, with discrepancies resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Data extracted included study characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: 83 unique studies (64 RCTs, 5 non-RCTs, and 14 cohort studies) were included that addressed nerve blockade (n = 32), spinal anesthesia (n = 30), systemic analgesia (n = 3), traction (n = 11), multimodal pain management (n = 2), neurostimulation (n = 2), rehabilitation (n = 1), and complementary and alternative medicine (n = 2). Overall, moderate evidence suggests that nerve blockades are effective for relieving acute pain and reducing delirium. Low-level evidence suggests that preoperative traction does not reduce acute pain. Evidence was insufficient on the benefits and harms of most interventions, including spinal anesthesia, systemic analgesia, multimodal pain management, acupressure, relaxation therapy, transcutaneous electrical neurostimulation, and physical therapy regimens, in managing acute pain. LIMITATIONS: No studies evaluated outcomes of chronic pain or exclusively examined participants from nursing homes or with cognitive impairment. Systemic analgesics (narcotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) were understudied during the search period. CONCLUSION: Nerve blockade seems to be effective in reducing acute pain after hip fracture. Sparse data preclude firm conclusions about the relative benefits or harms of many other pain management interventions for patients with hip fracture. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Quality of reporting of economic evaluations in rehabilitation research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting of health economic evaluations for rehabilitation services has been questioned, limiting the ability to provide accurate recommendations for health decisions. PURPOSE: To document current overall reporting quality of the published literature for economic evaluations of rehabilitation services using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and to identify factors that could influence the quality of reporting. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database via the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective rehabilitation economic evaluation articles from 2013 to 2020 were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS: Title and abstracts of 3,454 papers were reviewed. 204 papers were selected for a full text screening. From those, 129 potential papers were identified to be included in this study. LIMITATIONS: Only two databases were used in data collection, and papers were selected from 2013 to 2020 only. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent reporting in health economic evaluations of rehabilitation services has continued, despite the availability of the CHEERS checklist. The methods of the analyzed studies were frequently under-reported, thereby creating challenges in determining whether the results reported were valid.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONVariable quality of reporting has been identified in rehabilitation research assessing cost-effectiveness.To grow as an area of expertise, the field of rehabilitation must produce research demonstrating its cost-effectiveness.Both rehabilitation clinicians and funders would benefit from full and transparent information to identify optimal solutions for effective and efficient care.

Epinephrine for bronchiolitis.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators are commonly used for acute bronchiolitis, despite uncertain effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To examine the efficacy and safety of epinephrine in children less than two with acute viral bronchiolitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched CENTRAL (2010, Issue 3) which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE (1950 to September Week 2, 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), Scopus (1823 to September 2010), PubMed (March 2010), LILACS (1985 to September 2010) and Iran MedEx (1998 to September 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing epinephrine to placebo or another intervention involving children less than two years with acute viral bronchiolitis. Studies were included if the trials presented data for at least one quantitative outcome of interest.We selected primary outcomes a priori, based on clinical relevance: rate of admission by days one and seven of presentation for outpatients, and length of stay (LOS) for inpatients. Secondary outcomes included clinical severity scores, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the searches, applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias and graded the evidence. We conducted separate analyses for different comparison groups (placebo, non-epinephrine bronchodilators, glucocorticoids) and for clinical setting (inpatient, outpatient). MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (2256 participants). Epinephrine versus placebo among outpatients showed a significant reduction in admissions at Day 1 (risk ratio (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.89) but not at Day 7 post-emergency department visit. There was no difference in LOS for inpatients. Epinephrine versus salbutamol showed no differences among outpatients for admissions at Day 1 or 7. Inpatients receiving epinephrine had a significantly shorter LOS compared to salbutamol (mean difference -0.28; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.09). One large RCT showed a significantly shorter admission rate at Day 7 for epinephrine and steroid combined versus placebo (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95). There were no important differences in adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the superiority of epinephrine compared to placebo for short-term outcomes for outpatients, particularly in the first 24 hours of care. Exploratory evidence from a single study suggests benefits of epinephrine and steroid combined for later time points. More research is required to confirm the benefits of combined epinephrine and steroids among outpatients. There is no evidence of effectiveness for repeated dose or prolonged use of epinephrine or epinephrine and dexamethasone combined among inpatients.

Systematic review: nonoperative and operative treatments for rotator cuff tears.

BACKGROUND: Many approaches exist for managing rotator cuff tears. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonoperative and operative interventions on clinically important outcomes in adults with rotator cuff tears. DATA SOURCES: 12 electronic databases (1990 to September 2009), gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled and uncontrolled studies that assessed nonoperative or operative treatments or postoperative rehabilitation for adults with confirmed rotator cuff tears were included. Operative studies in English-language publications and nonoperative and postoperative rehabilitation studies in English, French, or German were considered. Studies were assessed in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. One reviewer rated the evidence by using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: 137 studies met eligibility criteria. All trials had high risk for bias. Cohort and uncontrolled studies were of moderate quality. Reported functional outcomes did not differ between open versus mini-open repair, mini-open versus arthroscopic repair, arthroscopic repair with versus without acromioplasty, or single-row versus double-row fixation. Earlier return to work was reported for mini-open repair versus open repair and for continuous passive motion with physical therapy versus physical therapy alone. Open repairs showed greater improvement in function than did arthroscopic debridement. Complication rates were low across all interventions. LIMITATIONS: Limited evidence, which was often of low quality, precluded conclusions for most comparisons. Language restrictions may have excluded some relevant studies, and selective outcome reporting may have introduced bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and harms of various operative and nonoperative treatments for rotator cuff tears is limited and inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Pediatric suicide-related presentations: a systematic review of mental health care in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for pediatric patients with suicide-related emergency department (ED) visits. METHODS: We searched of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, other electronic databases, references, and key journals/conference proceedings. We included experimental or quasiexperimental studies that evaluated psychosocial interventions for pediatric suicide-related ED visits. Inclusion screening, study selection, and methodological quality were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted the data and a second checked for completeness and accuracy. Consensus was reached by conference; disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer. We calculated odds ratios, relative risks (RRs), or mean differences for each study's primary outcome, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-analysis was deferred because of clinical heterogeneity in intervention, patient population, and outcome. RESULTS: We included 7 randomized controlled trials and 3 quasiexperimental studies, grouping and reviewing them according to intervention delivery: ED-based delivery (n=1), postdischarge delivery (n=6), and ED transition interventions (n=3). An ED-based discharge planning intervention increased the number of attended post-ED treatment sessions (mean difference=2.6 sessions; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.15 sessions). Of the 6 studies of postdischarge delivery interventions, 1 found increased adherence with service referral in patients who received community nurse home visits compared with simple placement referral at discharge (RR=1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.56). The 3 ED transition intervention studies reported (1) reduced risk of subsequent suicide after brief ED intervention and postdischarge contact (RR=0.10; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.41); (2) reduced suicide-related hospitalizations when ED visits were followed up with interim, psychiatric care (RR=0.41; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.60); and (3) increased likelihood of treatment completion when psychiatric evaluation in the ED was followed by attendance of outpatient sessions with a parent (odds ratio=2.78; 95% CI 1.20 to 6.67). CONCLUSION: Transition interventions appear most promising for reducing suicide-related outcomes and improving post-ED treatment adherence. Use of similar interventions and outcome measures in future studies would enhance the ability to derive strong recommendations from the clinical evidence in this area.

Glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis in infants and young children.

BACKGROUND: Previous systematic reviews have not shown clear benefit of glucocorticoids for acute viral bronchiolitis, but their use remains considerable. Recent large trials add substantially to current evidence and suggest novel glucocorticoid-including treatment approaches. OBJECTIVES: To review the efficacy and safety of systemic and inhaled glucocorticoids in children with acute viral bronchiolitis. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 4); MEDLINE (1950 to November 2009); EMBASE (1980 to Week 47 2009); LILACS (1982 to November 2009); Scopus® (1823 to November 2009); and IRAN MedEx (1998 to November 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing short-term systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids versus placebo or another intervention in children < 24 months with acute bronchiolitis (first episode with wheezing). Our primary outcomes were: admissions by days 1 and 7 for outpatient studies; and length of stay (LOS) for inpatient studies. Secondary outcomes included clinical severity parameters, healthcare use, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life and harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data on study and participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes. We assessed risk of bias and graded strength of evidence. Inpatient and outpatient results were meta-analysed separately using random-effects models. We pre-specified subgroup analyses, including the combined use of protocolised bronchodilators. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials (2596 participants); only two had low overall risk of bias. Baseline severity, glucocorticoid schemes, comparators and outcomes were heterogeneous. Glucocorticoids did not significantly reduce outpatient admissions by days 1 and 7 when compared to placebo (pooled risk ratios (RRs) 0.92; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; and 0.86; 95% CI 0.7 to 1.06, respectively). There was no benefit in LOS for inpatients (mean difference -0.18 days; 95% CI -0.39 to 0.04). Unadjusted results from a large factorial low risk of bias RCT found combined high-dose systemic dexamethasone and inhaled epinephrine reduced admissions by day 7 (baseline risk of admission 26%; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.95; number needed to treat 11, 95% CI 7 to 76), with no differences in short-term adverse effects. No other comparisons showed relevant differences in primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support a clinically relevant effect of systemic or inhaled glucocorticoids on admissions or length of hospitalization. Combined dexamethasone and epinephrine may reduce outpatient admissions, but results are exploratory and safety data limited. Future research should further assess the efficacy, harms and applicability of combined therapy.

A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for trials assessing the effects of therapeutic interventions; therefore it is important to understand how they are conducted. Our objectives were to provide an overview of a representative sample of pediatric RCTs published in 2007 and assess the validity of their results. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a pediatric filter and randomly selected 300 RCTs published in 2007. We extracted data on trial characteristics; outcomes; methodological quality; reporting; and registration and protocol characteristics. Trial registration and protocol availability were determined for each study based on the publication, an Internet search and an author survey. RESULTS: Most studies (83%) were efficacy trials, 40% evaluated drugs, and 30% were placebo-controlled. Primary outcomes were specified in 41%; 43% reported on adverse events. At least one statistically significant outcome was reported in 77% of trials; 63% favored the treatment group. Trial registration was declared in 12% of publications and 23% were found through an Internet search. Risk of bias (ROB) was high in 59% of trials, unclear in 33%, and low in 8%. Registered trials were more likely to have low ROB than non-registered trials (16% vs. 5%; p = 0.008). Effect sizes tended to be larger for trials at high vs. low ROB (0.28, 95% CI 0.21,0.35 vs. 0.16, 95% CI 0.07,0.25). Among survey respondents (50% response rate), the most common reason for trial registration was a publication requirement and for non-registration, a lack of familiarity with the process. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of this random sample of pediatric RCTs published in 2007 was at high ROB and three quarters of trials were not registered. There is an urgent need to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research.