A Scoping Review of Guidelines and Quality Measures to Screen for Social and Caregiver Support and Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care.

High-risk patients-those patients with complex health care needs who are most likely to face hospitalization or death in the following two years-are most often initially seen in the primary care setting. This small group of patients uses a disproportionate amount of care resources. Contributing to the challenges of care planning for this population is that individuals are highly heterogeneous; no two patients present the same set of symptoms, diagnoses, and challenges related to social determinants of health (SDOH). Methods for early identification of these high-risk patients-and their care needs-have raised the possibility of timely enhanced care. In this study, the authors conduct a scoping review to identify existing measures of care quality; assessment and screening guidelines; and tools that (1) assess social support, the need for caregiver support, and the need for referral to social services and (2) screen for cognitive impairment (CI). Evidence-based screening guidelines define who and what should be assessed-and how often-to enhance care quality and improve health outcomes, whereas measures permit ascertainment that this assessment is occurring. Evidence-based guidelines and measures-those that are found to lead to better health care outcomes-would be candidates for inclusion in a measure dashboard for high-risk patients in primary care settings.

Managing Urinary Incontinence for Women in Primary Care: Environmental Scan (Base Year).

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a highly prevalent condition among women worldwide. Although effective nonsurgical treatments exist, including pharmacological, behavioral, and physical therapies, many women with the condition are never diagnosed because of a lack of information, stigma, and the absence of regular screening in primary care, and those who are diagnosed might not receive or adhere to treatment. In this study, the authors present an environmental scan of studies published from 2012 through 2022 that assess the dissemination and implementation of nonsurgical UI treatment-including screening, management, and referral strategies-for women in primary care. The scan was conducted as part of the RAND's support and evaluation contract for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Managing Urinary Incontinence initiative. The initiative, which builds on the agency's EvidenceNOW model, funds five grant projects to disseminate and implement improved nonsurgical treatment of UI for women within primary care practices in separate regions of the United States.

Taking Care of Yourself and Your Risk for Breast Cancer (CUIDARSE): A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Health Communication Intervention for Latinas.

Latinas in the United States are more likely to be diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer (BC) compared to non-Latinas. Literacy-appropriate and culturally sensitive cancer communication interventions can help address existing racial/ethnic BC disparities. We formatively developed a new BC prevention brochure for Spanish-speaking Latinas (≥35 years). Eligible women (n = 240) from a large public hospital in California were randomly assigned to one of three study arms: Group 1 received the new brochure, Group 2 included a community health worker (CHW) who delivered the new brochure's content, and a control group received a standard educational brochure. Participants completed three surveys (baseline, postintervention, 3-month follow-up) with a 100% completion rate for the first two surveys and 80.4% completion after 3 months. We assessed the difference in outcomes for BC risk knowledge, perceived BC susceptibility, and BC information self-efficacy between groups. Participant mean age was 52.3 years, and 82.1% reported low English proficiency. Mean knowledge scores increased and perceived BC susceptibility improved for all groups (p ≤ .05), yet treatment effects were not significant between groups for these outcomes. BC information self-efficacy also increased from baseline to postintervention for all groups to >80%. After 3 months, only Group 2 and the control group retained their increases and treatment effects were significant only for Group 2 compared to other groups in unadjusted and adjusted models. A CHW-delivered intervention may be more effective in improving BC information self-efficacy among Latinas compared to print material alone. More research is needed to examine the efficacy of CHW-delivered interventions.

Management of Gout: A Systematic Review in Support of an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Gout is a common type of inflammatory arthritis in patients seen by primary care physicians. PURPOSE: To review evidence about treatment of acute gout attacks, management of hyperuricemia to prevent attacks, and discontinuation of medications for chronic gout in adults. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases from January 2010 to March 2016, reference mining, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and commonly prescribed by primary care physicians, randomized trials for effectiveness, and trials and observational studies for adverse events. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Study quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Strength-of-evidence assessment was done by group discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: High-strength evidence from 28 trials (only 3 of which were placebo-controlled) shows that colchicine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and corticosteroids reduce pain in patients with acute gout. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that low-dose colchicine is as effective as high-dose colchicine and causes fewer gastrointestinal adverse events. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that urate-lowering therapy (allopurinol or febuxostat) reduces long-term risk for acute gout attacks after 1 year or more. High-strength evidence shows that prophylaxis with daily colchicine or NSAIDs reduces the risk for acute gout attacks by at least half in patients starting urate-lowering therapy, and moderate-strength evidence indicates that duration of prophylaxis should be longer than 8 weeks. Although lower urate levels reduce risk for recurrent acute attacks, treatment to a specific target level has not been tested. LIMITATION: Few studies of acute gout treatments, no placebo-controlled trials of management of hyperuricemia lasting longer than 6 months, and few studies in primary care populations. CONCLUSION: Colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids relieve pain in adults with acute gout. Urate-lowering therapy decreases serum urate levels and reduces risk for acute gout attacks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (Protocol registration: http://effectivehealth-care.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/564/1992/Gout-managment-protocol-141103.pdf).

Diagnosis of Gout: A Systematic Review in Support of an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Alternative strategies exist for diagnosing gout that do not rely solely on the documentation of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence regarding the accuracy of clinical tests and classification algorithms compared with that of a reference standard of MSU crystals in joint aspirate for diagnosing gout. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic databases from inception to 29 February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: 21 prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies including participants with joint inflammation and no previous definitive gout diagnosis who had MSU analysis of joint aspirate. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment by 2 reviewers independently; overall strength of evidence (SOE) judgment by group. DATA SYNTHESIS: Recently developed algorithms including clinical, laboratory, and imaging criteria demonstrated good sensitivity (up to 88%) and fair to good specificity (up to 96%) for diagnosing gout (moderate SOE). Three studies of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) showed sensitivities of 85% to 100% and specificities of 83% to 92% for diagnosing gout (low SOE). Six studies of ultrasonography showed sensitivities of 37% to 100% and specificities of 68% to 97%, depending on the ultrasonography signs assessed (pooled sensitivity and specificity for the double contour sign: 74% [95% CI, 52% to 88%] and 88% [CI, 68% to 96%], respectively [low SOE]). LIMITATION: Important study heterogeneity and selection bias; scant evidence in primary and urgent care settings and in patients with conditions that may be confused with or occur with gout. CONCLUSION: Multidimensional algorithms, which must be validated in primary and urgent care settings, may help clinicians make a provisional diagnosis of gout. Although DECT and ultrasonography also show promise for gout diagnosis, accessibility to these methods may be limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (Protocol registration: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/564/1937/gout-protocol-140716.pdf).

Hyaluronic acid injection therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: concordant efficacy and conflicting serious adverse events in two systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA)/degenerative joint disease (DJD) is increasing in the USA. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections report conflicting evidence about the balance of benefits and harms. We review evidence on efficacy and AEs of intraarticular viscosupplementation with HA in older individuals with knee osteoarthritis and account for differences in these conclusions from another systematic review. METHODS: We searched PubMed and eight other databases and gray literature sources from 1990 to December 12, 2014. Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional outcomes or quality-of-life; RCTs and observational studies on delay/avoidance of arthroplasty; RCTs, case reports, and large cohort studies and case series assessing safety; and systematic reviews reporting on knee pain were considered for inclusion. A standardized, pre-defined protocol was applied by two independent reviewers to screen titles and abstracts, review full text, and extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality. We compared our results with those of a prior systematic review and found them to be discrepant; our analysis of why this discrepancy occurred is the focus of this manuscript. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs reported functional outcomes: pooled analysis of ten placebo-controlled, blinded trials showed a standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to -0.01) favoring HA at 6 months. Studies reported few serious adverse events (SAEs) and no significant differences in non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) (relative risk (RR) [95 % CI] 1.03 [0.93-1.15] or SAEs (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [0.78-2.47]). A recent prior systematic review reported similar functional outcomes, but significant SAE risk. Differences in SAE inclusion and synthesis accounted for the disparate conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Trials show a small but significant effect of HA on function on which recent systematic reviews agree, but lack of AE synthesis standardization leads to opposite conclusions about the balance of benefits and harms. A limitation of the re-analysis of the prior systematic review is that it required imputation of missing data.

Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance.

OBJECTIVES: As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. METHODS: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. RESULTS: Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Maternal and Child Health: An Updated Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To update a prior systematic review on the effects of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FA) on maternal and child health and to assess the evidence for their effects on, and associations with, additional outcomes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences (CAB) Abstracts from 2000 to August 2015; eligible studies from the original report; and relevant systematic reviews. REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any defined dose of n-3 FA (or combination) compared to placebo, any other n-3 FA, or alternative dose with an outcome of interest conducted in pregnant or breastfeeding women or neonates (preterm or term). We also included prospective observational studies that analyzed the association between baseline n-3 FA intake or biomarker level and followup outcomes. Postnatal interventions began within a week of birth for term infants and within a week of beginning enteral or oral feeding for preterm infants. Standard methods were used for data abstraction and analysis, according to the Evidence-based Practice Center Methods Guide. RESULTS: We identified 4,275 potentially relevant titles from our searches, of which 95 RCTs and 48 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was a concern with both RCTs and observational studies. Outcomes for which evidence was sufficient to draw a conclusion are summarized here with the Strength of Evidence (SoE). (Outcomes for which the evidence was insufficient to draw a conclusion are summarized in Appendix G of the report.).Maternal Exposures and Outcomes: Gestational length and risk for preterm birth: Prenatal algal docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or DHA-enriched fish oil supplementation had a small positive effect on length of gestation (moderate SoE), but no effect on risk for preterm birth (low SoE). Prenatal EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) plus DHA-containing fish oil supplementation has no effect on length of gestation (low SoE). Supplementation with DHA, or EPA plus DHA-, or DHA-enriched fish oil does not decreaserisk for preterm birth (low SoE).Birth weight and risk for low birth weight: Changes in maternal n-3 FA biomarkers were significantly associated with birth weight. Prenatal algal DHA or DHA-enriched fish oil supplementation had a positive effect on birth weight among healthy term infants (moderate SoE), but prenatal DHA supplementation had no effect on risk for low birth weight (low SoE). Prenatal EPA plus DHA or alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) supplementation had no effect on birth weight (low SoE).Risk for peripartum depression: Maternal n-3 FA biomarkers had no association with risk for peripartum depression. Maternal DHA, EPA, or DHA-enriched fish oil supplementation had no effect on risk for peripartum depression (low SoE).Risk for gestational hypertension/preeclampsia: Prenatal DHA supplementation among high-risk pregnant women had no effect on the risk for gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (moderate SoE). Prenatal supplementation of any n-3 FA in normal-risk women also had no significant effect on risk for gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (low SoE).Fetal, Infant, and Child Exposures and Outcomes: Postnatal growth patterns: Maternal fish oil or DHA plus EPA supplementation had no effect on postnatal growth patterns (attainment of weight, length, and head circumference) when administered prenatally (moderate SoE) or both pre- and postnatally (low SoE). Fortification of infant formulas with DHA plus arachidonic acid (AA, an n-6 FA) had no effect on growth patterns of preterm or term infants (low SoE).Visual acuity: Prenatal supplementation with DHA had no effect on development of visual acuity (low SoE). Supplementing or fortifying preterm infant formula with any n-3 FA had no significant effect on visual acuity assessed by visual evoked potentials (VEP) at 4 or 6 months corrected age (low SoE). Data conflicted on the effectiveness of supplementing infant formula for term infants with n-3 FA depending on when and how visual acuity was assessed (i.e. by VEP or by behavioral methods) and the type of essential FA provided (low SoE).Neurological development: Prenatal or postnatal n-3 FA supplementation had no consistent effect on neurological development (low SoE).Cognitive development: Prenatal DHA supplementation with AA or EPA had no effect on cognitive development (moderate SoE). Supplementing breastfeeding women with DHA plus EPA also had no effect on cognitive development in infants and children (low SoE). Supplementing or fortifying preterm infants' formula with DHA plus AA had a positive effect on infant cognition at some short-term followup times (moderate SoE). Supplementing or fortifying infant formula for term infants with any n-3 FA had no effect on cognitive development (low SoE). Evidence is insufficient to support any effect of n-3 FA infant supplementation on long-term cognitive outcomes.Autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and learning disorders: Maternal or infant n-3 FA supplementation had no effect on risk for autism spectrum disorders or ADHD (low SoE). No studies on other learning disorders were identified.Atopic dermatitis (AD), allergies, and respiratory disorders: Pre- and postnatal (maternal and infant) n-3 FA supplementation had no consistent effect on the risk for AD/eczema, allergies, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses (moderate SoE). Biomarkers and intakes had no consistent association with the risk for AD, allergies, and respiratory disorders (low SoE).Adverse events: Prenatal and infant supplementation with n-3 FA or fortification of foods with n-3 FA did not result in any serious or nonserious adverse events (moderate SoE); with the exception of an increased risk for mild gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies in this report examined the effects of fish oil (or other combinations of DHA and EPA) supplements on pregnant or breastfeeding women or the effects of infant formula fortified with DHA plus AA. As with the original report, with the exception of small increases in birth weight and length of gestation,n-3 FA supplementation or fortification has no consistent evidence of effects on peripartum maternal or infant health outcomes. No effects of n-3 FA were seen on gestational hypertension, peripartum depression, or postnatal growth. Apparent effects of n-3 FA supplementation were inconsistent across assessment methods and followup times for outcomes related to infant visual acuity, cognitive development and prevention of allergy and asthma. Future RCTs need to assess standardized preparations of n-3 and n-6 FA, using a select group of clinically important outcomes, on populations with baseline n-3 FA intakes typical of those of most western populations.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a major contributor to the propensity to fracture among older adults, and various pharmaceuticals are available to treat it. PURPOSE: To update a review about the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments used to prevent fractures in adults at risk. DATA SOURCES: Multiple computerized databases were searched between 2 January 2005 and 4 March 2014 for English-language studies. STUDY SELECTION: Trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Duplicate extraction and assessment of data about study characteristics, outcomes, and quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: From more than 52 000 titles screened, 315 articles were included in this update. There is high-strength evidence that bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide reduce fractures compared with placebo, with relative risk reductions from 0.40 to 0.60 for vertebral fractures and 0.60 to 0.80 for nonvertebral fractures. Raloxifene has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to reduce only vertebral fractures. Since 2007, there is a newly recognized adverse event of bisphosphonate use: atypical subtrochanteric femur fracture. Gastrointestinal side effects, hot flashes, thromboembolic events, and infections vary among drugs. LIMITATIONS: Few studies have directly compared drugs used to treat osteoporosis. Data in men are very sparse. Costs were not assessed. CONCLUSION: Good-quality evidence supports that several medications for bone density in osteoporotic range and/or preexisting hip or vertebral fracture reduce fracture risk. Side effects vary among drugs, and the comparative effectiveness of the drugs is unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and RAND Corporation.

A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES: Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict. RESULTS: We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely. CONCLUSION: The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated.

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs.

BACKGROUND: An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. METHODS: We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. RESULTS: There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. CONCLUSIONS: There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are useful only if up-to-date. Methods for detecting signals of when a systematic review needs updating have face validity, but no proposed method has had an assessment of predictive validity performed. METHODS: The AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review program had produced 13 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), a subcategory of systematic reviews, by 2009, 11 of which were assessed in 2009 using a surveillance system to determine the degree to which individual conclusions were out of date and to assign a priority for updating each report. Four CERs were judged to be a high priority for updating, four CERs were judged to be medium priority for updating, and three CERs were judged to be low priority for updating. AHRQ then commissioned full update reviews for 9 of these 11 CERs. Where possible, we matched the original conclusions with their corresponding conclusions in the update reports, and compared the congruence between these pairs with our original predictions about which conclusions in each CER remained valid. We then classified the concordance of each pair as good, fair, or poor. We also made a summary determination of the priority for updating each CER based on the actual changes in conclusions in the updated report, and compared these determinations with the earlier assessments of priority. RESULTS: The 9 CERs included 149 individual conclusions, 84% with matches in the update reports. Across reports, 83% of matched conclusions had good concordance, and 99% had good or fair concordance. The one instance of poor concordance was partially attributable to the publication of new evidence after the surveillance signal searches had been done. Both CERs originally judged as being low priority for updating had no substantive changes to their conclusions in the actual updated report. The agreement on overall priority for updating between prediction and actual changes to conclusions was Kappa = 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide some support for the validity of a surveillance system for detecting signals indicating when a systematic review needs updating.

Vitamin D and Calcium: A Systematic Review of Health Outcomes (Update).

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the Institute of Medicine/Food and Nutrition Board constituted a Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) committee to undertake a review of the evidence that had emerged (since the 1997 DRI report) on the relationship of vitamin D and calcium, both individually and combined, to a wide range of health outcomes, and potential revision of the DRI values for these nutrients. To support that review, several United States and Canadian Federal Government agencies commissioned a systematic review of the scientific literature for use during the deliberations by the committee. The intent was to support a transparent literature review process and provide a foundation for subsequent reviews of the nutrients. The committee used the resulting literature review in their revision of the DRIs.In 2013, in preparation for a project the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (NIH/ODS) was undertaking related to evidence-based decisionmaking for vitamin D in primary care, based on the updated DRI report, the ODS and AHRQ requested an update to the 2009 systematic review to incorporate the findings of studies conducted since the 2009 evidence review on the relationship between vitamin D alone or vitamin D plus calcium to selected health outcomes and to report on the methods used to assay vitamin D in the included trials. PURPOSE: To systematically summarize the evidence on the relationship between vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium on selected health outcomes included in the earlier review: primarily those related to bone health, cardiovascular health, cancer, immune function, pregnancy, all-cause mortality, and vitamin D status; and to identify the vitamin D assay methods and procedures used for the interventional studies that aimed to assess the effect of vitamin D administration on serum 25(OH)D concentrations, and to stratify key outcomes by methods used to assay serum 25(OH)D concentrations. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE; Cochrane Central; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and the Health Technology Assessments; search limited to English-language articles on humans. STUDY SELECTION: Primary interventional or prospective observational studies that reported outcomes of interest in human subjects in relation to vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium, as well as systematic reviews that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: A standardized protocol with predefined criteria was used to extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We summarized 154 newly identified primary articles and two new systematic reviews that incorporated more than 93 additional primary articles. Available evidence focused mainly on bone health, cardiovascular diseases, or cancer outcomes. Findings were inconsistent across studies for bone health; breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer; cardiovascular disease and mortality; immune function; and pregnancy-related outcomes. Few studies assessed pancreatic cancer and birth outcomes. One new systematic review of observational studies found that circulating 25(OH)D was generally inversely associated with risk for cardiovascular disease. Methods used to assay serum 25(OH)D in studies reporting on key outcomes diverged widely. The current report also identified one new systematic review published since the original report that addressed whether a dose response relationship exists between dietary and supplemental vitamin D intake and serum 25(OH)D concentrations. The systematic review, based on 76 RCTs, reported widely varying increases in serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for similar doses of vitamin D, with a general increase in serum concentration with dietary intake. The RCTs identified for the current report found increases in serum 25(OH)D with supplementation; however, the findings varied by age group and health status of participants, baseline vitamin D status, dose, duration, and assay used to assess serum 25(OH)D. LIMITATIONS: Studies on vitamin D and calcium were not specifically targeted at life stages (except for pregnant and postmenopausal women) specified for the determination of DRI and were often underpowered for their intended outcomes. Studies vary widely in methodological quality and in the assays used to measure vitamin D status. CONCLUSIONS: In solid agreement with the findings of the original report, the majority of the findings concerning vitamin D, alone or in combination with calcium, on the health outcomes of interest were inconsistent. Associations observed in prospective cohort and nested case-control studies were inconsistent, or when consistent, were rarely supported by the results of randomized controlled trials. Clear dose-response relationships between intakes of vitamin D and health outcomes were rarely observed. Although a large number of new studies (and longer followups to older studies) were identified, particularly for cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, several types of cancer, and intermediate outcomes for bone health, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Studies identified for the current report suggest a possible U-shaped association between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and both all-cause mortality and hypertension and also suggest that the level of supplemental vitamin D and calcium administered in the Women's Health Initiative Calcium-Vitamin D Trial are not associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease or cancer among postmenopausal women who are not taking additional supplemental vitamin D and calcium. Studies suggest the method used to assay 25(OH)D may influence the outcomes of dose-response assessments. Beyond these observations, it is difficult to make any substantive statements on the basis of the available evidence concerning the association of either serum 25(OH)D concentration, vitamin D supplementation, calcium intake, or the combination of both nutrients, with the various health outcomes because most of the findings were inconsistent.

A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program. METHODS: Twenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and then ceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating. RESULTS: Twenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts. CONCLUSION: In this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project.

A pilot study using machine learning and domain knowledge to facilitate comparative effectiveness review updating.

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness and systematic reviews require frequent and time-consuming updating. RESULTS: of earlier screening should be useful in reducing the effort needed to screen relevant articles. METHODS: We collected 16,707 PubMed citation classification decisions from 2 comparative effectiveness reviews: interventions to prevent fractures in low bone density (LBD) and off-label uses of atypical antipsychotic drugs (AAP). We used previously written search strategies to guide extraction of a limited number of explanatory variables pertaining to the intervention, outcome, and STUDY DESIGN: We empirically derived statistical models (based on a sparse generalized linear model with convex penalties [GLMnet] and a gradient boosting machine [GBM]) that predicted article relevance. We evaluated model sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and screening workload reductions using 11,003 PubMed citations retrieved for the LBD and AAP updates. Results. GLMnet-based models performed slightly better than GBM-based models. When attempting to maximize sensitivity for all relevant articles, GLMnet-based models achieved high sensitivities (0.99 and 1.0 for AAP and LBD, respectively) while reducing projected screening by 55.4% and 63.2%. The GLMnet-based model yielded sensitivities of 0.921 and 0.905 and PPVs of 0.185 and 0.102 when predicting articles relevant to the AAP and LBD efficacy/effectiveness analyses, respectively (using a threshold of P ≥ 0.02). GLMnet performed better when identifying adverse effect relevant articles for the AAP review (sensitivity = 0.981) than for the LBD review (0.685). The system currently requires MEDLINE-indexed articles. CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated statistical classifiers that used previous classification decisions and explanatory variables derived from MEDLINE indexing terms to predict inclusion decisions. This pilot system reduced workload associated with screening 2 simulated comparative effectiveness review updates by more than 50% with minimal loss of relevant articles.

Probiotics for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Probiotics are live microorganisms intended to confer a health benefit when consumed. One condition for which probiotics have been advocated is the diarrhea that is a common adverse effect of antibiotic use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence for probiotic use in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD). DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic databases were searched (DARE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, MANTIS, TOXLINE, ToxFILE, NTIS, and AGRICOLA) and references of included studies and reviews were screened from database inception to February 2012, without language restriction. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers identified parallel randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotics (Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, and/or Bacillus) for the prevention or treatment of AAD. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed trial quality. RESULTS: A total of 82 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The majority used Lactobacillus-based interventions alone or in combination with other genera; strains were poorly documented. The pooled relative risk in a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis of 63 RCTs, which included 11 811 participants, indicated a statistically significant association of probiotic administration with reduction in AAD (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.68; P < .001; I(2), 54%; [risk difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.05], [number needed to treat, 13; 95% CI, 10.3 to 19.1]) in trials reporting on the number of patients with AAD. This result was relatively insensitive to numerous subgroup analyses. However, there exists significant heterogeneity in pooled results and the evidence is insufficient to determine whether this association varies systematically by population, antibiotic characteristic, or probiotic preparation. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled evidence suggests that probiotics are associated with a reduction in AAD. More research is needed to determine which probiotics are associated with the greatest efficacy and for which patients receiving which specific antibiotics.

Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Apply and compare two methods that identify signals for the need to update systematic reviews, using three Evidence-based Practice Center reports on omega-3 fatty acids as test cases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We applied the RAND method, which uses domain (subject matter) expert guidance, and a modified Ottawa method, which uses quantitative and qualitative signals. For both methods, we conducted focused electronic literature searches of recent studies using the key terms from the original reports. We assessed the agreement between the methods and qualitatively assessed the merits of each system. RESULTS: Agreement between the two methods was "substantial" or better (kappa>0.62) in three of the four systematic reviews. Overall agreement between the methods was "substantial" (kappa=0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.83). CONCLUSION: The RAND and modified Ottawa methods appear to provide similar signals for the possible need to update systematic reviews in this pilot study. Future evaluation with a broader range of clinical topics and eventual comparisons between signals to update reports and the results of full evidence review updates will be needed. We propose a hybrid approach combining the best features of both methods, which should allow efficient review and assessment of the need to update.

Diagnosis, microbial epidemiology, and antibiotic treatment of acute otitis media in children: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Acute otitis media (AOM) is the most common condition for which antibiotics are prescribed for US children; however, wide variation exists in diagnosis and treatment. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review on AOM diagnosis, treatment, and the association of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7) use with AOM microbiology. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Databases, and Web of Science, searched to identify articles published from January 1999 through July 2010. STUDY SELECTION: Diagnostic studies with a criterion standard, observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing AOM microbiology with and without PCV7, and randomized controlled trials assessing antibiotic treatment. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent article review and study quality assessment by 2 investigators with consensus resolution of discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 8945 citations screened, 135 were included. Meta-analysis was performed for comparisons with 3 or more trials. Few studies examined diagnosis; otoscopic findings of tympanic membrane bulging (positive likelihood ratio, 51 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 36-73]) and redness (positive likelihood ratio, 8.4 [95% CI, 7-11]) were associated with accurate diagnosis. In the few available studies, prevalence of Streptococcus pneumoniae decreased (eg, 33%-48% vs 23%-31% of AOM isolates), while that of Haemophilus influenzae increased (41%-43% vs 56%-57%) pre- vs post-PCV7. Short-term clinical success was higher for immediate use of ampicillin or amoxicillin vs placebo (73% vs 60%; pooled rate difference, 12% [95% CI, 5%-18%]; number needed to treat, 9 [95% CI, 6-20]), while increasing the rate of rash or diarrhea by 3% to 5%. Two of 4 studies showed greater clinical success for immediate vs delayed antibiotics (95% vs 80%; rate difference, 15% [95% CI, 6%-24%] and 86% vs 70%; rate difference, 16% [95% CI, 6%-26%]). Data are absent on long-term effects on antimicrobial resistance. Meta-analyses in general showed no significant differences in antibiotic comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Otoscopic findings are critical to accurate AOM diagnosis. AOM microbiology has changed with use of PCV7. Antibiotics are modestly more effective than no treatment but cause adverse effects in 4% to 10% of children. Most antibiotics have comparable clinical success.

Diagnosing and managing common food allergies: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: There is heightened interest in food allergies but no clear consensus exists regarding the prevalence or most effective diagnostic and management approaches to food allergies. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the available evidence on the prevalence, diagnosis, management, and prevention of food allergies. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were limited to English-language articles indexed between January 1988 and September 2009. STUDY SELECTION: Diagnostic tests were included if they had a prospective, defined study population, used food challenge as a criterion standard, and reported sufficient data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. Systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for management and prevention outcomes were also used. For foods where anaphylaxis is common, cohort studies with a sample size of more than 100 participants were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently reviewed all titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant articles and resolved discrepancies by repeated review and discussion. Quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was assessed using the AMSTAR criteria, the quality of diagnostic studies using the QUADAS criteria most relevant to food allergy, and the quality of RCTs using the Jadad criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 12,378 citations were identified and 72 citations were included. Food allergy affects more than 1% to 2% but less than 10% of the population. It is unclear if the prevalence of food allergies is increasing. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves comparing skin prick tests (area under the curve [AUC], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.93) and serum food-specific IgE (AUC, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.78-0.91) to food challenge showed no statistical superiority for either test. Elimination diets are the mainstay of therapy but have been rarely studied. Immunotherapy is promising but data are insufficient to recommend use. In high-risk infants, hydrolyzed formulas may prevent cow's milk allergy but standardized definitions of high risk and hydrolyzed formula do not exist. CONCLUSION: The evidence for the prevalence and management of food allergy is greatly limited by a lack of uniformity for criteria for making a diagnosis.