Synthesis of guidance available for assessing methodological quality and grading of evidence from qualitative research to inform clinical recommendations: a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To understand (1) what guidance exists to assess the methodological quality of qualitative research; (2) what methods exist to grade levels of evidence from qualitative research to inform recommendations within European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR). METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, COCHRANE and PsycINFO, from inception to 23 October 2020. Eligible studies included primary articles and guideline documents available in English, describing the: (1) development; (2) application of validated tools (eg, checklists); (3) guidance on assessing methodological quality of qualitative research and (4) guidance on grading levels of qualitative evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted to identify key similarities between included studies. RESULTS: Of 9073 records retrieved, 51 went through to full-manuscript review, with 15 selected for inclusion. Six articles described methodological tools to assess the quality of qualitative research. The tools evaluated research design, recruitment, ethical rigour, data collection and analysis. Seven articles described one approach, focusing on four key components to determine how much confidence to place in findings from systematic reviews of qualitative research. Two articles focused on grading levels of clinical recommendations based on qualitative evidence; one described a qualitative evidence hierarchy, and another a research pyramid. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus on the use of tools, checklists and approaches suitable for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative research and the grading of qualitative evidence to inform clinical practice. This work is expected to facilitate the inclusion of qualitative evidence in the process of developing recommendations at EULAR level.

Temporal changes in the number of European and American guideline recommendations and underlying evidence base for the management of infective: An update of previous published data.

This report aimed to examine temporal changes in the number of recommendations on management of infective endocarditis in the European and American guidelines. The number of recommendations has increased since 2004 without an increment in evidence base in the European iteration. American guidelines have reduced the number of recommendations with a main evidence base of level B.

The Power of Rapid Reviews for Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap in Evidence-Based Virtual Health Care.

Despite the surge in popularity of virtual health care services as a means of delivering health care through technology, the integration of research evidence into practice remains a challenge. Rapid reviews, a type of time-efficient evidence synthesis, offer a potential solution to bridge the gap between knowledge and action. This paper aims to highlight the experiences of the Fraser Health Authority's Virtual Health team in conducting rapid reviews. This paper discusses the experiences of the Virtual Health team in conducting 15 rapid reviews over the course of 1.5 years and the benefit of involving diverse stakeholders including researchers, project and clinical leads, and students for the creation of user-friendly knowledge products to summarize results. The Virtual Health team found rapid reviews to be a valuable tool for evidence-informed decision-making in virtual health care. Involving stakeholders and focusing on implementation considerations are crucial for maximizing the impact of rapid reviews. Health care decision makers are encouraged to consider implementing rapid review processes to improve the translation of research evidence into practice, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and promoting a culture of evidence-informed care.

Lifting the veil off treatment effect heterogeneity.

Clinicians often suspect that a treatment effect can vary across individuals. However, they usually lack "evidence-based" guidance regarding potential heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Potentially actionable HTE is rarely discovered in clinical trials and is widely believed (or rationalized) by researchers to be rare. Conventional statistical methods to test for possible HTE are extremely conservative and tend to reinforce this belief. In truth, though, there is no realistic way to know whether a common, or average, effect estimated from a clinical trial is relevant for all, or even most, patients. This absence of evidence, misinterpreted as evidence of absence, may be resulting in sub-optimal treatment for many individuals. We first summarize the historical context in which current statistical methods for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were developed, focusing on the conceptual and technical limitations that shaped, and restricted, these methods. In particular, we explain how the common-effect assumption came to be virtually unchallenged. Second, we propose a simple graphical method for exploratory data analysis that can provide useful visual evidence of possible HTE. The basic approach is to display the complete distribution of outcome data rather than relying uncritically on simple summary statistics. Modern graphical methods, unavailable when statistical methods were initially formulated a century ago, now render fine-grained interrogation of the data feasible. We propose comparing observed treatment-group data to "pseudo data" engineered to mimic that which would be expected under a particular HTE model, such as the common-effect model. A clear discrepancy between the distributions of the common-effect pseudo data and the actual treatment-effect data provides prima facie evidence of HTE to motivate additional confirmatory investigation. Artificial data are used to illustrate implications of ignoring heterogeneity in practice and how the graphical method can be useful.

Evidence-Based Learning Strategies in Medicine Using AI.

Unlabelled: Large language models (LLMs), like ChatGPT, are transforming the landscape of medical education. They offer a vast range of applications, such as tutoring (personalized learning), patient simulation, generation of examination questions, and streamlined access to information. The rapid advancement of medical knowledge and the need for personalized learning underscore the relevance and timeliness of exploring innovative strategies for integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into medical education. In this paper, we propose coupling evidence-based learning strategies, such as active recall and memory cues, with AI to optimize learning. These strategies include the generation of tests, mnemonics, and visual cues.

Cosmeceuticals for antiaging: a systematic review of safety and efficacy.

Cosmeceuticals, the bridge between pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, contain biologically active ingredients that may improve the skin's overall appearance. As the market, accessibility, and popularity of cosmeceuticals increase, it is essential to understand the safety and efficacy of such products. This systematic review aims to examine published clinical studies involving the use of cosmeceuticals for antiaging to provide evidence-based recommendations based on available efficacy and safety data. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched on January 1, 2023 using PRISMA guidelines. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were made based on the quality of the existing literature. A total of 153 articles regarding the use of cosmeceuticals for treatment of antiaging were identified. After screening of titles, abstracts, and full text, 32 studies involving 1236 patients met inclusion criteria, including 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 non-randomized open-label clinical trials for Vitamin C, Retinol, Bakuchiol, Tetrahydrojasmonic acid, Growth Factors, Methyl Estradiolpropanoate, Timosaponin A-III (TA-III), Protocatechuic acid, Grammatophyllum speciosum, and Jasmine rice panicle extract. Retinol and vitamin C for antiaging received a Grade A for recommendation. Methyl estradiolpropanoate, bakuchiol, tetrahydrojasmonic acid, and growth factors received a recommendation grade of C. The remaining ingredients were assigned an inconclusive grade of recommendation due to lack of evidence. Cosmeceuticals included in the review had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. The review analyzes numerous different ingredients to provide an evidence-based approach to decision-making for consumers and physicians on the use of cosmeceuticals for antiaging. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials and a need for long-term data on each cosmeceutical's efficacy and safety. Future research is needed to establish the long-term effectiveness and safety of cosmeceuticals.

Access from healthcare professionals to evidence-based pharmacotherapy in allergy management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Access to evidence-based pharmacotherapy (EBP) is crucial in effectively managing allergies. Allergy conditions, including rhinitis, asthma, and dermatitis, require treatment guided by scientific evidence. However, healthcare professionals face challenges in accessing relevant information. RECENT FINDINGS: The dynamic nature of allergy research, coupled with limited resources and variability in practice guidelines, complicates decision-making. SUMMARY: To enhance access, healthcare institutions should invest in comprehensive online resources tailored to allergy management, such as databases and platforms. Advances in algorithm development have shown that artificial intelligence and machine learning can enhance clinical decision-making. Integrating allergy-specific Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) into electronic health records can assist professionals in making EBP decisions at the point of care. Continuing education and training programs focused on allergy management can keep healthcare providers updated on the latest research and guidelines. Multidisciplinary teams facilitate knowledge exchange and standardize practice approaches. Social media outlets can be a great route to publicize work carried out or in progress to a target audience of interest. By bridging the gap between evidence and practice in allergy management, healthcare systems can ensure optimal care for patients, alleviating the burden of allergic diseases on individuals and society.

The Use of Real-World Evidence for Regulatory Decisions in China.

There is a growing demand for the use of high-quality real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decision-making worldwide and in China, which highlights the need for conducting literature reviews to evaluate the available data and evidence. This study aims to review the use of RWE in Chinese regulatory decisions and to summarize relevant regulatory and methodological considerations to inform the future use of RWE in China. We identified policy documents, technical guidance documents, and cases on official Chinese government websites and extracted their contents separately. We consulted experts from the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and academic institutes and searched case-related articles for enrichment. We also searched and included articles related to the use of RWE/Real-world data in Chinese regulatory decisions. Six trial versions of technical guidance documents, 7 case studies, and 40 articles related to the Chinese regulatory decisions were included in this study. Based on the technical guidance, data quality, and appropriate study design and statistical analysis are the main concerns for RWE generation. The cases and articles related to regulatory decisions revealed 9 main concerns, including data sources and applicability, data quality, strength of existing evidence, appropriate study design and statistical analysis, regulated and transparent process for analysis and evidence generation, product safety and efficacy, product characteristics and clinical needs, ethical considerations and data security, and communicate adequately with regulatory authorities. Among these concerns, data issues are central. Preliminary attempts have been made by the NMPA to promote the use of RWE, but substantial challenges still remain.

Evidence-based cesarean delivery: preoperative management (part 7).

Preoperative preparation for cesarean delivery is a multistep approach for which protocols should exist at each hospital system. These protocols should be guided by the findings of this review. The interventions reviewed and recommendations made for this review have a common goal of decreasing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality related to cesarean delivery. The preoperative period starts before the patient's arrival to the hospital and ends immediately before skin incision. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends showering with either soap or an antiseptic solution at least the night before a procedure. Skin cleansing in addition to this has not been shown to further decrease rates of infection. Hair removal at the cesarean skin incision site is not necessary, but if preferred by the surgical team then clipping or depilatory creams should be used rather than shaving. Preoperative enema is not recommended. A clear liquid diet may be ingested up to 2 hours before and a light meal up to 6 hours before cesarean delivery. Consider giving a preoperative carbohydrate drink to nondiabetic patients up to 2 hours before planned cesarean delivery. Weight-based intravenous cefazolin is recommended 60 minutes before skin incision: 1-2 g intravenous for patients without obesity and 2 g for patients with obesity or weight ≥80 kg. Adjunctive azithromycin 500 mg intravenous is recommended for patients with labor or rupture of membranes. Preoperative gabapentin can be considered as a way to decrease pain scores with movement in the postoperative period. Tranexamic acid (1 g in 10-20 mL of saline or 10 mg/kg intravenous) is recommended prophylactically for patients at high risk of postpartum hemorrhage and can be considered in all patients. Routine use of mechanical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is recommended preoperatively and is to be continued until the patient is ambulatory. Music and active warming of the patient, and adequate operating room temperature improves outcomes for the patient and neonate, respectively. Noise levels should allow clear communication between teams; however, a specific decibel level has not been defined in the data. Patient positioning with left lateral tilt decreases hypotensive episodes compared with right lateral tilt, which is not recommended. Manual displacers result in fewer hypotensive episodes than left lateral tilt. Both vaginal and skin preparation should be performed with either chlorhexidine (preferred) or povidone iodine. Placement of an indwelling urinary catheter is not necessary. Nonadhesive drapes are recommended. Cell salvage, although effective for high-risk patients, is not recommended for routine use. Maternal supplemental oxygen does not improve outcomes. A surgical safety checklist (including a timeout) is recommended for all cesarean deliveries.

Global scientific trends on the islet transplantation in the 21st century: A bibliometric and visualized analysis.

BACKGROUND: Islet transplantation (IT) has emerged as a significant research area for the treatment of diabetes mellitus and has witnessed a surge in scholarly attention. Despite its growing importance, there is a lack of bibliometric analyses that encapsulate the evolution and scientific underpinnings of this field. This study aims to fill this gap by conducting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to delineate current research hotspots and forecast future trajectories within the IT domain with a particular focus on evidence-based medicine practices. METHODS: This analysis scrutinized literature from January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2023, using the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Employing bibliometric tools such as VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and the R package "bibliometrix," we systematically evaluated the literature to uncover scientific trends and collaboration networks in IT research. RESULTS: The analysis revealed 8388 publications from 82 countries, predominantly the United States and China. However, global cross-institutional collaboration in IT research requires further strengthening. The number of IT-related publications has increased annually. Leading research institutions in this field include Harvard University, the University of Alberta, the University of Miami, and the University of Minnesota. "Transplantation" emerges as the most frequently cited journal in this area. Shapiro and Ricordi were the most prolific authors, with 126 and 121 publications, respectively. Shapiro also led to co-citations, totaling 4808. Key research focuses on IT sites and procedures as well as novel therapies in IT. Emerging research hotspots are identified by terms like "xenotransplantation," "apoptosis," "stem cells," "immunosuppression," and "microencapsulation." CONCLUSIONS: The findings underscore a mounting anticipation for future IT research, which is expected to delve deeper into evidence-based methodologies for IT sites, procedures, and novel therapeutic interventions. This shift toward evidence-based medicine underscores the field's commitment to enhancing the efficacy and safety of IT for diabetes treatment, signaling a promising direction for future investigations aimed at optimizing patient outcomes.

"Going into the black box": a policy analysis of how the World Health Organization uses evidence to inform guideline recommendations.

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) plays a crucial role in producing global guidelines. In response to previous criticism, WHO has made efforts to enhance the process of guideline development, aiming for greater systematicity and transparency. However, it remains unclear whether these changes have effectively addressed these earlier critiques. This paper examines the policy process employed by WHO to inform guideline recommendations, using the update of the WHO Consolidated HIV Testing Services (HTS) Guidelines as a case study. Methods: We observed guideline development meetings and conducted semi-structured interviews with key participants involved in the WHO guideline-making process. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. The data were deductively coded and analysed in line with the main themes from a published conceptual framework for context-based evidence-based decision making: introduction, interpretation, and application of evidence. Results: The HTS guideline update was characterized by an inclusive and transparent process, involving a wide range of stakeholders. However, it was noted that not all stakeholders could participate equally due to gaps in training and preparation, particularly regarding the complexity of the Grading Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We also found that WHO does not set priorities for which or how many guidelines should be produced each year and does not systematically evaluate the implementation of their recommendations. Our interviews revealed disconnects in the evidence synthesis process, starting from the development of systematic review protocols. While GRADE prioritizes evidence from RCTs, the Guideline Development Group (GDG) heavily emphasized "other" GRADE domains for which little or no evidence was available from the systematic reviews. As a result, expert judgements and opinions played a role in making recommendations. Finally, the role of donors and their presence as observers during GDG meetings was not clearly defined. Conclusion: We found a need for a different approach to evidence synthesis due to the diverse range of global guidelines produced by WHO. Ideally, the evidence synthesis should be broad enough to capture evidence from different types of studies for all domains in the GRADE framework. Greater structure is required in formulating GDGs and clarifying the role of donors through the process.

Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation supporting European society for medical oncology clinical practice guidelines.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings. Methods: We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types. Results: Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71% vs. 63%, p = 0.009) while recommendations based on lower levels of evidence (LOE III-V) show an increase (29% vs. 37%, p = 0.01) between previous and current version. In the current versions, the highest proportion of LOE I (42%) was found in recommendations related to pharmacotherapy, while the highest proportion of GOR A recommendations was found in the areas of pathology (50%) and diagnostic (50%) recommendations. Significant variability in LOE I and GOR A recommendations and their changes over time was observed across different cancer types. Conclusion: One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.

Publication Bias in Upper Gastrointestinal Oncology Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Evidence-based medicine requires evaluation of the medical literature to guide clinical reasoning and treatment recommendations. The presence of publication bias towards exclusion of non-statistically significant clinical trials may be leading to an incomplete evaluation of the literature and cause potentially incomplete guidance for patients. We aimed to compare publication rates and impact of publications of positive and negative outcome clinical trials. METHODS: We queried the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials database identifying clinical trials with reported results on the topics of pancreatic, liver, and gastric cancer. A "positive" trial was defined as having a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms, while a "negative" did not. Data collected included termination cause, intervention, funding type, publication rates, and journal characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 535 clinical trials were examined, across all pathologies clinical trials with significant findings for the primary outcome were published at a higher rate (99%) compared to those with non-significant findings (77%) (p < 0.01). Significantly, more studies with significant findings reached at least 80% of their estimated enrollment goal versus non-significant studies, 72% and 53% respectively (p < 0.01). Three of four metrics for impact of publication showed no difference between significant and non-significant studies once they reached publication. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that clinical trials of three of the most common upper gastrointestinal malignancies have a publication bias towards studies with significant primary outcome findings. This study has implications to the way evidence-based medicine is practiced as the medical literature appears to be failing to capture important data for consideration of clinical decision making.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.