Access to Long-Term Care for Minority Populations: A Systematic Review.

It has been shown that there is disparity in access to long-term care and other services for minority populations. This study assessed long-term care access among older individuals belonging to minority populations including visible, ethnocultural, linguistic, and sexual minorities. Barriers and facilitators influencing admission were identified and evaluated.A search for articles from 10 databases published between January 2000 and January 2021 was conducted. Included studies evaluated factors affecting minority populations' admission to long-term care, and non-residents' perceptions of future admission. This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018038662. Sixty included quantitative and qualitative studies, ranging in quality from fair to excellent. Findings suggest minority status is associated with reduced admission to long-term care, controlling for confounding variables. Barriers identified include discordant language, fear of discrimination, lack of information, and family obligations. Findings suggest that minority populations experienced barriers accessing long-term care and had unmet cultural and language needs while receiving care in this setting.

Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

BACKGROUND: Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Establishing need and population priorities to improve the health of homeless and vulnerably housed women, youth, and men: A Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is one of the most disabling and precarious living conditions. The objective of this Delphi consensus study was to identify priority needs and at-risk population subgroups among homeless and vulnerably housed people to guide the development of a more responsive and person-centred clinical practice guideline. METHODS: We used a literature review and expert working group to produce an initial list of needs and at-risk subgroups of homeless and vulnerably housed populations. We then followed a modified Delphi consensus method, asking expert health professionals, using electronic surveys, and persons with lived experience of homelessness, using oral surveys, to prioritize needs and at-risk sub-populations across Canada. Criteria for ranking included potential for impact, extent of inequities and burden of illness. We set ratings of ≥ 60% to determine consensus over three rounds of surveys. FINDINGS: Eighty four health professionals and 76 persons with lived experience of homelessness participated from across Canada, achieving an overall 73% response rate. The participants identified priority needs including mental health and addiction care, facilitating access to permanent housing, facilitating access to income support and case management/care coordination. Participants also ranked specific homeless sub-populations in need of additional research including: Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit); youth, women and families; people with acquired brain injury, intellectual or physical disabilities; and refugees and other migrants. INTERPRETATION: The inclusion of the perspectives of both expert health professionals and people with lived experience of homelessness provided validity in identifying real-world needs to guide systematic reviews in four key areas according to priority needs, as well as launch a number of working groups to explore how to adapt interventions for specific at-risk populations, to create evidence-based guidelines.

Correction: Effectiveness of home-based records on maternal, newborn and child health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209278.].

Effectiveness of home-based records on maternal, newborn and child health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Home-based records (HBRs) may improve the health of pregnant women, new mothers and their children, and support health care systems. We assessed the effectiveness of HBRs on maternal, newborn and child health reporting, care seeking and self-care practice, mortality, morbidity and women's empowerment in low-, middle- and high-income countries. We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Health Systems Evidence, CINAHL, HTA database, NHS EED, and DARE from 1950 to 2017. We also searched the WHO, CDC, ECDC, JICA and UNAIDS. We included randomised controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, and cost-effectiveness studies. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to appraise studies. We extracted and analyzed data for outcomes including maternal, newborn and child health, and women's empowerment. We synthesized and presented data using GRADE Evidence Profiles. We included 14 studies out of 16,419 identified articles. HBRs improved antenatal care and reduced likelihood of pregnancy complications; improved patient-provider communication and enhanced women's feelings of control and empowerment; and improved rates of vaccination among children (OR: 2·39, 95% CI: 1.45-3·92) and mothers (OR 1·98 95% CI:1·29-3·04). A three-year follow-up shows that HBRs reduced risk of cognitive delay in children (p = 0.007). HBRs used during the life cycle of women and children in Indonesia showed benefits for continuity of care. There were no significant effects on healthy pregnancy behaviors such as smoking and consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. There were no statistically significant effects on newborn health outcomes. We did not identify any formal studies on cost or economic evaluation. HBRs show modest but important health effects for women and children. These effects with minimal-to-no harms, multiplied across a population, could play an important role in reducing health inequities in maternal, newborn, and child health.

Accessibility and Acceptability of Infectious Disease Interventions Among Migrants in the EU/EEA: A CERQual Systematic Review.

In the EU/EEA, subgroups of international migrants have an increased prevalence of certain infectious diseases. The objective of this study was to examine migrants' acceptability, value placed on outcomes, and accessibility of infectious disease interventions. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative reviews adhering to the PRISMA reporting guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DARE, and CDSR, and assessed review quality using AMSTAR. We conducted a framework analysis based on the Health Beliefs Model, which was used to organize our preliminary findings with respect to the beliefs that underlie preventive health behavior, including knowledge of risk factors, perceived susceptibility, severity and barriers, and cues to action. We assessed confidence in findings using an adapted GRADE CERQual tool. We included 11 qualitative systematic reviews from 2111 articles. In these studies, migrants report several facilitators to public health interventions. Acceptability depended on migrants' relationship with healthcare practitioners, knowledge of the disease, and degree of disease-related stigma. Facilitators to public health interventions relevant for migrant populations may provide clues for implementation. Trust, cultural sensitivity, and communication skills also have implications for linkage to care and public health practitioner education. Recommendations from practitioners continue to play a key role in the acceptance of infectious disease interventions.

Some Cochrane risk-of-bias items are not important in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of bias-related study characteristics on treatment effects in osteoarthritis (OA) trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on OA trials included in Cochrane reviews, the impact of study characteristics on treatment effect estimates was evaluated. Characteristics included items of the risk of bias (RoB) tool, trial size, single vs. multisite, and source of funding. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Meta-regression was performed to identify "relevant study-level covariates" that decrease the between-study variance (τˆ2). RESULTS: Twenty reviews, including 126 OA trials with a high degree of heterogeneity, were included (τˆ2 = 0.1247). Among the RoB domains, only patient blinding had an impact on the results (reducing heterogeneity according to τˆ2 < 7%). Inadequate blinding of patients yielded larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.29, P = 0.035). The most important study characteristic was trial size (heterogeneity reduced by 25%), with small trials reporting larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16-0.42, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In musculoskeletal reviews addressing pain, all the items included in the Cochrane RoB tool might not be equally important. OA trial results may be affected by bias constructs that are not yet fully elucidated.

Prevention and assessment of infectious diseases among children and adult migrants arriving to the European Union/European Economic Association: a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews for public health and health systems.

INTRODUCTION: The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is developing evidence-based guidance for voluntary screening, treatment and vaccine prevention of infectious diseases for newly arriving migrants to the European Union/European Economic Area. The objective of this systematic review protocol is to guide the identification, appraisal and synthesis of the best available evidence on prevention and assessment of the following priority infectious diseases: tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis (polio), Haemophilus influenza disease, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The search strategy will identify evidence from existing systematic reviews and then update the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence using prospective trials, economic evaluations and/or recently published systematic reviews. Interdisciplinary teams have designed logic models to help define study inclusion and exclusion criteria, guiding the search strategy and identifying relevant outcomes. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical or safety issues. We anticipate disseminating the findings through open-access publications, conference abstracts and presentations. We plan to publish technical syntheses as GRADEpro evidence summaries and the systematic reviews as part of a special edition open-access publication on refugee health. We are following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols reporting guideline. This protocol is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42016045798.

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively. RESULTS: Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS: Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Low-molecular-weight heparin and recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Placenta-mediated pregnancy complications include pre-eclampsia, late pregnancy loss, placental abruption, and birth of a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonate. These complications are leading causes of maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality in high-income countries. Affected women are at high risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies; however, effective strategies to prevent recurrence are absent. Findings from our previous study-level meta-analysis suggested that low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the risk of recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. However, we identified significant heterogeneity in the results, possibly due to trial design or inclusion criteria. To identify which patients benefit from, and which outcomes are prevented by, low-molecular-weight heparin, we did an individual patient data meta-analysis. METHODS: We did a systematic review in May, 2013, which identified eight eligible randomised trials done between 2000 and 2013 of low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. We excluded studies on the basis of the wrong population, the study being ongoing, inability to confirm eligibility of participants, intervention stopped too early, and no response from the principal investigator. We requested individual patient data from the study authors for eligible women (women pregnant at the time of the study with a history of previous pregnancy that had been complicated by one or more of the following: pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, birth of an SGA neonate [<10th percentile], pregnancy loss after 16 weeks' gestation, or two losses after 12 weeks' gestation) and recoded, combined, and analysed the data for our meta-analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of early-onset (<34 weeks) or severe pre-eclampsia, birth of an SGA neonate (<5th percentile), late pregnancy loss (≥20 weeks' gestation), or placental abruption leading to delivery, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42013006249. FINDINGS: We analysed data from 963 eligible women in eight trials: 480 randomly assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin and 483 randomly assigned to no low-molecular-weight heparin. Overall, the risk of bias was not substantial enough to affect decisions regarding trial inclusion. Participants were mostly white (795/905; 88%) with a mean age of 30·9 years (SD 5·0) and 403/963 (42%) had thrombophilia. In the primary analysis, low-molecular-weight heparin did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (low-molecular-weight heparin 62/444 [14%] versus no low-molecular-weight heparin 95/443 (22%) absolute difference -8%, 95% CI -17·3 to 1·4, p=0·09; relative risk 0·64, 95% CI 0·36-1·11, p=0·11). We noted significant heterogeneity between single-centre and multicentre trials. In subgroup analyses, low-molecular-weight heparin in multicentre trials reduced the primary outcome in women with previous abruption (p=0·006) but not in any of the other subgroups of previous complications. INTERPRETATION: Low-molecular-weight heparin does not seem to reduce the risk of recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in at-risk women. However, some decreases in event rates might have been too small for the power of our study to explore. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Evaluation of a training program for medicines-oriented policymakers to use a database of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal prescribing and medications use is a problem for health systems globally. Systematic reviews are a comprehensive resource that can help guide evidence-informed decision-making and implementation of interventions addressing such issues; however, a barrier to the use of systematic reviews is their inaccessibility (due to both dispersion across journals and inaccessibility of content). Publicly available databases, such as Rx for Change, provide quick access to summaries of appraised systematic reviews of professional and consumer-oriented interventions to improve prescribing behaviour and appropriate medication use, and may help maximise the use of evidence to inform decisions. The present study aims to evaluate a training program to improve attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of systematic review evidence contained within Rx for Change. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, a training program with content customised to local provider and consumer contexts was developed with knowledge user input. The training program consisted of a 6 minute information video, a 1 hour workshop with hands-on, interactive and didactic components, and two post-training reminders. Forty-nine people from five medicines-focused organisations in Canada and Australia attended one of six workshops. Participants were surveyed immediately pre and post and 3 months after training to evaluate their attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of Rx for Change, and attitudes towards and confidence in skills for using evidence for decision-making. Analyses for differences for each of the outcomes at three time points (pre, post and 3 months after training) was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Immediately post-training, there were higher respondent attitudes towards Rx for Change (mean increase = 0.54 out of 5, 95% CI, 0.18-0.83, P < 0.005); intention to use Rx for Change (0.53, 95% CI, 0.21-0.86, P < 0.005); confidence in skills for using Rx for Change (2.08, 95% CI, 1.74-2.42, P < 0.005); and confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making (0.50, 95% CI, 0.22-0.77, P < .005) compared to pre-training. Confidence in skills for using both Rx for Change and evidence were maintained 3 months after training (both P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Participants of this training program reported sustained improvements in their confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making. This may have important implications for uptake of systematic review evidence promoting improved prescribing and medication use.

Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews.

Authors of Cochrane reviews are expected to update their reviews every 2 years. The updating process helps to ensure that reviews are current and include recent evidence. However, the updating process is time-consuming for authors, particularly when Cochrane methods evolve and authors are required to revisit some of the originally included studies.The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool is a mandatory component of Cochrane reviews, providing an assessment of the potential biases of included studies. The tool has been modified most recently in 2011, and the expectation is that new versions will continue to be produced and utilised in all Cochrane reviews. In this commentary we discuss, in the context of updating scenarios that are likely to be encountered, the potential options systematic review authors may have recourse to when the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool has been modified between the original review and its update. We recommend that authors who are updating reviews should revise their original assessments of included studies using the most recent version of the risk of bias tool. Despite the increased workload, use of the most recent version of the tool facilitates consistency of methods and reporting both across and within reviews, and ensures currency to the methodological rigour.

Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups.

BACKGROUND: Selective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in part by applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool to each included randomised trial. The Cochrane Handbook outlines strategies for a comprehensive risk of bias assessment, but the extent to which these are followed by Cochrane review groups (CRGs) has not been assessed to date. The objective of this study was to determine the methods which CRGs require of their authors to address SRB within systematic reviews, and how SRB risk assessments are verified. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed electronically to the 52 CRGs involved in intervention reviews. RESULTS: Responses from 42 CRGs show that the majority refer their authors to the Cochrane Handbook for specific instruction regarding assessments of SRB. The handbook strategies remain variably enforced, with 57 % (24/42) of CRGs not requiring review authors to search for included trial protocols and 31 % (13/42) not requiring that contact with individual study authors be attempted. Only half (48 %, 20/42) of the groups consistently verify review authors' assessments of the risk of SRB to ensure completeness. CONCLUSIONS: A range of practices are used by CRGs for addressing SRB, with many steps outlined in the Cochrane Handbook being encouraged but not required. The majority of CRGs do not consider their review authors to be sufficiently competent to assess for SRB, yet risk of bias assessments are not always verified by editors before publication. The implications of SRB may not be fully appreciated by all CRGs, and resolving the identified issues may require an approach targeting several steps in the systematic review process.

The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders of children and adolescents, with a significant impact on health services and the community in terms of economic and social burdens. The objective of this systematic review will be to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with ADHD. METHODS: Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews will be used to identify related systematic reviews and relevant randomized trials. Search results will be supplemented by reports from the regulatory and health technology agencies, clinical trials registers and by data requested from trialists and/or pharmaceutical companies. We will consider studies evaluating pharmacological interventions (e.g. stimulants, non-stimulants, antidepressants), psychological interventions (e.g. behavioural interventions, cognitive training and neurofeedback) and complementary and alternative medicine interventions (e.g. dietary interventions, supplement with fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, aminoacids, herbal treatment, homeopathy, and mind-body interventions including massage, chiropractic, acupuncture, yoga, meditation, Tai chi). Eligible control conditions will be placebo, waitlist, no treatment and usual care. Randomized controlled trials of a minimum of 3 weeks duration will be included. The primary outcomes of interest will be the proportion of patients who responded to treatment and who dropped out of the allocated treatment, respectively. Secondary outcomes will include treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, as well as the occurrences of serious adverse events and specific adverse events (decreased weight, anorexia, insomnia and sleep disturbances, anxiety, syncope and cardiovascular events). Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles in duplicate. Data will be abstracted and risk of bias will be appraised by two team members independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and network meta-analysis will compare the efficacy and safety of treatments used for ADHD in children and adolescents. The findings will assist patients, clinicians and healthcare providers to make evidence-based decisions regarding treatment selection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014015008 .

Assessing bias in osteoarthritis trials included in Cochrane reviews: protocol for a meta-epidemiological study.

INTRODUCTION: The validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis depends on methodological quality and unbiased dissemination of trials. Our objective is to evaluate the association of estimates of treatment effects with different bias-related study characteristics in meta-analyses of interventions used for treating pain in osteoarthritis (OA). From the findings, we hope to consolidate guidance on interpreting OA trials in systematic reviews based on empirical evidence from Cochrane reviews. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Only systematic reviews that compare experimental interventions with sham, placebo or no intervention control will be considered eligible. Bias will be assessed with the risk of bias tool, used according to the Cochrane Collaboration's recommendations. Furthermore, center status, trial size and funding will be assessed. The primary outcome (pain) will be abstracted from the first appearing forest plot for overall pain in the Cochrane review. Treatment effect sizes will be expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs), where the difference in mean values available from the forest plots is divided by the pooled SD. To empirically assess the risk of bias in treatment benefits, we will perform stratified analyses of the trials from the included meta-analyses and assess the interaction between trial characteristics and treatment effect. A relevant study-level covariate is defined as one that decreases the between-study variance (τ(2), estimated as Tau-squared) as a consequence of inclusion in the mixed effects statistical model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials provide the most reliable basis for treatment of patients with OA, but the actual impact of bias is unclear. This study will systematically examine the methodological quality in OA Cochrane reviews and explore the effect estimates behind possible bias. Since our study does not collect primary data, no formal ethical assessment and informed consent are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42013006924).

Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute.

OBJECTIVES: Although there is increasing interest in the evaluation of complex interventions, there is little guidance on how evidence from complex interventions may be reviewed and synthesized, and the relevance of the plethora of evidence synthesis methods to complexity is unclear. This article aims to explore how different meta-analytical approaches can be used to examine aspects of complexity; describe the contribution of various narrative, tabular, and graphical approaches to synthesis; and give an overview of the potential choice of selected qualitative and mixed-method evidence synthesis approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The methodological discussions presented here build on a 2-day workshop held in Montebello, Canada, in January 2012, involving methodological experts from the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations and from other international review centers (Anderson L, Petticrew M, Chandler J, et al. INTRODUCTION: systematic reviews of complex interventions. In press). These systematic review methodologists discussed the broad range of existing methods and considered the relevance of these methods to reviews of complex interventions. RESULTS: The evidence from primary studies of complex interventions may be qualitative or quantitative. There is a wide range of methodological options for reviewing and presenting this evidence. Specific contributions of statistical approaches include the use of meta-analysis, meta-regression, and Bayesian methods, whereas narrative summary approaches provide valuable precursors or alternatives to these. Qualitative and mixed-method approaches include thematic synthesis, framework synthesis, and realist synthesis. A suitable combination of these approaches allows synthesis of evidence for understanding complex interventions. CONCLUSION: Reviewers need to consider which aspects of complex interventions should be a focus of their review and what types of quantitative and/or qualitative studies they will be including, and this will inform their choice of review methods. These may range from standard meta-analysis through to more complex mixed-method synthesis and synthesis approaches that incorporate theory and/or user's perspectives.

A research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about complex interventions.

OBJECTIVES: This article outlines a research and development agenda for systematic reviews that ask complex questions about interventions varying in degree and type of complexity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Consensus development by key authors of articles on methodological challenges in systematic reviews of complex interventions, based on a 2-day workshop in Montebello, Canada, January 2012. RESULTS: There is an urgent need for a more precise and consistently applied lexicon and language to disaggregate several conceptually distinct dimensions of "complexity." Selected current evidence synthesis methods have potential application in reviews where complexity is important. There is a lack of evaluation of methods to better understand the nature of complex interventions and the optimal processes of synthesizing and interpreting evidence from these systematic reviews. Gaps in methods, knowledge, and know-how exist, and there is a need for additional guidance. CONCLUSION: Understanding how complexity can impact on findings of systematic reviews is critical. Experience in applying methods that have been developed to facilitate this understanding is limited, and the degree to which these approaches improve the systematic review process or transparency is only partially understood. Future research should concentrate on the impact of complexity on the systematic review process and findings and on further methodological development.

Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews - what does the evidence tell us?

BACKGROUND: Ensuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention intended to improve intermediate patient outcomes and process of care measures for patients with any type of diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened search results, appraised each systematic review using AMSTAR and extracted data from high quality reviews (AMSTAR score ≥ 5). Within reviews, we used vote counting by direction of effect to report the number of studies favouring an intervention for each outcome. We produced summaries of results for each intervention category. RESULTS: We identified 125 reviews of varying methodological quality and summarised key findings from 50 high quality reviews. We categorised reviews by quality improvement intervention. Eight reviews were broad based (involving a variety of strategies). Other reviews considered: patient education and support (n = 21), telemedicine (n = 10), provider role changes (n = 7), and organisational changes (n = 4). Reviews reported intermediate patient outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control) (n = 49) and process of care outcomes (n = 9). There was evidence of considerable overlap of included studies between reviews. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence from high quality systematic reviews that patient education and support, provider role changes, and telemedicine are associated with improvements in glycaemic and vascular risk factor control in patients. There is less evidence about the impact of quality improvement interventions on other key process measures such as screening patients for diabetic complications. This paper provides decision makers with a comprehensive overview of evidence from high quality systematic reviews about the effects of quality improvement interventions on improving diabetes care.