Major Update 2: Antibody Response and Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Final Update of a Living, Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: The durability of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the role of antibodies in protection against reinfection are unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and reinfection risk with a focus on gaps identified in our prior reports. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CINAHL, World Health Organization Research Database, and reference lists from 16 December 2021 through 8 July 2022, with surveillance through 22 August 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language, cohort studies evaluating IgG antibody duration at least 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection, the antibody response among immunocompromised adults, predictors of nonseroconversion, and reinfection risk. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most adults had IgG antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection at time points greater than 12 months (low strength of evidence [SoE]). Although most immunocompromised adults develop antibodies, the overall proportion with antibodies is lower compared with immunocompetent adults (moderate SoE for organ transplant patients and low SoE for patients with cancer or HIV). Prior infection provided substantial, sustained protection against symptomatic reinfection with the Delta variant (high SoE) and reduced the risk for severe disease due to Omicron variants (moderate SoE). Prior infection was less protective against reinfection with Omicron overall (moderate SoE), but protection from earlier variants waned rapidly (low SoE). LIMITATION: Single review for abstract screening and sequential review for study selection, data abstraction, and quality assessment. CONCLUSION: Evidence for a sustained antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection is considerable for both Delta and Omicron variants. Prior infection protected against reinfection with both variants, but, for Omicron, protection was weaker and waned rapidly. This information may have limited clinical applicability as new variants emerge. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Improving grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation evidence tables part 4: a three-arm noninferiority randomized trial demonstrates improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative formats of summary of findings (SoF) tables for single comparison with multiple outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial (RCT) in the following systematic review (SR) users: researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, health care providers, policymakers, and knowledge transfer organizations to measure understanding, accessibility, satisfaction, and preference across the current grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) SoF, an alternative GRADE SoF, or an adapted evidence-based practice center (EPC) program SoF table. RESULTS: One Hundred Seventy-Nine participants were randomized, and 129 participants completed the RCT (n = 47 current GRADE, n = 41 alternative GRADE, n = 41 adapted EPC). Understanding the certainty of evidence and treatment effect was comparable across groups. The adapted EPC SoF table was inferior for quantifying risk and RD compared to the alternatives (<35% correct vs. >85% correct). Participants reported increased satisfaction when SoF tables presented number needed to treat (NNT), anticipated absolute effect differences, and narrative syntheses for evidence that could not be meta-analyzed. Participants reported accessibility to information as significantly better in both GRADE SoF tables, when compared with the adapted EPC SoF table. Participants preferred the alternative GRADE SoF table format. CONCLUSION: The alternative GRADE SoF table is a promising format for SR users preferring a comprehensive presentation of SR results for single comparisons.

Complexity and Challenges of the Clinical Diagnosis and Management of Long COVID.

Importance: There is increasing recognition of the long-term health effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection (sometimes called long COVID). However, little is yet known about the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID within health systems. Objective: To describe dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID in the electronic health records (EHRs) of patients with a diagnostic code for this condition (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code U09.9). Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative analysis used data from EHRs of a national random sample of 200 patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with documentation of a positive result on a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 between February 27, 2020, and December 31, 2021, and an ICD-10 diagnostic code for long COVID between October 1, 2021, when the code was implemented, and March 1, 2022. Data were analyzed from February 5 to May 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A text word search and qualitative analysis of patients' VA-wide EHRs was performed to identify dominant themes pertaining to the clinical diagnosis and management of long COVID. Results: In this qualitative analysis of documentation in the VA-wide EHR, the mean (SD) age of the 200 sampled patients at the time of their first positive PCR test result for SARS-CoV-2 in VA records was 60 (14.5) years. The sample included 173 (86.5%) men; 45 individuals (22.5%) were identified as Black and 136 individuals (68.0%) were identified as White. In qualitative analysis of documentation pertaining to long COVID in patients' EHRs 2 dominant themes were identified: (1) clinical uncertainty, in that it was often unclear whether particular symptoms could be attributed to long COVID, given the medical complexity and functional limitations of many patients and absence of specific markers for this condition, which could lead to ongoing monitoring, diagnostic testing, and specialist referral; and (2) care fragmentation, describing how post-COVID-19 care processes were often siloed from and poorly coordinated with other aspects of care and could be burdensome to patients. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of documentation in the VA EHR highlights the complexity of diagnosing long COVID in clinical settings and the challenges of caring for patients who have or are suspected of having this condition.

Health Experiences Research as a Resource and Mechanism for Veteran Engagement in VA Healthcare Research and Care Delivery.

Engaging patients in the research process helps to ensure researchers ask meaningful questions and generate useful evidence to inform healthcare decisions. In 2015, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) Health Services Research & Development (HSR&D) service convened a Veteran engagement workgroup, comprised of researchers, clinicians, and Veterans, to identify ways to integrate Veteran engagement into HSR&D. A subgroup was designated to explore the utility of health experiences research (research focused on enhancing understanding of people's experiences with healthcare and illnesses) as a mechanism to complement and broaden traditional engagement mechanisms. The subgroup recommended the VA adopt the Database of Individual Patient Experiences (DIPEx) methodology for conducting and disseminating health experiences research (HER). In this paper, we describe (1) the key components of the DIPEx approach, (2) how these components complement and broaden current methods of Veteran engagement, (3) an update on VA activities using the DIPEx approach, and (4) a roadmap for future VA HER activities.

Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2: A Living, Rapid Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points on the Role of the Antibody Response in Conferring Immunity Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

BACKGROUND: The strength and duration of immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 are important for public health planning and clinical practice. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on protection against reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), the World Health Organization global literature database, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID19reviews.org, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Longitudinal studies that compared the risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus infection risk in individuals with no prior infection. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Across 18 eligible studies, reinfection risk ranged from 0% to 2.2%. In persons with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals, 80% to 98% of symptomatic infections with wild-type or Alpha variants were prevented (high strength of evidence). In the meta-analysis, previous infection reduced risk for reinfection by 87% (95% CI, 84% to 90%), equaling 4.3 fewer infections per 100 persons in both the general population (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.071 to -0.015]) and health care workers (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.069 to -0.016]), and 26.6 fewer infections per 100 persons in care facilities (risk difference, -0.266 [CI, -0.449 to -0.083]). Protection remained above 80% for at least 7 months, but no study followed patients after the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variant. Results for the elderly were conflicting. LIMITATION: Methods to ascertain and diagnose infections varied. CONCLUSION: Before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, persons with recent infection had strong protection against symptomatic reinfections for 7 months compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals. Protection in immunocompromised persons, racial and ethnic subgroups, and asymptomatic index case patients is unclear. The durability of protection in the setting of the Delta and Omicron variants is unknown. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly "Final Research Reports" of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI's Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. METHODS: Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers' comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. RESULTS: We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). DISCUSSION: Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder's peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

Fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Orthostatic hypotension is an excessive fall in blood pressure (BP) while standing and is the result of a decrease in cardiac output or defective or inadequate vasoconstrictor mechanisms. Fludrocortisone is a mineralocorticoid that increases blood volume and blood pressure. Fludrocortisone is considered the first- or second-line pharmacological therapy for orthostatic hypotension alongside mechanical and positional measures such as increasing fluid and salt intake and venous compression methods. However, there has been no Cochrane Review of the benefits and harms of this drug for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To identify and evaluate the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 11 November 2019: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We also searched trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all studies evaluating the benefits and harms of fludrocortisone compared to placebo, another drug for orthostatic hypotension, or studies without comparators, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and observational studies. We included studies in people with orthostatic hypotension due to a chronic peripheral neuropathy, a central autonomic neuropathy, or autonomic failure from other causes, but not medication-induced orthostatic hypotension or orthostatic hypotension from acute volume depletion or blood loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane methodological procedures for most of the review. We developed and used a tool to prioritize observational studies that offered the best available evidence where there are gaps in the evidence from RCTs. We assessed the certainty of evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies of 513 participants, including three cross-over RCTs and 10 observational studies (three cohort studies, six case series and one case-control study). The included RCTs were small (total of 28 participants in RCTs), short term (two to three weeks), only examined fludrocortisone for orthostatic hypotension in people with two conditions (diabetes and Parkinson disease), and had variable risk of bias (two had unclear risk of bias and one had low risk of bias). Heterogeneity in participant populations, comparators and outcome assessment methods prevented meta-analyses of the RCTs. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone versus placebo on drop in BP in people with diabetes (-26 mmHg versus -39 mmHg systolic; -7 mmHg versus -11 mmHg diastolic; 1 cross-over study, 6 participants). For people with Parkinson disease, we found very-low certainty evidence about the effects of fludrocortisone on drop in BP compared to pyridostigmine (-14 mmHg versus -22.1 mmHg diastolic; P = 0.036; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) and domperidone (no change after treatment in either group; 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). For orthostatic symptoms, we found very low-certainty evidence for fludrocortisone versus placebo in people with diabetes (4 out of 5 analyzed participants had improvements in orthostatic symptoms, 1 cross-over study, 6 participants), for fludrocortisone versus pyridostigmine in people with Parkinson disease (orthostatic symptoms unchanged; 1 cross-over study, 9 participants) or fludrocortisone versus domperidone (improvement to 6 for both interventions on the Composite Autonomic Symptom Scale-Orthostatic Domain (COMPASS-OD); 1 cross-over study, 13 participants). Evidence on adverse events was also very low-certainty in both populations, but indicated side effects were minimal. Observational studies filled some gaps in evidence by examining the effects in larger groups of participants, with more diverse conditions, over longer periods of time. One cohort study (341 people studied retrospectively) found fludrocortisone may not be harmful in the long term for familial dysautonomia. However, it is unclear if this translates to long-term improvements in BP drop or a meaningful improvement in orthostatic symptoms. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of fludrocortisone on blood pressure, orthostatic symptoms or adverse events in people with orthostatic hypotension and diabetes or Parkinson disease. There is a lack of information on long-term treatment and treatment of orthostatic hypotension in other disease states. There is a need for standardized reporting of outcomes and for standardization of measurements of blood pressure in orthostatic hypotension.

Improving the utility of evidence synthesis for decision makers in the face of insufficient evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and suggest strategies to make insufficient evidence ratings in systematic reviews more actionable. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A workgroup comprising members from the Evidence-Based Practice (EPC) Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality convened throughout 2020. We conducted iterative discussions considering information from three data sources: a literature review for relevant publications and frameworks, a review of a convenience sample of past systematic reviews conducted by the EPCs, and an audit of methods used in past EPC technical briefs. RESULTS: We identified five strategies for supplementing systematic review findings when evidence on benefits or harms is expected to be, or found to be, insufficient: 1) reconsider eligible study designs, 2) summarize indirect evidence, 3) summarize contextual and implementation evidence, 4) consider modelling, and 5) incorporate unpublished health system data in the evidence synthesis. While these strategies may not increase the strength of evidence, they may improve the utility of reports for decision makers. Adopting these strategies depends on feasibility, timeline, funding, and expertise of the systematic reviewers. CONCLUSION: Throughout the process of evidence synthesis of early scoping, protocol development, review conduct, and review presentation, authors can consider these five strategies to supplement evidence with insufficient rating to make it more actionable for end-users.

Antibody Response After SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity : A Rapid Living Review.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of the antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence on the prevalence, levels, and durability of detectable antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection and whether antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confer natural immunity. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization global literature database, and Covid19reviews.org from 1 January through 15 December 2020, limited to peer-reviewed publications available in English. STUDY SELECTION: Primary studies characterizing the prevalence, levels, and duration of antibodies in adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR); reinfection incidence; and unintended consequences of antibody testing. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Moderate-strength evidence suggests that most adults develop detectable levels of IgM and IgG antibodies after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and that IgG levels peak approximately 25 days after symptom onset and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that IgM levels peak at approximately 20 days and then decline. Low-strength evidence suggests that most adults generate neutralizing antibodies, which may persist for several months like IgG. Low-strength evidence also suggests that older age, greater disease severity, and presence of symptoms may be associated with higher antibody levels. Some adults do not develop antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection for reasons that are unclear. LIMITATIONS: Most studies were small and had methodological limitations; studies used immunoassays of variable accuracy. CONCLUSION: Most adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by RT-PCR develop antibodies. Levels of IgM peak early in the disease course and then decline, whereas IgG peaks later and may remain detectable for at least 120 days. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

REPRINT OF: Current Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A Review of the Process.

Editor's Note: This article is a reprint of a previously published article. For citation purposes, please use the original publication details: Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3S):21-35. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF/Task Force) represents one of several efforts to take a more evidence-based approach to the development of clinical practice guidelines. As methods have matured for assembling and reviewing evidence and for translating evidence into guidelines, so too have the methods of the USPSTF. This paper summarizes the current methods of the third USPSTF, supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and two of the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs). The Task Force limits the topics it reviews to those conditions that cause a large burden of suffering to society and that also have available a potentially effective preventive service. It focuses its reviews on the questions and evidence most critical to making a recommendation. It uses analytic frameworks to specify the linkages and key questions connecting the preventive service with health outcomes. These linkages, together with explicit inclusion criteria, guide the literature searches for admissible evidence. Once assembled, admissible evidence is reviewed at three strata: (1) the individual study, (2) the body of evidence concerning a single linkage in the analytic framework, and (3) the body of evidence concerning the entire preventive service. For each stratum, the Task Force uses explicit criteria as general guidelines to assign one of three grades of evidence: good, fair, or poor. Good or fair quality evidence for the entire preventive service must include studies of sufficient design and quality to provide an unbroken chain of evidence-supported linkages, generalizable to the general primary care population, that connect the preventive service with health outcomes. Poor evidence contains a formidable break in the evidence chain such that the connection between the preventive service and health outcomes is uncertain. For services supported by overall good or fair evidence, the Task Force uses outcomes tables to help categorize the magnitude of benefits, harms, and net benefit from implementation of the preventive service into one of four categories: substantial, moderate, small, or zero/negative. The Task Force uses its assessment of the evidence and magnitude of net benefit to make a recommendation, coded as a letter: from A (strongly recommended) to D (recommend against). It gives an I recommendation in situations in which the evidence is insufficient to determine net benefit. The third Task Force and the EPCs will continue to examine a variety of methodologic issues and document work group progress in future communications.

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can assess the results and the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overview of the domains, and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically. RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies. CONCLUSION: Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests.

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 2. Test accuracy: inconsistency, imprecision, publication bias, and other domains for rating the certainty of evidence and presenting it in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias, and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. RESULTS: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies. CONCLUSION: Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. Although several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.

GRADE guidelines: 22. The GRADE approach for tests and strategies-from test accuracy to patient-important outcomes and recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group's framework of moving from test accuracy to patient or population-important outcomes. We focus on the common scenario when studies directly evaluating the effect of diagnostic and other tests or strategies on health outcomes are not available or are not providing the best available evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using practical examples, we explored how guideline developers and other decision makers can use information from test accuracy to develop a recommendation by linking evidence that addresses downstream consequences. Guideline panels should develop an analytic framework that summarizes the actions that follow from applying a test and the consequences. RESULTS: We describe GRADE's current thinking about the overall certainty of the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) arising from consideration of the often complex pathways that involve multiple tests and management options. Each link in the evidence can-and often does-lower the overall certainty of the evidence required to formulate recommendations and make decisions about tests. The frequency with which an outcome occurs and its importance will influence whether or not a particular step in the linked evidence is critical to decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Overall certainty may be expressed by the weakest critical step in the linked evidence. The linked approach to addressing optimal testing will often require the use of decision analytic approaches. We present an example that involves decision modeling in a GRADE Evidence to Decision framework for cervical cancer screening. However, because resources and time of guideline developers may be limited, we describe alternative, pragmatic strategies for developing recommendations addressing test use.

Objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive problems in veterans initiating psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder: An exploratory study.

The prevalence of cognitive impairment in Veterans initiating an evidence-based psychotherapy (EBP) for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is not yet established and has implications for service delivery. Our objectives were to (1) describe the type, severity, and prevalence of objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive problems experienced by Veterans at the time they began an EBP for PTSD and (2) determine whether assessments of objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive problems agree. We conducted objective and subjective (self-report) cognitive assessments in a sample of 38 Veterans initiating EBP for PTSD at one Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Thirty Veterans produced valid assessments. Almost half (14/30) of the participants demonstrated objective impairment in one or more cognitive domains, primarily in the areas of learning, memory, and processing speed. Almost all (29/30) participants endorsed moderate or greater cognitive problems on at least one self-report measure. After adjustment for multiple comparisons, there were no significant correlations between objective and subjective assessments. Objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive problems are common in Veterans beginning an EBP for PTSD. Longitudinal research on a larger sample is warranted to better understand relationships among subjective cognitive problems, objective cognitive impairment, and PTSD treatment participation and outcomes.

Rapid Evidence Review of Mobile Applications for Self-management of Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes lack information on which commercially available applications (apps) improve diabetes-related outcomes. We conducted a rapid evidence review to examine features, clinical efficacy, and usability of apps for self-management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in adults. METHODS: Ovid/Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for systematic reviews and technology assessments. Reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were examined for primary studies. Additional searches for primary studies were conducted online, through Ovid/Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov . Studies were evaluated for eligibility based on predetermined criteria, data were extracted, study quality was assessed using a risk of bias tool, information on app features was collected, and app usability was assessed. Results are summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Fifteen articles evaluating 11 apps were identified: six apps for type 1 and five apps for type 2 diabetes. Common features of apps included setting reminders and tracking blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), medication use, physical activity, and weight. Compared with controls, use of eight apps, when paired with support from a healthcare provider or study staff, improved at least one outcome, most often HbA1c. Patients did not experience improvements in quality of life, blood pressure, or weight, regardless of app used or type of diabetes. Study quality was variable. Of the eight apps available for usability testing, two were scored "acceptable," three were "marginal," and three were "not acceptable." DISCUSSION: Limited evidence suggests that use of some commercially available apps, when combined with additional support from a healthcare provider or study staff, may improve some short-term diabetes-related outcomes. The impact of these apps on longer-term outcomes is unclear. More rigorous and longer-term studies of apps are needed. REGISTRATION: This review was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The protocol is available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/diabetes-mobile-devices/research-protocol .

Effectiveness of Models Used to Deliver Multimodal Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: a Rapid Evidence Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) face many system- and patient-level challenges in providing multimodal care for patients with complex chronic pain as recommended in some pain management guidelines. Several models have been developed to improve the delivery of multimodal chronic pain care. These models vary in their key components, and work is needed to identify which have the strongest evidence of clinically-important improvements in pain and function. Our objective was to determine which primary care-based multimodal chronic pain care models provide clinically relevant benefits, define key elements of these models, and identify patients who are most likely to benefit. METHODS: To identify studies, we searched MEDLINE® (1996 to October 2016), CINAHL, reference lists, and numerous other sources and consulted with experts. We used predefined criteria for study selection, data abstraction, internal validity assessment, and strength of evidence grading. RESULTS: We identified nine models, evaluated in mostly randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RCTs included 3816 individuals primarily from the USA. The most common pain location was the back. Five models primarily coupling a decision-support component-most commonly algorithm-guided treatment and/or stepped care-with proactive ongoing treatment monitoring have the best evidence of providing clinically relevant improvement in pain intensity and pain-related function over 9 to 12 months (NNT range, 4 to 13) and variable improvement in quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. The strength of the evidence was generally low, as each model was only supported by a single RCT with imprecise findings. DISCUSSION: Multimodal chronic pain care delivery models coupling decision support with proactive treatment monitoring consistently provide clinically relevant improvement in pain and function. Wider implementation of these models should be accompanied by further evaluation of clinical and implementation effectiveness.

Two alternatives versus the standard Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) tables to improve understanding in the presentation of systematic review results: a three-arm, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: Summary of findings (SoF) tables present results of systematic reviews in a concise and explicit format. Adopted by many review groups including the Cochrane Collaboration and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), optimal understanding of SoF table may be influenced by the type of information being conveyed and objectives or preferences of the end user. This study aims to compare three SoF table formats in terms of understanding, accessibility, satisfaction and preference with systematic review users. METHODS: The primary objective of this three-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to investigate whether an alternative Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) SoF table or Evidence-based Practice Center SoF table is non-inferior to the current GRADE SoF table in the understanding of the information presented to systematic review users, particularly for descriptive findings. Researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, policy-makers or knowledge transfer professionals will be recruited. Data will be collected electronically at baseline and after randomisation. Non-inferiority would be declared if the difference in the proportion of participants who understand the information displayed in the alternative SoF table is 10% or less. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this protocol. The findings from this study will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02813941.