Health inequities in dialysis care: A scoping review.

MAIN PROBLEM: We aim to look at potential gaps in current dialysis literature on inequities and explore future research that could contribute to more equitable care. METHODS: Following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a scoping review of health inequities in dialysis. PubMed and Ovid Embase were searched in July 2022 for articles published between 2016 and 2022 that examined at least one of the following NIH defined health inequities: race/ethnicity, sex/gender, LGBTQ+ identity, underserved rural populations, education level, income, and occupation status. Frequencies of each health inequity as well as trends over time of the four most examined inequities were analyzed. RESULTS: In our sample of 69 included studies, gaps were identified in LGBTQ+ identity and patient education. Inequities pertaining to race/ethnicity, sex/gender, underserved rural populations, and income were sufficiently reported. No trends between inequities investigated over time were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review examined current literature on health inequities pertaining to dialysis and found gaps concerning LGBTQ+ and patients with lower levels of education. To help fill these gaps, and possibly alleviate additional burden to these patients, we recommend cultural competency training for providers and dialysis center staff as well as community-based educational programs to improve dialysis patients' health literacy.

Lowering the statistical significance threshold of randomized controlled trials in three major general anesthesiology journals.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of our study was to determine how lowering a P value threshold from 0.05 to 0.005 would affect the statistical significance of previously published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in major anesthesiology journals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for studies electronically published in 2020 within three major general anesthesiology journals as indexed by both Google Metrics and Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Studies included were RCTs published in 2020 in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia; had a primary endpoint, and used a P value threshold to determine the effect of the intervention. We performed screening and data extraction in a masked duplicate fashion. RESULTS: Ninety-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. The most frequently studied type of intervention was drugs (44/91, 48%). From the 91 trials, 99 primary endpoints, and thus P values, were obtained. Fifty-eight (59%) endpoints had a P value < 0.05 and 41 (41%) had a P value ≥ 0.05. Of the 58 primary endpoints previously considered statistically significant, 21 (36%) P values would maintain statistical significance at P < 0.005, and 37 (64%) would be reclassified as "suggestive." CONCLUSIONS: Lowering a P value threshold of 0.05 to 0.005 would have altered one third of significance interpretations of RCTs in the surveyed anesthesiology literature. Thus, it is important for readers to consider post hoc probabilities when evaluating clinical trial results. Although the present study focused on the anesthesiology literature, we suggest that our results warrant further research within other fields of medicine to help avoid clinical misinterpretation of RCT findings and improve quality of care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'objectif principal de notre étude était de déterminer comment l'abaissement d'un seuil de valeur P de 0,05 à 0,005 affecterait la signification statistique des études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) précédemment publiées dans certaines des principales revues d'anesthésiologie. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé des recherches dans la base de données PubMed pour trouver des études publiées électroniquement en 2020 dans trois des principales revues d'anesthésiologie générale et indexées par Google Metrics et Scimago Journal & Country Rank. Les études incluses étaient des ERC publiées en 2020 dans les revues Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, et le British Journal of Anaesthesia, qui avaient un critère d'évaluation principal et utilisaient un seuil de valeur P pour déterminer l'effet de l'intervention. Nous avons effectué la sélection et l'extraction des données de manière dupliquée masquée. RéSULTATS: Quatre-vingt-onze ERC remplissaient les critères d'inclusion. Le type d'intervention le plus fréquemment étudié était de nature médicamenteuse (44/91, 48 %). Sur les 91 études, 99 critères d'évaluation principaux, et donc valeurs P, ont été obtenus. Cinquante-huit (59 %) critères d'évaluation avaient une valeur P < 0,05 et 41 (41 %) avaient une valeur P ≥ 0,05. Sur les 58 critères d'évaluation principaux précédemment considérés comme statistiquement significatifs, 21 (36 %) valeurs P maintiendraient leur signification statistique à P < 0,005, et 37 (64 %) seraient reclassées comme étant « suggestives ¼. CONCLUSION: Le fait d'abaisser le seuil de valeur P de 0,05 à 0,005 aurait modifié un tiers des interprétations de signification des ERC dans la littérature anesthésiologique étudiée. Il est donc important que les lectrices et lecteurs tiennent compte des probabilités post hoc lors de l'évaluation des résultats d'études cliniques. Bien que la présente étude se soit concentrée sur la littérature en anesthésiologie, nous suggérons que nos résultats justifient des recherches supplémentaires dans d'autres domaines de la médecine afin d'éviter une mauvaise interprétation clinique des résultats des ERC et d'améliorer la qualité des soins.

Factors associated with health inequities in access to kidney transplantation in the USA: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The kidney is the most needed organ for transplantation in the United States. However, demand and scarcity of this organ has caused significant inequities for historically marginalized groups. In this review, we report on the frequency of inequities in all steps of kidney transplantation from 2016 to 2022. Search criteria was based on the National Institute of Health's (NIH) 2022 list of populations who experience health inequities, which includes: race and ethnicity; sex or gender; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer + (LGBTQ+); underserved rural communities; education level; income; and occupation status. We outline steps for future research aimed at assessing interventions and programs to improve health outcomes. METHODS: This scoping review was developed following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. In July 2022, we searched Medline (via PubMed) and Ovid Embase databases to identify articles addressing inequities in access to kidney transplantation in the United States. Articles had to address at least one of the NIH's 2022 health inequity groups. RESULTS: Our sample of 44 studies indicate that Black race, female sex or gender, and low socioeconomic status are negatively associated with referral, evaluation, and waitlisting for kidney transplantation. Furthermore, only two studies from our sample investigated LGBTQ+ identity since the NIH's addition of SGM in 2016 regarding access to transplantation. Lastly, we found no detectable trend in studies for the four most investigated inequity groups between 2016 and 2022. CONCLUSION: Investigations in inequities for access to kidney transplantation for the two most studied groups, race/ethnicity and sex or gender, have shown no change in frequencies. Regarding race and ethnicity, continued interventions focused on educating Black patients and staff of dialysis facilities may increase transplant rates. Studies aimed at assessing effectiveness of the Kidney Paired Donation program are highly warranted due to incompatibility problems in female patients. The sparse representation for the LGBTQ+ population may be due to a lack of standardized data collection for sexual orientation. We recommend this community be engaged via surveys and further investigations.

Health inequities in human papillomavirus prevention, diagnostics and clinical care in the USA: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) represents the most common STI in the USA. HPV inequities in prevention, diagnostics and clinical care persist. We define inequities as systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review are to chart existing data on HPV-related inequities, identify gaps in existing literature and guide future research to reduce these inequities. METHODS: We completed a scoping review following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping reviews extension. We performed a literature search on PubMed and Ovid Embase in July 2022 for articles pertaining to HPV and evaluating populations within the USA. We included English language publications from 2018 to 2022 evaluating at least one health inequity outlined by the National Institutes of Health. General publication characteristics and health inequity data were charted in a masked, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google Form. We analysed frequencies of health inequities and summarised main findings from included studies. RESULTS: Our final sample included 170 publications. The most common inequities examined were race/ethnicity (140 studies), sex or gender (97 studies), and income (69 studies). Many historically marginalised racial/ethnic groups had lower rates of HPV-related knowledge, vaccination and worse overall outcomes related to HPV. Compared with women, men had lower rates of HPV vaccination and provider recommendation, and higher rates of HPV-infection. Results regarding income were largely conflicting. CONCLUSION: Findings from our review demonstrate clear gaps in HPV-related inequity research. Vaccine completion, provider recommendation and intersectionality should continue to be evaluated to implement targeted interventions.

Sickle Cell Disease and Quality of Life: An Evaluation of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials.

Sickle cell disease significantly impacts one's quality of life (QOL); thus, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have integrated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess patients' health from their perspective. We aim to evaluate the completeness of reporting of PROs included in sickle cell disease RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published sickle cell disease RCTs with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2021. In a masked, duplicate fashion, two investigators evaluated RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting in Trials (CONSORT)-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. The primary objective was mean percent completeness of the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Additional relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting were evaluated. Mean completeness of reporting of RCTs was 41.49% (SD = 20.90). Randomized controlled trials with primary outcomes were more complete (57.50%, SD = 8.33) than RCTs with secondary PROs (33.48%, SD = 20.91). We did not find a significant difference in completion between trials with primary PROs and secondary PROs (t1 = 2.07; p = 0.06). Our secondary objectives included factors that may be associated with completeness of PRO reporting. Of the 12 included studies, five were considered to be overall 'high' RoB (41.67%). In each of the five domains, the majority of studies received 'low' RoB evaluations. Incomplete PRO reporting was common within sickle cell RCTs. Therefore, we recommend future RCTs including PROs should take measures to increase completeness of reporting.

Quality of reporting among systematic reviews underpinning the ESC/ACC guidelines on ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) supporting the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). As a secondary objective, we sought to determine: (1) the proportion of Cochrane SRs were cited; and (2) whether Cochrane SRs scored higher on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) appraisals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We searched for CPGs published by the ESC and the ACC from 2010 to 2020. We selected the CPGs for ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of SCD. The reference sections were searched for SRs. Two independent investigators evaluated eligible SR using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR-2 assessment tool. RESULTS: Two CPGs for ventricular arrhythmia and SCD were included in this study. Fifty-five SRs were included in our analysis. Across all SRs, the mean PRISMA score was 0.70. The lowest scoring PRISMA item related to the presence of a pre-published protocol (item 5, score 0.17). Overall, 40% of included SRs were found to have 'critically low' AMSTAR-2 ratings. One of the lowest scoring items for AMSTAR-2 was reporting of sources of funding (item 10). The 4 Cochrane SRs that were included scored higher on both assessment tools than non-Cochrane studies, specifically in PRISMA overall completion (88.7% vs 69.7%). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests the methodological and reporting quality of SRs used within ESC and ACC CPGs is insufficient, as demonstrated by the lack of adherence to both AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA checklists. Given the importance of CPGs on clinical decision making, and ultimately patient care, the methodological rigour and quality reporting within SRs used in CPGs should be held to the highest standard within the field of cardiology.

Evaluating Reporting Completeness of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Esophageal Motility Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Esophageal motility disorders (EMD) can have significant effects on quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide valuable insight into the patient's perspective on their treatment and are becoming increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, our investigation aims to evaluate the completeness of reporting of PROs in RCTs pertaining to EMDs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published RCTs focused on EMDs. Included RCTs were published between 2006 and 2020, reported a primary outcome related to an EMDs, and listed at least one PRO measure as a primary or secondary outcome. Investigators screened and extracted data in a masked, duplicate fashion. Data extraction was carried out using both the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. We assessed overall mean percent completion of the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and a bivariate regression analysis was used to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. The overall mean percent completion of the CONSORT-PRO checklist adaptation was 43.86% (SD = 17.03). RCTs with a primary PRO had a mean completeness of 47.73% (SD = 17.32) and RCTs with a secondary PRO was 35.36% (SD = 13.52). RCTs with a conflict of interest statement were 18.15% (SE = 6.5) more complete (t = 2.79, P = .009) than trials lacking a statement. No additional significant associations between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting were found. PRO reporting completeness in RCTs focused on EMDs was inadequate. We urge EMD researchers to prioritize complete PRO reporting to foster patient-centered research for future RCTs on EMDs.

An analysis of the evidence underpinning the national comprehensive cancer network practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the quality and completeness of systematic reviews (SRs) included by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer screening clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: We evaluated SRs according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). RESULTS: Seven NCCN CPGs were included with 109 SRs. The mean PRISMA percent completeness of included SRs was 71 % (range 0.1-1.0). The mean AMSTAR-2 percent completeness was 56 % (range 0.05-0.99). Of the 70 SRs assessed via AMSTAR-2, 42 (60 %) received a "critically low" rating, 11 (15.7 %) received "low" ratings, and 17 (24.3 %) received "moderate". None of the SRs received a "high" rating. CONCLUSION: Lack of adherence to AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA reporting standards among the SRs included is prevalent. We suggest improved reporting of SR inclusion criteria and evaluation to bolster the reporting quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations.