Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives often reflect approaches based on anecdotal evidence, but it is unclear how initiatives can best incorporate scientific literature and methods into the QI process. Review of studies of QI initiatives that aim to systematically incorporate evidence review (termed evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI)) may provide a basis for further methodological development. METHODS: In this scoping review (registration: https://osf.io/hr5bj ) of EBQI, we searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. The review addressed three central questions: How is EBQI defined? How is evidence used to inform evidence-informed QI initiatives? What is the effectiveness of EBQI? RESULTS: We identified 211 publications meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 170 publications explicitly used the term "EBQI." Published definitions emphasized relying on evidence throughout the QI process. We reviewed a subset of 67 evaluations of QI initiatives in primary care, including both studies that used the term "EBQI" with those that described an evidence-based initiative without using EBQI terminology. The most frequently reported EBQI components included use of evidence to identify previously tested effective QI interventions; engaging stakeholders; iterative intervention development; partnering with frontline clinicians; and data-driven evaluation of the QI intervention. Effectiveness estimates were positive but varied in size in ten studies that provided data on patient health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI is a promising strategy for integrating relevant prior scientific findings and methods systematically in the QI process, from the initial developmental phase of the IQ initiative through to its evaluation. Future QI researchers and practitioners can use these findings as the basis for further development of QI initiatives.

'Testosterone Boosting' Supplements Composition and Claims Are not Supported by the Academic Literature.

PURPOSE: Men take testosterone (T) boosting supplements to naturally improve T levels. We evaluated the composition and advertised claims of "T boosting" supplements, and supporting published evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty "T booster" supplements were evaluated for active ingredients and product claims, discovered via Google search. PubMed was reviewed for any literature supporting the claims, followed by review of Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) and upper tolerable intake level (UL) for each component. RESULTS: Ninety percent of supplements claimed to "boost T", 50% "improve libido", and 48% "feel stronger". One-hundred nine unique components were found, with a mean number of 8.3 per product. On PubMed, 24.8% of supplements had data showing an increase in T with supplementation, 10.1% had data showing a decrease in T, and 18.3% had data showing no change in T. No data were found on 61.5% of supplements on their effect on T. Supplements contained a median 1,291% of the RDA for vitamin B12, 807.6% for vitamin B6, 272% of zinc, 200% of vitamin B5, and 187.5% of vitamin B3. Thirteen products exceeded the US Food and Drug Administration UL of ingredients (zinc, vitamin B3, and magnesium). CONCLUSIONS: Ninety percent of "T booster" supplements claimed to boost T. However, only 24.8% of these had data to support these claims. A total of 10.1% contained components with data suggesting a negative effect on T. Many had supra-therapeutic doses of vitamins and minerals, occasionally over the UL. Patients should be informed that "T booster" supplements may not have ingredients to support their claims.

Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in early adulthood and blood lipids over a 23-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Some evidence in humans suggests that persistent organic pollutants (POPs), including organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), may alter the blood lipid composition. This study analyzed associations between serum POPs concentrations in young adulthood with blood lipid levels up to 23 years later. METHODS: Serum POPs were measured in year 2 of follow-up (n = 180 men and women, ages: 20-32y), and plasma lipids in follow-up years 2, 7, 10, 15, 20 and 25. 32 POPs were detectable in ≥75% of participants (23 PCBs, 8 OCPs and PBB-153). We created summary scores for PCBs and OCPs for both wet-weight, and lipid standardized (LP) concentrations. We used repeated measures regression adjusting for demographic factors, BMI, smoking, diabetes status, among others. RESULTS: We observed positive associations of the 23 LP-PCB score with total cholesterol (ßper SD increase [95%CI]: 5.0 mg/dL [0.7, 9.2]), triglycerides (7.8 mg/dL [-0.9, 16.5]), LDL (4.2 mg/dL [0.2, 8.2]), oxidized LDL 3.4 U/L (-0.05, 6.8), and cholesterol/HDL ratio (0.2 [0.02, 0.3]). The associations for triglycerides (14.7 mg/dL [0.4, 20.1]), cholesterol/HDL (0.33 [0.09, 0.56]) and, to some extent, LDL (4.7 md/dL [-1.6, 10.9]) were only observed among participants in the upper 50th percentile of BMI. Non-dioxin-like PCBs had stronger associations that dioxin-like PCBs. OCPs and PBB-s had positive associations with most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCBs and PBB-153 measured in young adulthood were positively associated with prospective alterations in most blood lipid components, with evidence of effect modification by BMI. Further longitudinal studies with multiple measures of POPs overtime are needed.

Discrepancies between the internet and academic literature regarding vitamin use for male infertility.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of online medical information is variable. A 2014 Cochrane review did not support a robust improvement in male infertility after antioxidant supplementation. Many subfertile men take vitamins in hopes of improving their fertility. We sought to evaluate the content of online information for male fertility vitamins, and compare this with the published literature. METHODS: We searched Google to assess online information regarding vitamins and male infertility. Websites were evaluated for authorship, content, claims and validity. We then reviewed the Recommended Daily Allowance and upper tolerable intake level for each vitamin, and compared this with the supplements actual content. RESULTS: Four websites were posted by an academic source, 7 private clinic, 31 industry, 8 were patient blogs and 50 other sources. Reproductive claims made by websites included: Improved sperm count: 65; improved pregnancy rates: 42; improved live birth rates: 9; healthier offspring: 18. Overall, 76 websites claimed some improvement in semen parameters; 85 claimed some improved reproductive outcome. 26 websites were supported by peer-reviewed literature. None of the supplements had more than the upper tolerable intake level of any of the vitamins, but several were over the RDA, most commonly zinc, vitamin B12 and selenium. CONCLUSIONS: Many websites claim improvements in a variety of male reproductive outcomes after vitamin supplementation. These are often not supported by the medical literature. We need to provide evidence-based information to patients so that they can have realistic expectations of the benefits that vitamins may have on male reproductive outcomes.