Executive summary of the KDIGO 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease: known knowns and known unknowns.

The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) updates the KDIGO 2012 guideline and has been developed with patient partners, clinicians, and researchers around the world, using robust methodology. This update, based on a substantially broader base of evidence than has previously been available, reflects an exciting time in nephrology. New therapies and strategies have been tested in large and diverse populations that help to inform care; however, this guideline is not intended for people receiving dialysis nor those who have a kidney transplant. The document is sensitive to international considerations, CKD across the lifespan, and discusses special considerations in implementation. The scope includes chapters dedicated to the evaluation and risk assessment of people with CKD, management to delay CKD progression and its complications, medication management and drug stewardship in CKD, and optimal models of CKD care. Treatment approaches and actionable guideline recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant studies and appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations which followed the "Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation" (GRADE) approach. The limitations of the evidence are discussed. The guideline also provides practice points, which serve to direct clinical care or activities for which a systematic review was not conducted, and it includes useful infographics and describes an important research agenda for the future. It targets a broad audience of people with CKD and their healthcare, while being mindful of implications for policy and payment.

Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.

Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process.

BACKGROUND: As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors. METHODS: Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors (Individuals). RESULTS: The survey's response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/gmv6z.

Multiple chemical sensitivity scoping review protocol: overview of research and MCS construct.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been characterised by reported adverse responses to environmental exposures of common chemical agents (eg, perfumes, paint, cleaning products and other inhaled or ingested agents) in low doses considered non-toxic for the general population. There is currently no consensus on whether MCS can be established as a distinct disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review of the literature will be guided by five questions: How is MCS defined and which diagnostic criteria have been proposed? What methods are used to report prevalence and incidence estimates of MCS? What are the characteristics of the body of scientific evidence that addresses whether MCS is a distinct disorder or syndrome? What underlying mechanisms for MCS have been proposed in the scientific literature? Which treatment and management approaches for MCS have been evaluated in empirical research studies? We will conduct a comprehensive search in 14 research databases. Citation screening will be supported by machine learning algorithms. Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility of full-text publications against prespecified criteria. Data abstraction will support concise evidence tables. A formal consultation exercise will elicit input regarding the review results and presentation. The existing research evidence will be documented in a user-friendly visualisation in the format of an evidence map. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Determined to be exempt from review (UP-22-00516). Results will be disseminated through a journal manuscript and data will be publicly accessible through an online data repository. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol is registered in Open Science Framework (osf.io/4a3wu).

Re-evaluating the role of pilot trials in informing effect and sample size estimates for full-scale trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Some have argued that pilot trials have little value for informing the expected effect size of a subsequent large trial. This study aims to empirically evaluate the roles of pilot trials in informing the effect and sample size estimates of a full-scale trial. METHODS: We conducted a search in PubMed on 19 February 2022, for all pilot trials published between 2005 and 2018 and their subsequent full-scale trials. We analysed the agreement in results by comparing the direction and magnitude of the effect size in the pilot trial and full-scale trial. Logistic regression was used to explore whether a significant pilot trial and other characteristics were associated with a significant full-scale trial. RESULTS: A total of 248 pairs of pilot and full-scale trials were analysed. Full-scale trials with a significant pilot trial were 2.72 times more likely to find a significant result for the primary efficacy outcome than those with a non-significant pilot trial (95% CI 1.52 to 4.86, p=0.001). The association remained significant irrespective of changes made to the trial design. In 73% of the pairs, the pilot trial produced a larger point estimate than the subsequent full-scale trial, but 87% of pairs had a 95% CI estimated by the pilot trial that covered the full-scale trial point estimate. Full-scale trials with a sample size estimated using the SD from the pilot trial were less likely to yield a significant result (OR=0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: Pilot trials can provide strong signals on intervention efficacy. When determining the sample size for full-scale trials, using the CI bounds from the pilot trials instead of the point estimate may improve power estimation.

Impact of Clinician Training Background and Stroke Location on Bedside Diagnostic Test Accuracy in the Acute Vestibular Syndrome - A Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute dizziness/vertigo is usually due to benign inner-ear causes but is occasionally due to dangerous neurologic ones, particularly stroke. Because symptoms and signs overlap, misdiagnosis is frequent and overuse of neuroimaging is common. We assessed the accuracy of bedside findings to differentiate peripheral vestibular from central neurologic causes. METHODS: We performed a systematic search (MEDLINE and Embase) to identify studies reporting on diagnostic accuracy of physical examination in adults with acute, prolonged dizziness/vertigo ("acute vestibular syndrome" [AVS]). Diagnostic test properties were calculated for findings. Results were stratified by examiner type and stroke location. RESULTS: We identified 6,089 citations and included 14 articles representing 10 study cohorts (n = 800). The Head Impulse, Nystagmus, Test of Skew (HINTS) eye movement battery had high sensitivity 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 92.5-98.1) and specificity 92.6% (95% CI = 88.6-96.5). Sensitivity was similar by examiner type (subspecialists 94.3% [95% CI = 88.2-100.0] vs non-subspecialists 95.0% [95% CI = 91.2-98.9], p = 0.55), but specificity was higher among subspecialists (97.6% [95% CI = 94.9-100.0] vs 89.1% [95% CI = 83.0-95.2], p = 0.007). HINTS sensitivity was lower in anterior cerebellar artery (AICA) than posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) strokes (84.0% [95% CI = 65.3-93.6] vs 97.7% [95% CI = 93.3-99.2], p = 0.014) but was "rescued" by the addition of bedside hearing tests (HINTS+). Severe (grade 3) gait/truncal instability had high specificity 99.2% (95% CI = 97.8-100.0) but low sensitivity 35.8% (95% CI = 5.2-66.5). Early magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI; within 24-48 hours) was falsely negative in 15% of strokes (sensitivity 85.1% [95% CI = 79.2-91.0]). INTERPRETATION: In AVS, HINTS examination by appropriately trained clinicians can differentiate peripheral from central causes and has higher diagnostic accuracy for stroke than MRI-DWI in the first 24-48 hours. These techniques should be disseminated to all clinicians evaluating dizziness/vertigo. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:295-308.

Are ChatGPT and large language models "the answer" to bringing us closer to systematic review automation?

In this commentary, we discuss ChatGPT and our perspectives on its utility to systematic reviews (SRs) through the appropriateness and applicability of its responses to SR related prompts. The advancement of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technologies leave many wondering about the current capabilities, limitations, and opportunities for integration AI into scientific endeavors. Large language models (LLM)-such as ChatGPT, designed by OpenAI-have recently gained widespread attention with their ability to respond to various prompts in a natural-sounding way. Systematic reviews (SRs) utilize secondary data and often require many months and substantial financial resources to complete, making them attractive grounds for developing AI-assistive technologies. On February 6, 2023, PICO Portal developers hosted a webinar to explore ChatGPT's responses to tasks related to SR methodology. Our experience from exploring the responses of ChatGPT suggest that while ChatGPT and LLMs show some promise for aiding in SR-related tasks, the technology is in its infancy and needs much development for such applications. Furthermore, we advise that great caution should be taken by non-content experts in using these tools due to much of the output appearing, at a high level, to be valid, while much is erroneous and in need of active vetting.

Trends of Randomized Clinical Trials Citing Prior Systematic Reviews, 2007-2021.

Importance: Systematic reviews can help to justify a new randomized clinical trial (RCT), inform its design, and interpret its results in the context of prior evidence. Objective: To assess trends and factors associated with citing (a marker of the use of) prior systematic reviews in RCT reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study investigated 737 Cochrane reviews assessing health interventions to identify 4003 eligible RCTs, defined as those included in an updated version but not in the first version of a Cochrane review and published 2 years after the first version of the Cochrane review was published. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the citation of prior systematic reviews, Cochrane or others, as determined by screening references of eligible RCTs. Factors that may be associated with the citation of prior systematic reviews were also examined. Results: Among 4003 eligible RCTs, 1241 studies (31.0%) cited Cochrane reviews, 1698 studies (42.4%) cited prior non-Cochrane reviews, and 2265 studies (56.6%) cited either type of systematic review or both; 1738 RCTs (43.4%) cited no systematic reviews. The percentage of RCTs citing prior Cochrane reviews, non-Cochrane reviews, and either or both types of review increased from 28 studies (15.3%), 46 studies (25.1%), and 65 studies (35.5%) of 183 RCTs before 2008 to 42 studies (40.8%), 65 studies (64.1%), and 73 studies (71.8%) of 102 RCTs since 2020, respectively; the annual increases were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%), 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%), and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.5%), respectively. The proportion of RCTs citating prior systematic reviews varied considerably across clinical specialties, ranging from 28 of 106 RCTs (26.4%) in ophthalmology to 386 of 553 RCTs (69.8%) in psychiatry (P < .001). RCTs with 100 participants or more (risk ratio [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30), nonindustry funding (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.61), and authors from high-income countries (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) were more likely to cite systematic reviews than those with fewer than 100 participants, industry funding, and authors from low- and middle-income countries, respectively. A journal requirement to cite systematic reviews was not associated with the likelihood of citing a systematic review. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the citation of prior systematic reviews in RCT reports improved over time, but approximately 40% of RCTs failed to do so. These findings suggest that reference to prior evidence for initiating, designing, and reporting RCTs should be further emphasized to assure clinical relevance, improve methodological quality, and facilitate interpretation of new results.

Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: People with cystic fibrosis (CF) experience chronic airway infections as a result of mucus buildup within the lungs. Repeated infections often cause lung damage and disease. Airway clearance therapies aim to improve mucus clearance, increase sputum production, and improve airway function. The active cycle of breathing technique (ACBT) is an airway clearance method that uses a cycle of techniques to loosen airway secretions including breathing control, thoracic expansion exercises, and the forced expiration technique. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of ACBT with other airway clearance therapies in CF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched clinical trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 29 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled clinical studies, including cross-over studies, comparing ACBT with other airway clearance therapies in CF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened each article, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each study. We used GRADE to assess our confidence in the evidence assessing quality of life, participant preference, adverse events, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted, forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted, sputum weight, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 99 studies, of which 22 (559 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled studies (259 participants) were included in the analysis; five were of cross-over design. The 14 remaining studies were cross-over studies with inadequate reports for complete assessment. The study size ranged from seven to 65 participants. The age of the participants ranged from six to 63 years (mean age 18.7 years). In 13 studies follow up lasted a single day. However, there were two long-term randomised controlled studies with follow up of one to three years. Most of the studies did not report on key quality items, and therefore, have an unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding. Due to the nature of the intervention, none of the studies blinded participants or the personnel applying the interventions. However, most of the studies reported on all planned outcomes, had adequate follow up, assessed compliance, and used an intention-to-treat analysis. Included studies compared ACBT with autogenic drainage, airway oscillating devices (AOD), high-frequency chest compression devices, conventional chest physiotherapy (CCPT), positive expiratory pressure (PEP), and exercise. We found no difference in quality of life between ACBT and PEP mask therapy, AOD, other breathing techniques, or exercise (very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in individual preference between ACBT and other breathing techniques (very low-certainty evidence). One study comparing ACBT with ACBT plus postural exercise reported no deaths and no adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). We found no differences in lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) % predicted and forced vital capacity (FVC) % predicted), oxygen saturation or expectorated sputum between ACBT and any other technique (very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the number of pulmonary exacerbations between people using ACBT and people using CCPT (low-certainty evidence) or ACBT with exercise (very low-certainty evidence), the only comparisons to report this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is little evidence to support or reject the use of the ACBT over any other airway clearance therapy and ACBT is comparable with other therapies in outcomes such as participant preference, quality of life, exercise tolerance, lung function, sputum weight, oxygen saturation, and number of pulmonary exacerbations. Longer-term studies are needed to more adequately assess the effects of ACBT on outcomes important for people with cystic fibrosis such as quality of life and preference.

Assessment of redundant randomized clinical trials among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Redundant clinical trials waste resources and unnecessarily put patients at risk for harm. The objectives of the study were to assess redundant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in mainland China or the USA among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and estimate the harm to patients enrolled in redundant RCTs. METHODS: We searched bibliographic databases for eligible RCTs comparing a routine therapy with a placebo or no treatment among patients with STEMI in mainland China or the United States. The routine therapy for STEMI included reperfusion (percutaneous coronary intervention or fibrinolytic therapy), P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, statins, and anticoagulants. Redundant RCTs were defined as those initiated or continued recruiting new patients 1 year after the experimental intervention was established as routine therapy in clinical practice guidelines. Cumulative meta-analyses were conducted to confirm the efficacy of these routine therapies. The primary outcome was the number of extra major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) attributable to the deprivation of routine therapies among patients in the control groups of redundant RCTs-that is, the number of extra MACEs that could have been prevented had these patients received routine therapy. RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty-three eligible RCTs conducted in mainland China were identified, of which 775 (78.8%) were redundant. None of the five eligible RCTs conducted in the United States were redundant. All redundant RCTs have reiterated the benefits of routine therapies for patients with STEMI, while none were cited by the 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of STEMI. The 18,819 patients in the control groups of redundant RCTs experienced 3305 (95% CI: 3169-3441) extra MACEs, including 1091 (1014-1165) deaths, 576 (519-633) recurrent myocardial infarctions, 31 (19-42) revascularizations, 39 (23-54) strokes, 744 (679-810) heart failures, and 823 (754-893) patients with recurrent or exacerbated angina pectoris. Cumulative meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy of the routine therapies among patients in mainland China and supported using practice guidelines to define redundant RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Redundant RCTs conducted in mainland China have resulted in unnecessary MACEs among patients with STEMI. While the reasons behind redundant RCTs need to be further investigated, these results suggest potential research waste and violation of research ethics.

Parent perceptions and decision making about treatments for epilepsy: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: Epilepsy treatment decision making is complex and understanding what informs caregiver decision making about treatment for childhood epilepsy is crucial to better support caregivers and their children. We synthesised evidence on caregivers' perspectives and experiences of treatments for childhood epilepsy. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies using a best-fit framework and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. DATA SOURCES: Searched Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX and Web of Science from 1 January 1999 to 19 August 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies examining caregiver's perspectives on antiseizure medication, diet or surgical treatments for childhood epilepsy. We excluded studies not reported in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We extracted qualitative evidence into 1 of 14 domains defined by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). One reviewer extracted study data and methodological characteristics, and two reviewers extracted qualitative findings. The team verified all extractions. We identified themes within TDF domains and synthesised summary statements of these themes. We assessed our confidence in our summary statements using GRADE-CERQual. RESULTS: We identified five studies (in six reports) of good methodological quality focused on parent perceptions of neurosurgery; we found limited indirect evidence on parents' perceptions of medications or diet. We identified themes within 6 of the 14 TDF domains relevant to treatment decisions: knowledge, emotion; social/professional role and identity; social influence; beliefs about consequences; and environmental context and resources. CONCLUSIONS: Parents of children with epilepsy navigate a complex process to decide whether to have their child undergo surgery. Educational resources, peer support and patient navigators may help support parents through this process. More qualitative studies are needed on non-surgical treatments for epilepsy and among caregivers from different cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds to fully understand the diversity of perspectives that informs treatment decision making.

Diet-Related and Gut-Derived Metabolites and Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review.

We conducted a scoping review to map available evidence about the health impact of gut microbiota-derived metabolites. We searched PubMed and Embase for studies that assessed the health impact of ten metabolites on any health condition: deoxycholate or deoxycholic acid (DCA), lithocholate or lithocholic acid (LCA), glycolithocholate or glycolithocholic acid, glycodeoxycholate or glycodeoxycholic acid, tryptamine, putrescine, d-alanine, urolithins, N-acetylmannosamine, and phenylacetylglutamine. We identified 352 eligible studies with 168,072 participants. Most (326, 92.6%) were case-control studies, followed by cohort studies (14, 4.0%), clinical trials (8, 2.3%), and cross-sectional studies (6, 1.7%). Most studies assessed the following associations: DCA on hepatobiliary disorders (64 studies, 7976 participants), colorectal cancer (19 studies, 7461 participants), and other digestive disorders (27 studies, 2463 participants); LCA on hepatobiliary disorders (34 studies, 4297 participants), colorectal cancers (14 studies, 4955 participants), and other digestive disorders (26 studies, 2117 participants); putrescine on colorectal cancers (16 studies, 94,399 participants) and cancers excluding colorectal and hepatobiliary cancers (42 studies, 4250 participants). There is a need to conduct more prospective studies, including clinical trials. Moreover, we identified metabolites and conditions for which systemic reviews are warranted to characterize the direction and magnitude of metabolite-disease associations.

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. CHARTING METHODS: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. RESULTS: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science-A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies.

BACKGROUND: Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study. METHODS: Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nw7ch/). RESULTS: Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%). CONCLUSION: Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals.

Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results-a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies.

BACKGROUND: Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. RESULTS: We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I2=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers' use of prior research systematically and transparently-also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. DESIGN: Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. PARTICIPANTS: Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. SETTING: International consensus. INTERVENTION: Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. RESULTS: From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. CONCLUSIONS: PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Realist Review of Care Models That Include Primary Care for Adult Childhood Cancer Survivors.

Appropriate models of survivorship care for the growing number of adult survivors of childhood cancer are unclear. We conducted a realist review to describe how models of care that include primary care and relevant resources (eg, tools, training) could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. We first developed an initial program theory based on qualitative literature (studies, commentaries, opinion pieces) and stakeholder consultations. We then reviewed quantitative evidence and consulted stakeholders to refine the program theory and develop and refine context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses regarding how models of care that include primary care could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. Effectiveness for both resources and models is defined by survivors living longer and feeling better through high-value care. Intermediate measures of effectiveness evaluate the extent to which survivors and providers understand the survivor's history, risks, symptoms and problems, health-care needs, and available resources. Thus, the models of care and resources are intended to provide information to survivors and/or primary care providers to enable them to obtain/deliver appropriate care. The variables from our program theory found most consistently in the literature include oncology vs primary care specialty, survivor and provider knowledge, provider comfort treating childhood cancer survivors, communication and coordination between and among providers and survivors, and delivery/receipt of prevention and surveillance of late effects. In turn, these variables were prominent in our context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses. The findings from this realist review can inform future research to improve childhood cancer survivorship care and outcomes.

Ineligibility for and Refusal to Participate in Randomized Controlled Trials That Have Studied Impact on Suicide-Related Outcomes in the United States: A Meta-Analysis.

Objective: Ineligibility for and refusal to participate in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can potentially lead to unrepresentative study samples and limited generalizability of findings. We examined the rates of exclusion and refusal in RCTs that have studied impact on suicide-related outcomes in the US.Data Sources: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Education Resources Information Center were searched from January 1990 to May 2020 using the terms (suicide prevention) AND (clinical trial).Study Selection: Of 8,403 studies retrieved, 36 RCTs assessing effectiveness on suicide-related outcomes in youth (≤ 25 years old) conducted in the US were included.Data Extraction: Study-level data were extracted by 2 independent investigators for a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression.Results: The study participants (N = 13,264) had a mean (SD) age of 14.87 (1.58) years and were 50% male, 23% African American, and 24% Hispanic. The exclusion rate was 36.4%, while the refusal rate was 25.5%. The exclusion rate was significantly higher in the studies excluding individuals not exceeding specified cutoff points of suicide screening tools (51.2%; adjusted linear coefficient [ß] = 1.30, standard error [SE] = 0.15; P = .041) and individuals not meeting the age or school grade criterion (45.9%; ß = 1.37, SE = 0.13; P = .005).Conclusions: The rates of exclusion and refusal in youth prevention interventions studying impact on suicide-related outcomes were not as high compared to the rates found in other mental and behavioral interventions. While there was strong racial/ethnic group representation in RCTs examining youth suicide-related outcomes, suicide severity and age limited eligibility.

Three-Month FVC Change: A Trial Endpoint for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Based on Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

Rationale: Novel therapies for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) are in development, but there remains uncertainty about the optimal trial endpoint. An earlier endpoint would enable assessment of a greater number of therapies in adaptive trial designs. Objectives: To determine whether short-term changes in FVC, DlCO, and six-minute-walk distance could act as surrogate endpoints to accelerate early-phase trials in IPF. Methods: Individual participant data (IPD) from IPF clinical trials were included in a two-step random-effects meta-analysis to determine whether baseline or 3-month changes in FVC, DlCO, and 6-minute-walk distance were associated with mortality or disease progression in placebo arms. Three-month and 12-month FVC decline endpoints were compared with treatment arm data from antifibrotic studies by meta-regression. Measurements and Main Results: IPD were available from 12 placebo cohorts totaling 1,819 participants, with baseline and 3-month changes in all physiological variables independently associated with poorer outcomes. Treatment data were available from six cohorts with 1,684 participants. For each 2.5% relative decline in FVC over 3 months, there was an associated 15% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.24; I2 = 59.4%) and 20% (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.12-1.28; I2 = 18.0%) increased risk for mortality in untreated and treated individuals, respectively. An FVC change treatment effect was observed between treatment and placebo arms at 3 months (difference in FVC change of 42.9 ml; 95% CI, 24.0-61.8 ml; P < 0.001). Conclusions: IPD meta-analysis demonstrated that 3-month changes in physiological variables, particularly FVC, were associated with mortality among individuals with IPF. FVC change over 3 months may hold potential as a surrogate endpoint in IPF adaptive trials.

Implementation and Effectiveness of Integrating Palliative Care Into Ambulatory Care of Noncancer Serious Chronic Illness: Mixed Methods Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a mixed methods review to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of models for integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for US adults with noncancer serious chronic illness. METHODS: We searched 3 electronic databases from January 2000 to May 2020 and included qualitative, mixed methods studies and randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. For each study, 2 reviewers abstracted data and independently assessed for quality. We conducted meta-analyses as appropriate and graded strength of evidence (SOE) for quantitative outcomes. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis included 14 studies of 2,934 patients. Compared to usual care, models evaluated were not more effective for improving patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (standardized mean difference [SMD] of 4 of 8 studies, 0.19; 95% CI, ‒0.03 to 0.41) (SOE: moderate) or for patient depressive symptom scores (SMD of 3 of 9 studies, ‒0.09; 95% CI, ‒0.35 to 0.16) (SOE: moderate). Models might have little to no effect on patient satisfaction (SOE: low) but were more effective for increasing advance directive (AD) documentation (relative risk, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.35 to 1.94) (SOE: moderate). Qualitative analysis included 5 studies of 146 patients. Patient preferences for appropriate timing of palliative care varied; costs, additional visits, and travel were considered barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION: Models might have little to no effect on decreasing overall symptom burden and were not more effective than usual care for improving HRQOL or depressive symptom scores but were more effective for increasing AD documentation. Additional research should focus on identifying and addressing characteristics and implementation factors critical to integrating models to improve ambulatory, patient-centered outcomes.