Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.088
Filtrar
2.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2021 Feb 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33561528

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the power of responder analyses in a randomized controlled trial. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Simulations were based on the Chronic Kidney Disease Antidepressant Sertraline Trial (CAST), which compared sertraline to placebo for the treatment of depression in kidney disease. Baseline disease severity, placebo response, effect size, and the proportion of responders were varied across 72 scenarios. Power was assessed using a t-test for change scores, and the chi-square test for dichotomized outcomes of the minimal important difference (MID), improvement and remission in 10000 datasets with a fixed sample size of 193. RESULTS: The t-test had >80% power except for scenarios with the lowest sertraline effect size. The chi-square test using the MID had <7% power in all scenarios while improvement and remission of achieved >80% power only at higher effect sizes and/or when the proportion of responders was highest at 0.5. The chi-square test for improvement had marginal power increases compared to the t-test (4/72 scenarios = 5.6%) and that for remission did not outperform the t-test in any scenario. CONCLUSIONS: The t-test outperforms the chi-square test for dichotomized outcomes regardless of baseline disease severity, placebo response, effect size and the proportion of responders to the intervention.

3.
Heart ; 2021 Feb 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33563630

RESUMO

The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.

4.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2021 Feb 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33545269

RESUMO

This text builds on a conversation with Dr. Gordon Guyatt who provided guidance to trainees on interdisciplinary collaboration and work-life balance as part of a graduate-level biostatistics course in September 2020. The participants in the conversation comprised a group of clinicians, methodologists and biostatisticians, ranging from junior trainees to world-renowned established researchers. Biostatisticians, methodologists and clinicians often collaborate in conducting clinical research, calling upon interpersonal soft skills that are rarely explicitly addressed in undergraduate and graduate coursework. Acquiring such skills are essential for allowing seamless collaboration and communication within a multidisciplinary team and are therefore key to career advancement for young researchers, which was the focus of this session. As an invited guest, Dr. Guyatt shares his experiences after decades of leadership and successful international collaborations. He emphasizes the importance finding the right mentor, forming productive collaborations, developing self-awareness, and strategies for achieving a work-life balance.

5.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246991, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33592037

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals. METHOD: We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no). RESULTS: Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

7.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2021 Jan 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33476768

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This paper explores the need for conceptual advances and practical guidance in the application of the GRADE approach within public health contexts. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We convened an expert workshop and conducted a scoping review to identify challenges experienced by GRADE users in public health contexts. We developed this concept paper through thematic analysis and an iterative process of consultation and discussion conducted with members electronically and at three GRADE Working Group meetings. RESULTS: Five priority issues can pose challenges for public health guideline developers and systematic reviewers when applying GRADE: (1) incorporating the perspectives of diverse stakeholders; (2) selecting and prioritising health and 'non-health' outcomes; (3) interpreting outcomes and identifying a threshold for decision-making; (4) assessing certainty of evidence from diverse sources, including non-randomised studies; and (5) addressing implications for decision-makers, including concerns about conditional recommendations. We illustrate these challenges with examples from public health guidelines and systematic reviews, identifying gaps where conceptual advances may facilitate the consistent application or further development of the methodology, and provide solutions. CONCLUSION: The GRADE Public Health Group will respond to these challenges with solutions that are coherent with existing guidance and can be consistently implemented across public health decision-making contexts.

8.
BMJ ; 372: m4573, 2021 01 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33441402

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in patients with type 2 diabetes at varying cardiovascular and renal risk. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to 11 August 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials comparing SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists with placebo, standard care, or other glucose lowering treatment in adults with type 2 diabetes with follow up of 24 weeks or longer. Studies were screened independently by two reviewers for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequentist random effects network meta-analysis was carried out and GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) used to assess evidence certainty. Results included estimated absolute effects of treatment per 1000 patients treated for five years for patients at very low risk (no cardiovascular risk factors), low risk (three or more cardiovascular risk factors), moderate risk (cardiovascular disease), high risk (chronic kidney disease), and very high risk (cardiovascular disease and kidney disease). A guideline panel provided oversight of the systematic review. RESULTS: 764 trials including 421 346 patients proved eligible. All results refer to the addition of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists to existing diabetes treatment. Both classes of drugs lowered all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and kidney failure (high certainty evidence). Notable differences were found between the two agents: SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced mortality and admission to hospital for heart failure more than GLP-1 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced non-fatal stroke more than SGLT-2 inhibitors (which appeared to have no effect). SGLT-2 inhibitors caused genital infection (high certainty), whereas GLP-1 receptor agonists might cause severe gastrointestinal events (low certainty). Low certainty evidence suggested that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists might lower body weight. Little or no evidence was found for the effect of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists on limb amputation, blindness, eye disease, neuropathic pain, or health related quality of life. The absolute benefits of these drugs vary substantially across patients from low to very high risk of cardiovascular and renal outcomes (eg, SGLT-2 inhibitors resulted in 5 to 48 fewer deaths in 1000 patients over five years; see interactive decision support tool (https://magicevidence.org/match-it/200820dist/#!/) for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with type 2 diabetes, SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists reduced cardiovascular and renal outcomes, with notable differences in benefits and harms. Absolute benefits are determined by individual risk profiles of patients, with clear implications for clinical practice, as reflected in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations directly informed by this systematic review. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019153180.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Receptor do Peptídeo Semelhante ao Glucagon 1/agonistas , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Mortalidade , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Metanálise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Insuficiência Renal/epidemiologia , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversos
9.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(1): JC11, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33395335

RESUMO

SOURCE CITATION: Fralick M, Kim SC, Schneeweiss S, et al. Risk of amputation with canagliflozin across categories of age and cardiovascular risk in three US nationwide databases: cohort study. BMJ. 2020;370:m2812. 32843476.


Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Idoso , Amputação , Canagliflozina/efeitos adversos , Doenças Cardiovasculares/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Peptídeo 1 Semelhante ao Glucagon , Humanos , Hipoglicemiantes/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco
10.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(1): JC10, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33395336

RESUMO

SOURCE CITATION: Bonaca MP, Wiviott SD, Zelniker TA, et al. Dapagliflozin and cardiac, kidney, and limb outcomes in patients with and without peripheral artery disease in DECLARE-TIMI 58. Circulation. 2020;142:734-47. 32795086.


Assuntos
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Doença Arterial Periférica , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Compostos Benzidrílicos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Glucosídeos , Humanos , Rim , Doença Arterial Periférica/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose/efeitos adversos
11.
Eur Urol ; 2021 Jan 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33461781

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Understanding men's values and preferences in the context of personal, physical, emotional, relational, and social factors is important in optimising patient counselling, facilitating treatment decision-making, and improving guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence regarding the values, preferences, and expectations of men towards the investigation and treatment (conservative, pharmacological, and surgical) of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched electronic databases until August 31, 2020 for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported values and preferences regarding the investigation and treatment of LUTS in men. We assessed the quality of evidence and risk of bias using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approaches. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 25 quantitative studies, three qualitative studies, and one mixed-methods study recruiting 9235 patients. Most men reported urodynamic testing to be acceptable, despite discomfort or embarrassment, as it significantly informs treatment decisions (low certainty evidence). Men preferred conservative and less risky treatment options, but the preference varied depending on baseline symptom severity and the risk/benefit characteristics of the treatment (moderate certainty). Men preferred pharmacological treatments with a low risk of erectile dysfunction and those especially improving urgency incontinence (moderate certainty). Other important preference considerations included reducing the risk of acute urinary retention or surgery (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Men prefer lower-risk management options that have fewer sexual side effects and are primarily effective at improving urgency incontinence and nocturia. Overall, the evidence was rated to be of low to moderate certainty. This review can facilitate the treatment decision-making process and improve the trustworthiness of guideline recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly reviewed the evidence addressing men's values and preferences regarding the management of urinary symptoms and found that minimising adverse effects is particularly important. Further research to understand other factors that matter to men is required.

12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33406009

RESUMO

RATIONALE: Choosing the best ventilation strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is complex, yet highly relevant to clinicians during a respiratory pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of low tidal volumes (Vt), high Vt, high positive end-expiratory pressure (high PEEP), prone ventilation, high frequency oscillation (HFO), and venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) on mortality in ARDS. METHODS: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. We applied GRADE methodology to discern the relative effect of interventions on mortality. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 34 trials including 9085 adults with primarily moderate to severe ARDS (median baseline PaO2/FiO2 118, interquartile range 110-143). Prone positioning combined with low Vt was the best strategy (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.92 vs. low Vt; high certainty). VV ECMO also rated among the best (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.58-1.05 vs. low Vt and 0.66, 95% CI 0.49-0.88 vs. high Vt), but with lower certainty since VV ECMO was restricted to very severe ARDS (mean baseline PaO2/FiO2≤75). High PEEP combined with low Vt rated intermediately (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.03 vs. low Vt; low certainty; and RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.91 vs. high Vt; moderate certainty). High Vt rated worst (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.02-1.37 vs. low Vt, moderate certainty), and we found no support for HFO or high Vt with prone ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that combining low Vt with prone ventilation is associated with the greatest reduction in mortality for critically ill adults with moderate to severe ARDS.

15.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e037854, 2020 Dec 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33268400

RESUMO

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Standards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature. SUMMARY OF METHOD: The new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations. CONCLUSION: We present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

16.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e038322, 2020 Dec 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33268404

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Cancer screening guidelines differ in their recommendations for or against screening. To be able to provide explicit recommendations, guidelines need to specify thresholds for the magnitude of benefits of screening, given its harms and burdens. We evaluated how current cancer screening guidelines address the relative importance of benefits versus harms and burdens of screening. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Guidelines International Network, International Guideline Library, ECRI Institute and Medline. Two pairs of reviewers independently performed guideline selection and data abstraction. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all cancer screening guidelines published in English between January 2014 and April 2019. RESULTS: Of 68 eligible guidelines, 25 included a statement regarding the trade-off between screening benefits versus harms and burdens (14 guidelines), or a statement of direction of the net effect (defined as benefits minus harms or burdens) (13 guidelines). None of these 25 guidelines defined how large a screening benefit should be to recommend screening, given its harms and burdens. 11 guidelines performed an economic evaluation of screening. Of these, six identified a key benefit outcome; two specified a cost-effectiveness threshold for recommending a screening option. Eight guidelines commented on people's values and preferences regarding the trade-off between benefits versus harms and burdens. CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer screening guidelines fail to specify the values and preferences underlying their recommendations. No guidelines provide a threshold at which they believe the benefits of screening outweigh its harms and burdens. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019138590.

17.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 133: 61-71, 2020 Dec 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33321175

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989-October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs. RESULTS: We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%). CONCLUSION: A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

18.
BMJ Open ; 10(12): e040478, 2020 12 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33334836

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Methodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool-the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist-to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites. REGISTRATION: We have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).

19.
Int J Health Serv ; : 20731420980682, 2020 Dec 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33323016

RESUMO

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates between for-profit (FP) and not-for-profit (NFP) hemodialysis facilities. We searched 10 databases for studies published between January 2001 to December 2019 that compared mortality at private hemodialysis facilities. We included observational studies directly comparing adjusted mortality rates between FP and NFP private hemodialysis providers in any language or country. We excluded evaluations of dialysis facilities that changed their profit status, studies with overlapping data, and studies that failed to adjust for patient age and some measure of clinical severity. Pairs of reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and the full text of potentially eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias, resolving disagreement by discussion. We included nine observational studies of hemodialysis facilities representing 1,163,144 patient-years. In pooled random-effects meta-analysis, the odds ratio of mortality in FP relative to NFP facilities was 1.07 (95% CI 1.04-1.11). Patients at FP hemodialysis facilities have 7 percent greater odds of death annually than patients with similar risk profiles at NFP facilities. Approximately 3,800 excess deaths might be averted annually if U.S. FP hemodialysis operators matched NFP mortality rates.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA