Evidence-based Perioperative Practice Utilization among Various Racial Populations-A Retrospective Cohort Trending Analysis of Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Various studies have demonstrated racial disparities in perioperative care and outcomes. The authors hypothesize that among lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients, evidence-based perioperative practice utilization increased over time among all racial groups, and that standardized evidence-based perioperative practice care protocols resulted in reduction of racial disparities and improved outcomes. METHODS: The study analyzed 3,356,805 lower extremity total joint arthroplasty patients from the Premier Healthcare database (Premier Healthcare Solutions, Inc., USA). The exposure of interest was race (White, Black, Asian, other). Outcomes were evidence-based perioperative practice adherence (eight individual care components; more than 80% of these implemented was defined as "high evidence-based perioperative practice"), any major complication (including acute renal failure, delirium, myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, stroke, or in-hospital mortality), in-hospital mortality, and prolonged length of stay. RESULTS: Evidence-based perioperative practice adherence rate has increased over time and was associated with reduced complications across all racial groups. However, utilization among Black patients was below that for White patients between 2006 and 2021 (odds ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93 to 0.95]; 45.50% vs. 47.90% on average). Independent of whether evidence-based perioperative practice components were applied, Black patients exhibited higher odds of major complications (1.61 [95% CI, 1.55 to 1.67] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.43 [95% CI, 1.39 to 1.48] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), mortality (1.70 [95% CI, 1.29 to 2.25] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.29 [95% CI, 1.10 to 1.51] without high evidence-based perioperative practice), and prolonged length of stay (1.45 [95% CI, 1.42 to 1.48] with high evidence-based perioperative practice; 1.38 [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.40] without high evidence-based perioperative practice) compared to White patients. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based perioperative practice utilization in lower extremity joint arthroplasty has been increasing during the last decade. However, racial disparities still exist with Black patients consistently having lower odds of evidence-based perioperative practice adherence. Black patients (compared to the White patients) exhibited higher odds of composite major complications, mortality, and prolonged length of stay, independent of evidence-based perioperative practice use, suggesting that evidence-based perioperative practice did not impact racial disparities regarding particularly the Black patients in this surgical cohort.

Is the evidence-based medicine movement counter-productive: are randomised controlled trials the best approach to establish evidence in complex healthcare situations?

In the modern era, evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been embraced as the best approach to practising medicine, providing clinicians with 'objective' evidence from clinical research. However, for presentations with complex pathophysiology or from complex social environments, sometimes there remains no evidence, and no amount of research will obtain it. Yet, health researchers continue to undertake randomised controlled trials (RCT) in complex environments, ignoring the risk that participants' health may be compromised throughout the trial process. This paper examines the role of research that seeks to obtain evidence to support EBM. We provide examples of RCTs on ear disease in Aboriginal populations as a case-in-point. Decades of ear research have failed to yield statistically significant findings, demonstrating that when multiple factors are at play, study designs struggle to balance the known disease process drivers, let alone unknown drivers. This paper asks the reader to consider if the pursuit of research is likely to produce evidence in complex situations; or if perhaps RCTs should not be undertaken in these situations. Instead, clinicians could apply empirical evidence, tailoring treatments to individuals while taking into account the complexities of their life circumstances.

Evidence-based strategies to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium: a narrative review.

Delirium is one of the most commonly occurring postoperative complications in older adults. It occurs due to the vulnerability of cerebral functioning to pathophysiological stressors. Identification of those at increased risk of developing delirium early in the surgical pathway provides an opportunity for modification of predisposing and precipitating risk factors and effective shared decision-making. No single delirium prediction tool is used widely in surgical settings. Multi-component interventions to prevent delirium involve structured risk factor modification supported by geriatrician input; these are clinically efficacious and cost effective. Barriers to the widespread implementation of such complex interventions exist, resulting in an 'implementation gap'. There is a lack of evidence for pharmacological prophylaxis for the prevention of delirium. Current evidence suggests that avoidance of peri-operative benzodiazepines, careful titration of anaesthetic depth guided by processed electroencephalogram monitoring and treatment of pain are the most effective strategies to minimise the risk of delirium. Addressing postoperative delirium requires a collaborative, whole pathway approach, beginning with the early identification of those patients who are at risk. The research agenda should continue to examine the potential for pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent delirium while also addressing how successful models of delirium prevention can be translated from one setting to another, underpinned by implementation science methodology.

Safely Reducing Hospitalizations for Anaphylaxis in Children Through an Evidence-Based Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits for anaphylaxis have increased considerably over the past few decades, especially among children. Despite this, anaphylaxis management remains highly variable and contributes to significant health care spending. On the basis of emerging evidence, in this quality improvement project we aimed to safely decrease hospitalization rates, increase the use of cetirizine, and decrease use of corticosteroids for children with anaphylaxis by December 31, 2019. METHODS: A multipronged intervention strategy including a revised evidence-based guideline was implemented at a tertiary children's teaching hospital by using the Model for Improvement. Statistical process control was used to evaluate for changes in key measures. Length of stay and unplanned return visits within 72 hours were monitored as process and balancing measures, respectively. As a national comparison, hospitalization rates were compared with other hospitals' data from the Pediatric Health Information System. RESULTS: Hospitalizations decreased significantly from 28.5% to 11.2% from preimplementation to implementation, and the balancing measure of 72-hour revisits was stable. The proportion of patients receiving cetirizine increased significantly from 4.2% to 59.7% and use of corticosteroids decreased significantly from 72.6% to 32.4% in patients without asthma. The proportion of patients meeting length of stay criteria increased from 53.3% to 59.9%. Hospitalization rates decreased nationally over time. CONCLUSIONS: We reduced hospitalizations for anaphylaxis by 17.3% without concomitant increases in revisits, demonstrating that unnecessary hospitalizations can be safely avoided. The use of a local evidence-based guideline paired with close outcome monitoring and sustained messaging and feedback to clinicians can effectively improve anaphylaxis management.

International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically identify and critically assess the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19 with the AGREE II instrument. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI, CBM, WanFang, and grey literature from November 2019 - November 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. One reviewer independently screened the retrieved titles and abstracts, and a second reviewer confirmed the decisions. Full texts were assessed independently and in duplicate. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We included any guideline that provided recommendations on the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. We descriptively summarized CPGs characteristics. We assessed the quality with the AGREE II instrument and we summarized relevant therapeutic interventions. RESULTS: We retrieved 3,907 records and 71 CPGs were included. Means (Standard Deviations) of the scores for the 6 domains of the AGREE II instrument were 65%(SD19.56%), 39%(SD19.64%), 27%(SD19.48%), 70%(SD15.74%), 26%(SD18.49%), 42%(SD34.91) for the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence domains, respectively. Most of the CPGs showed a low overall quality (less than 40%). CONCLUSION: Future CPGs for COVID-19 need to rely, for their development, on standard evidence-based methods and tools.

Facial Gender Surgery: Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Consensus Guidelines from the International Facial Gender Symposium.

BACKGROUND: Increasing societal acceptance of transgender people has led to broader availability of gender surgery and rapid growth in transition-related operations. Facial gender surgery aims to modify patients' facial features to be more congruent with their physical expression of gender, reducing gender dysphoria and improving quality of life. Growth in research and technique evolution has not kept pace with growth in clinical volume. Therefore, the first International Facial Gender Symposium was held at Johns Hopkins University in 2019, convening surgeons who perform facial gender surgery to share ideas and assess the state of clinical evidence. METHODS: To review the literature on facial gender surgery, the authors developed a search strategy for seven electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Gender Studies) through May of 2019, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review guidelines. RESULTS: Based on the English language literature and clinical experience, the authors suggest guidelines for screening, management, and appropriate surgical technique for patients undergoing facial gender surgery. They highlight facial gender surgery as a medically necessary intervention and identify shortcomings in current guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Facial gender surgery represents a complex array of craniofacial and soft-tissue procedures that require application of advanced skills and decision-making. Facial gender operations are not cosmetic, are medically necessary, and require development of new CPT codes specific to facial gender surgery. It is imperative to create educational programs and methods to define sufficient training for facial gender surgery surgeons. Research priorities include better procedural outcomes data, more quality-of-life studies, and insight into variation in both patient and procedural subgroups.

Influence of endocrine multidisciplinary tumor board on patient management and treatment decision making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDT) are used to obtain input regarding cancer management. This study assessed the impact of our institutional Endocrine MDT. METHODS: MDT notes on patients with thyroid cancer treated during 2012-2018 were abstracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. Management change (MC) was prospectively collected by the MDT coordinator. Biannual evaluations reviewed the impact of the MDT as observed by attendees. RESULTS: MC was recommended in 47 (15%) of 286 presentations, with additional imaging being the most frequent (43%). Presentation of recurrences were more likely to result in MC (24% vs. 13% initial, p = 0.03). Overall, 98% of attendees found the conference exceeded educational expectations. About 24% reported intending to use a more evidence/guideline-based approach after attending and this trend increased over time (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: MDT presentations led to a higher rate of MC particularly in recurrent TC patients and increased evidenced-based practice for attendees.

Appropriate use criteria for ancillary diagnostic testing in dermatopathology: New recommendations for 11 tests and 220 clinical scenarios from the American Society of Dermatopathology Appropriate Use Criteria Committee.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient-centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests. METHODS: RAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2. RESULTS: For 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid-Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated "usually appropriate" or "rarely appropriate" and 45 of 148 (30%), "appropriateness uncertain." LIMITATIONS: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: AUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

Meta-analytic magic, ivermectin, and socially responsible reporting.

Some clinicians prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 despite a lack of support from any credible South African professional body. They argue that when faced by clinical urgency, weak signals of efficacy should trigger action if harm is unlikely. Several recent reviews found an apparent mortality benefit by including studies at high risk of bias and with active rather than placebo controls. If these studies are discounted, the pooled mortality effect is no longer statistically significant, and evidence of benefit is very weak. Relying on this evidence could cause clinical harm if used to justify vaccine hesitancy. Clinicians remain responsible for ensuring that guidance they follow is both legitimate and reliable. In the ivermectin debate, evidence-based medicine (EBM) principles have largely been ignored under the guise thatin a pandemic the 'rules are different', probably to the detriment of vulnerable patients and certainly to the detriment of the profession's image. Medical schools and professional interest groups are responsible for transforming EBM from a taught but seldom-used tool into a process of lifelong learning, promoting a consistent call for evidence-based and unconflicted debate integral to clinical practice.

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines. DESIGN: Empirical analysis. DATA SOURCE: Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness). RESULTS: The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach. CONCLUSION: Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.