Behavioral counseling after screening for alcohol misuse in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse, which includes the full spectrum from risky drinking to alcohol dependence, is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of behavioral counseling interventions for adolescents and adults who misuse alcohol. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and reference lists of published literature (January 1985 through January 2012, limited to English-language articles). STUDY SELECTION: Controlled trials at least 6 months' duration that enrolled persons with alcohol misuse identified by screening in primary care settings and evaluated behavioral counseling interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer extracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two independent reviewers assigned quality ratings and graded the strength of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 23 included trials generally excluded persons with alcohol dependence. The best evidence was for brief (10- to 15-minute) multicontact interventions. Among adults receiving behavioral interventions, consumption decreased by 3.6 drinks per week from baseline (weighted mean difference, 3.6 drinks/wk [95% CI, 2.4 to 4.8 drinks/wk]; 10 trials; 4332 participants), 12% fewer adults reported heavy drinking episodes (risk difference, 0.12 [CI, 0.07 to 0.16]; 7 trials; 2737 participants), and 11% more adults reported drinking less than the recommended limits (risk difference, 0.11 [CI, 0.08 to 0.13]; 9 trials; 5973 participants) over 12 months compared with control participants (moderate strength of evidence). Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about accidents, injuries, or alcohol-related liver problems. Trials enrolling young adults or college students showed reduced consumption and fewer heavy drinking episodes (moderate strength of evidence). Little or no evidence of harms was found. LIMITATIONS: Results may be biased to the null because the behavior of control participants could have been affected by alcohol misuse assessments. In addition, evidence is probably inapplicable to persons with alcohol dependence and selective reporting may have occurred. CONCLUSION: Behavioral counseling interventions improve behavioral outcomes for adults with risky drinking. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Translating evidence-based interventions into practice: the design and development of the Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN).

Pediatric asthma is a multifactorial disease, requiring complex, interrelated interventions addressing children, families, schools, and communities. The Merck Childhood Asthma Network, Inc. (MCAN) is a nonprofit organization that provides support to translate evidence-based interventions from research to practice. MCAN developed the rationale and vision for the program through a phased approach, including an extensive literature review, stakeholder engagement, and evaluation of funding gaps. The analysis pointed to the need to identify pediatric asthma interventions implemented in urban U.S. settings that have demonstrated efficacy and materials for replication and to translate the interventions into wider practice. In addition to this overall MCAN objective, specific goals included service and system integration through linkages among health care providers, schools, community-based organizations, patients, parents, and other caregivers. MCAN selected sites based on demonstrated ability to implement effective interventions and to address multiple contexts of pediatric asthma prevention and management. Selected MCAN program sites were mature institutions or organizations with significant infrastructure, existing funding, and the ability to provide services without requiring a lengthy planning period. Program sites were located in communities with high asthma morbidity and intended to integrate new elements into existing programs to create comprehensive care approaches.

Average effect estimates remain similar as evidence evolves from single trials to high-quality bodies of evidence: a meta-epidemiologic study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of our study was to use a diverse sample of medical interventions to assess empirically whether first trials rendered substantially different treatment effect estimates than reliable, high-quality bodies of evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a meta-epidemiologic study design using 100 randomly selected bodies of evidence from Cochrane reports that had been graded as high quality of evidence. To determine the concordance of effect estimates between first and subsequent trials, we applied both quantitative and qualitative approaches. For quantitative assessment, we used Lin's concordance correlation and calculated z-scores; to determine the magnitude of differences of treatment effects, we calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and ratios of relative risks. We determined qualitative concordance based on a two-tiered approach incorporating changes in statistical significance and magnitude of effect. RESULTS: First trials both overestimated and underestimated the true treatment effects in no discernible pattern. Nevertheless, depending on the definition of concordance, effect estimates of first trials were concordant with pooled subsequent studies in at least 33% but up to 50% of comparisons. The pooled magnitude of change as bodies of evidence advanced from single trials to high-quality bodies of evidence was 0.16 SMD [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12, 0.21]. In 80% of comparisons, the difference in effect estimates was smaller than 0.5 SMDs. In first trials with large treatment effects (>0.5 SMD), however, estimates of effect substantially changed as new evidence accrued (mean change 0.68 SMD; 95% CI: 0.50, 0.86). CONCLUSION: Results of first trials often change, but the magnitude of change, on average, is small. Exceptions are first trials that present large treatment effects, which often dissipate as new evidence accrues.

The predictive validity of quality of evidence grades for the stability of effect estimates was low: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the predictive validity of the U.S. Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) approach to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on Cochrane reports with outcomes graded as high quality of evidence (QOE), we prepared 160 documents which represented different levels of QOE. Professional systematic reviewers dually graded the QOE. For each document, we determined whether estimates were concordant with high QOE estimates of the Cochrane reports. We compared the observed proportion of concordant estimates with the expected proportion from an international survey. To determine the predictive validity, we used the Hosmer-Lemeshow test to assess calibration and the C (concordance) index to assess discrimination. RESULTS: The predictive validity of the EPC approach to GRADE was limited. Estimates graded as high QOE were less likely, estimates graded as low or insufficient QOE more likely to remain stable than expected. The EPC approach to GRADE could not reliably predict the likelihood that individual bodies of evidence remain stable as new evidence becomes available. C-indices ranged between 0.56 (95% CI, 0.47 to 0.66) and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.67) indicating a low discriminatory ability. CONCLUSION: The limited predictive validity of the EPC approach to GRADE seems to reflect a mismatch between expected and observed changes in treatment effects as bodies of evidence advance from insufficient to high QOE.

Grades for quality of evidence were associated with distinct likelihoods that treatment effects will remain stable.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether producers or users of systematic reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach or a close variation give the same meanings to terms intended to convey uncertainty about treatment effects when interpreting grades for the quality or strength of evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Following exploratory interviews with stakeholders and user testing, we conducted an international Web-based survey among producers and users of systematic reviews. For each quality grade (high, moderate, low, very low/insufficient), we asked participants to assign a minimum likelihood that treatment effects will not change substantially as new studies emerge. Using multivariate analysis of covariance, we tested whether the estimated likelihoods differed between producers and users. RESULTS: In all, 244 participants completed the survey. The associated minimum likelihoods that treatment effects will not change substantially for high, moderate, and low grades of quality of evidence (QOE) were 86% [95% confidence interval (CI): 85%, 87%], 61% (95% CI: 59%, 63%), and 34% (95% CI: 32%, 36%), respectively (very low was preset at 0%). Likelihoods for each grade were similar between producers and users of systematic reviews (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). CONCLUSION: GRADE is, in general, a suitable method to convey uncertainties for systematic review producers to users. The wide ranges of likelihoods associated with GRADE terms suggest that current definitions of levels of QOE that rely exclusively on qualitative certainty expressions should be augmented by numerical predictions once such data are available.