Oral versus intra-vaginal imidazole and triazole anti-fungal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis (thrush).

BACKGROUND: Anti-fungals are available for oral and intra-vaginal treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review is to assess the relative effectiveness (clinical cure) of oral versus intra-vaginal anti-fungals for the treatment of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the relative effectiveness in terms of mycological cure, in addition to safety, side effects, treatment preference, time to first relief of symptoms, and costs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers on 29 August 2019 together with reference checking and citation searching. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials published in any language comparing at least one oral anti-fungal with one intra-vaginal anti-fungal in women (aged 16 years or over) with a mycological diagnosis (positive culture, microscopy for yeast, or both) of uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis. We excluded trials if they solely involved participants who were HIV positive, immunocompromised, pregnant, breast feeding or diabetic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 26 trials (5007 participants). Eight anti-fungals are represented. All but three trials included participants with acute vulvovaginal candidiasis. Trials were conducted in Europe: UK (3), Croatia (2). Finland (2), the Netherlands (2), Germany (1), Italy (1), Sweden (1) and one trial across multiple European countries, USA (7) Thailand (2), Iran (2), Japan (1) and Africa (Nigeria) (1). The duration of follow-up varied between trials. The overall risk of bias of the included trials was high. There was probably little or no difference shown between oral and intra-vaginal anti-fungal treatment for clinical cure at short-term follow-up (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.43; 13 trials; 1859 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.50; 9 trials; 1042 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of clinical cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 77%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 75% and 83%; if the rate of clinical cure at long term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 84%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 89%. Oral treatment probably improves mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment at short term (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.50: 19 trials; 3057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.60; 13 trials; 1661 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of mycological cure at short-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 80%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 80% and 85%; if the rate of mycological cure at long-term follow-up with intra-vaginal treatment is 66%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 67% and 76%. In terms of patient safety, there is a low risk of participants withdrawing from the studies due to adverse drug effects for either treatment (23 trials; 4637 participants; high-certainty evidence). Due to the low certainty of evidence, it is undetermined whether oral treatments reduced the number of side effects compared with intra-vaginal treatments (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; 16 trials; 3155 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of side effects with intra-vaginal treatment is 12%, the rate with oral treatment would be between 10% and 15%. We noted that the type of side effects differed, with intra-vaginal treatments being more often associated with local reactions, and oral treatments being more often associated with systemic effects including gastro-intestinal symptoms and headaches. Oral treatment appeared to be the favoured treatment preference over intra-vaginal treatment or no preference (12 trials; 2206 participants), however the data were poorly reported and the certainty of the evidence was low. There was little or no difference in time to first relief of symptoms between oral and intra-vaginal treatments: four trials favoured the oral treatment, four favoured intra-vaginal, one study reported no difference and one was unclear. The measurements varied between the 10 trials (1910 participants) and the certainty of the evidence was low. Costs were not reported in any of the trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral anti-fungal treatment probably improves short- and long-term mycological cure over intra-vaginal treatment for uncomplicated vaginal candidiasis. Oral treatment was the favoured treatment preference by participants, though the certainty of this evidence is low. The decision to prescribe or recommend an anti-fungal for oral or intra-vaginal administration should take into consideration safety in terms of withdrawals and side effects, as well as cost and treatment preference. Unless there is a previous history of adverse reaction to one route of administration or contraindications, women who are purchasing their own treatment should be given full information about the characteristics and costs of treatment to make their own decision. If health services are paying the treatment cost, decision-makers should consider whether the higher cost of some oral anti-fungals is worth the gain in convenience, if this is the patient's preference.

Low-molecular-weight heparin and recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Placenta-mediated pregnancy complications include pre-eclampsia, late pregnancy loss, placental abruption, and birth of a small-for-gestational-age (SGA) neonate. These complications are leading causes of maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality in high-income countries. Affected women are at high risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies; however, effective strategies to prevent recurrence are absent. Findings from our previous study-level meta-analysis suggested that low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the risk of recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. However, we identified significant heterogeneity in the results, possibly due to trial design or inclusion criteria. To identify which patients benefit from, and which outcomes are prevented by, low-molecular-weight heparin, we did an individual patient data meta-analysis. METHODS: We did a systematic review in May, 2013, which identified eight eligible randomised trials done between 2000 and 2013 of low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. We excluded studies on the basis of the wrong population, the study being ongoing, inability to confirm eligibility of participants, intervention stopped too early, and no response from the principal investigator. We requested individual patient data from the study authors for eligible women (women pregnant at the time of the study with a history of previous pregnancy that had been complicated by one or more of the following: pre-eclampsia, placental abruption, birth of an SGA neonate [<10th percentile], pregnancy loss after 16 weeks' gestation, or two losses after 12 weeks' gestation) and recoded, combined, and analysed the data for our meta-analysis. The primary outcome was a composite of early-onset (<34 weeks) or severe pre-eclampsia, birth of an SGA neonate (<5th percentile), late pregnancy loss (≥20 weeks' gestation), or placental abruption leading to delivery, assessed on an intention-to-treat basis. We assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42013006249. FINDINGS: We analysed data from 963 eligible women in eight trials: 480 randomly assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin and 483 randomly assigned to no low-molecular-weight heparin. Overall, the risk of bias was not substantial enough to affect decisions regarding trial inclusion. Participants were mostly white (795/905; 88%) with a mean age of 30·9 years (SD 5·0) and 403/963 (42%) had thrombophilia. In the primary analysis, low-molecular-weight heparin did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (low-molecular-weight heparin 62/444 [14%] versus no low-molecular-weight heparin 95/443 (22%) absolute difference -8%, 95% CI -17·3 to 1·4, p=0·09; relative risk 0·64, 95% CI 0·36-1·11, p=0·11). We noted significant heterogeneity between single-centre and multicentre trials. In subgroup analyses, low-molecular-weight heparin in multicentre trials reduced the primary outcome in women with previous abruption (p=0·006) but not in any of the other subgroups of previous complications. INTERPRETATION: Low-molecular-weight heparin does not seem to reduce the risk of recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications in at-risk women. However, some decreases in event rates might have been too small for the power of our study to explore. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Evaluation of a training program for medicines-oriented policymakers to use a database of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal prescribing and medications use is a problem for health systems globally. Systematic reviews are a comprehensive resource that can help guide evidence-informed decision-making and implementation of interventions addressing such issues; however, a barrier to the use of systematic reviews is their inaccessibility (due to both dispersion across journals and inaccessibility of content). Publicly available databases, such as Rx for Change, provide quick access to summaries of appraised systematic reviews of professional and consumer-oriented interventions to improve prescribing behaviour and appropriate medication use, and may help maximise the use of evidence to inform decisions. The present study aims to evaluate a training program to improve attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of systematic review evidence contained within Rx for Change. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, a training program with content customised to local provider and consumer contexts was developed with knowledge user input. The training program consisted of a 6 minute information video, a 1 hour workshop with hands-on, interactive and didactic components, and two post-training reminders. Forty-nine people from five medicines-focused organisations in Canada and Australia attended one of six workshops. Participants were surveyed immediately pre and post and 3 months after training to evaluate their attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of Rx for Change, and attitudes towards and confidence in skills for using evidence for decision-making. Analyses for differences for each of the outcomes at three time points (pre, post and 3 months after training) was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Immediately post-training, there were higher respondent attitudes towards Rx for Change (mean increase = 0.54 out of 5, 95% CI, 0.18-0.83, P < 0.005); intention to use Rx for Change (0.53, 95% CI, 0.21-0.86, P < 0.005); confidence in skills for using Rx for Change (2.08, 95% CI, 1.74-2.42, P < 0.005); and confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making (0.50, 95% CI, 0.22-0.77, P < .005) compared to pre-training. Confidence in skills for using both Rx for Change and evidence were maintained 3 months after training (both P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Participants of this training program reported sustained improvements in their confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making. This may have important implications for uptake of systematic review evidence promoting improved prescribing and medication use.

Interventions to improve professional adherence to guidelines for prevention of device-related infections.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are a major threat to patient safety, and are associated with mortality rates varying from 5% to 35%. Important risk factors associated with HAIs are the use of invasive medical devices (e.g. central lines, urinary catheters and mechanical ventilators), and poor staff adherence to infection prevention practices during insertion and care for the devices when in place. There are specific risk profiles for each device, but in general, the breakdown of aseptic technique during insertion and care for the device, as well as the duration of device use, are important factors for the development of these serious and costly infections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of different interventions, alone or in combination, which target healthcare professionals or healthcare organisations to improve professional adherence to infection control guidelines on device-related infection rates and measures of adherence. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases for primary studies up to June 2012: the Cochrane Effective Paractice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. We searched reference lists and contacted authors of included studies. We also searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies that complied with the Cochrane EPOC Group methodological criteria, and that evaluated interventions to improve professional adherence to guidelines for the prevention of device-related infections. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Cochrane EPOC 'Risk of bias' tool. We contacted authors of original papers to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies: one cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) and 12 ITS studies, involving 40 hospitals, 51 intensive care units (ICUs), 27 wards, and more than 3504 patients and 1406 healthcare professionals. Six of the included studies targeted adherence to guidelines to prevent central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSIs); another six studies targeted adherence to guidelines to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and one study focused on interventions to improve urinary catheter practices. We judged all included studies to be at moderate or high risk of bias.The largest median effect on rates of VAP was found at nine months follow-up with a decrease of 7.36 (-10.82 to 3.14) cases per 1000 ventilator days (five studies and 15 sites). The one included cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT) observed, improved urinary catheter practices five weeks after the intervention (absolute difference 12.2 percentage points), however, the statistical significance of this is unknown given a unit of analysis error. It is worth noting that N = 6 interventions that did result in significantly decreased infection rates involved more than one active intervention, which in some cases, was repeatedly administered over time, and further, that one intervention involving specialised oral care personnel showed the largest step change (-22.9 cases per 1000 ventilator days (standard error (SE) 4.0), and also the largest slope change (-6.45 cases per 1000 ventilator days (SE 1.42, P = 0.002)) among the included studies. We attempted to combine the results for studies targeting the same indwelling medical device (central line catheters or mechanical ventilators) and reporting the same outcomes (CLABSI and VAP rate) in two separate meta-analyses, but due to very high statistical heterogeneity among included studies (I(2) up to 97%), we did not retain these analyses. Six of the included studies reported post-intervention adherence scores ranging from 14% to 98%. The effect on rates of infection were mixed and the effect sizes were small, with the largest median effect for the change in level (interquartile range (IQR)) for the six CLABSI studies being observed at three months follow-up was a decrease of 0.6 (-2.74 to 0.28) cases per 1000 central line days (six studies and 36 sites). This change was not sustained over longer follow-up times. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low to very low quality of the evidence of studies included in this review provides insufficient evidence to determine with certainty which interventions are most effective in changing professional behaviour and in what contexts. However, interventions that may be worth further study are educational interventions involving more than one active element and that are repeatedly administered over time, and interventions employing specialised personnel, who are focused on an aspect of care that is supported by evidence e.g. dentists/dental auxiliaries performing oral care for VAP prevention.

Access to Long-Term Care for Minority Populations: A Systematic Review.

It has been shown that there is disparity in access to long-term care and other services for minority populations. This study assessed long-term care access among older individuals belonging to minority populations including visible, ethnocultural, linguistic, and sexual minorities. Barriers and facilitators influencing admission were identified and evaluated.A search for articles from 10 databases published between January 2000 and January 2021 was conducted. Included studies evaluated factors affecting minority populations' admission to long-term care, and non-residents' perceptions of future admission. This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018038662. Sixty included quantitative and qualitative studies, ranging in quality from fair to excellent. Findings suggest minority status is associated with reduced admission to long-term care, controlling for confounding variables. Barriers identified include discordant language, fear of discrimination, lack of information, and family obligations. Findings suggest that minority populations experienced barriers accessing long-term care and had unmet cultural and language needs while receiving care in this setting.

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The opportunity to improve care using computer reminders is one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the expected magnitude of improvements in processes of care from computer reminders delivered to clinicians during their routine activities. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases (to July 2008) and scanned the bibliographies of retrieved articles. We included studies in our review if they used a randomized or quasi-randomized design to evaluate improvements in processes or outcomes of care from computer reminders delivered to physicians during routine electronic ordering or charting activities. RESULTS: Among the 28 trials (reporting 32 comparisons) included in our study, we found that computer reminders improved adherence to processes of care by a median of 4.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.8%-18.8%). Using the best outcome from each study, we found that the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR 2.0%-19.2%). A minority of studies reported larger effects; however, no study characteristic or reminder feature significantly predicted the magnitude of effect except in one institution, where a well-developed, "homegrown" clinical information system achieved larger improvements than in all other studies (median 16.8% [IQR 8.7%-26.0%] v. 3.0% [IQR 0.5%-11.5%]; p = 0.04). A trend toward larger improvements was seen for reminders that required users to enter a response (median 12.9% [IQR 2.7%-22.8%] v. 2.7% [IQR 0.6%-5.6%]; p = 0.09). INTERPRETATION: Computer reminders produced much smaller improvements than those generally expected from the implementation of computerized order entry and electronic medical record systems. Further research is required to identify features of reminder systems consistently associated with clinically worthwhile improvements.

Establishing need and population priorities to improve the health of homeless and vulnerably housed women, youth, and men: A Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is one of the most disabling and precarious living conditions. The objective of this Delphi consensus study was to identify priority needs and at-risk population subgroups among homeless and vulnerably housed people to guide the development of a more responsive and person-centred clinical practice guideline. METHODS: We used a literature review and expert working group to produce an initial list of needs and at-risk subgroups of homeless and vulnerably housed populations. We then followed a modified Delphi consensus method, asking expert health professionals, using electronic surveys, and persons with lived experience of homelessness, using oral surveys, to prioritize needs and at-risk sub-populations across Canada. Criteria for ranking included potential for impact, extent of inequities and burden of illness. We set ratings of ≥ 60% to determine consensus over three rounds of surveys. FINDINGS: Eighty four health professionals and 76 persons with lived experience of homelessness participated from across Canada, achieving an overall 73% response rate. The participants identified priority needs including mental health and addiction care, facilitating access to permanent housing, facilitating access to income support and case management/care coordination. Participants also ranked specific homeless sub-populations in need of additional research including: Indigenous Peoples (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit); youth, women and families; people with acquired brain injury, intellectual or physical disabilities; and refugees and other migrants. INTERPRETATION: The inclusion of the perspectives of both expert health professionals and people with lived experience of homelessness provided validity in identifying real-world needs to guide systematic reviews in four key areas according to priority needs, as well as launch a number of working groups to explore how to adapt interventions for specific at-risk populations, to create evidence-based guidelines.

The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care.

BACKGROUND: The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.

Correction: Effectiveness of home-based records on maternal, newborn and child health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209278.].

Effectiveness of home-based records on maternal, newborn and child health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Home-based records (HBRs) may improve the health of pregnant women, new mothers and their children, and support health care systems. We assessed the effectiveness of HBRs on maternal, newborn and child health reporting, care seeking and self-care practice, mortality, morbidity and women's empowerment in low-, middle- and high-income countries. We conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Health Systems Evidence, CINAHL, HTA database, NHS EED, and DARE from 1950 to 2017. We also searched the WHO, CDC, ECDC, JICA and UNAIDS. We included randomised controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, and cost-effectiveness studies. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to appraise studies. We extracted and analyzed data for outcomes including maternal, newborn and child health, and women's empowerment. We synthesized and presented data using GRADE Evidence Profiles. We included 14 studies out of 16,419 identified articles. HBRs improved antenatal care and reduced likelihood of pregnancy complications; improved patient-provider communication and enhanced women's feelings of control and empowerment; and improved rates of vaccination among children (OR: 2·39, 95% CI: 1.45-3·92) and mothers (OR 1·98 95% CI:1·29-3·04). A three-year follow-up shows that HBRs reduced risk of cognitive delay in children (p = 0.007). HBRs used during the life cycle of women and children in Indonesia showed benefits for continuity of care. There were no significant effects on healthy pregnancy behaviors such as smoking and consumption of alcohol during pregnancy. There were no statistically significant effects on newborn health outcomes. We did not identify any formal studies on cost or economic evaluation. HBRs show modest but important health effects for women and children. These effects with minimal-to-no harms, multiplied across a population, could play an important role in reducing health inequities in maternal, newborn, and child health.

Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care.

BACKGROUND: The primary care specialist interface is a key organisational feature of many health care systems. Patients are referred to specialist care when investigation or therapeutic options are exhausted in primary care and more specialised care is needed. Referral has considerable implications for patients, the health care system and health care costs. There is considerable evidence that the referral processes can be improved. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions to change outpatient referral rates or improve outpatient referral appropriateness. SEARCH STRATEGY: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group specialised register (developed through extensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar and the Cochrane Library) (February 2002) and the National Research Register. Updated searches were conducted in MEDLINE and the EPOC specialised register up to October 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of interventions to change or improve outpatient referrals. Participants were primary care physicians. The outcomes were objectively measured provider performance or health outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A minimum of two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 23 separate comparisons were included. Nine studies (14 comparisons) evaluated professional educational interventions. Ineffective strategies included: passive dissemination of local referral guidelines (two studies), feedback of referral rates (one study) and discussion with an independent medical adviser (one study). Generally effective strategies included dissemination of guidelines with structured referral sheets (four out of five studies) and involvement of consultants in educational activities (two out of three studies). Four studies evaluated organisational interventions (patient management by family physicians compared to general internists, attachment of a physiotherapist to general practices, a new slot system for referrals and requiring a second 'in-house' opinion prior to referral), all of which were effective. Four studies (five comparisons) evaluated financial interventions. One study evaluating change from a capitation based to mixed capitation and fee-for-service system and from a fee-for-service to a capitation based system (with an element of risk sharing for secondary care services) observed a reduction in referral rates. Modest reductions in referral rates of uncertain significance were observed following the introduction of the general practice fundholding scheme in the United Kingdom (UK). One study evaluating the effect of providing access to private specialists demonstrated an increase in the proportion of patients referred to specialist services but no overall effect on referral rates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are a limited number of rigorous evaluations to base policy on. Active local educational interventions involving secondary care specialists and structured referral sheets are the only interventions shown to impact on referral rates based on current evidence. The effects of 'in-house' second opinion and other intermediate primary care based alternatives to outpatient referral appear promising.

Accessibility and Acceptability of Infectious Disease Interventions Among Migrants in the EU/EEA: A CERQual Systematic Review.

In the EU/EEA, subgroups of international migrants have an increased prevalence of certain infectious diseases. The objective of this study was to examine migrants' acceptability, value placed on outcomes, and accessibility of infectious disease interventions. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative reviews adhering to the PRISMA reporting guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DARE, and CDSR, and assessed review quality using AMSTAR. We conducted a framework analysis based on the Health Beliefs Model, which was used to organize our preliminary findings with respect to the beliefs that underlie preventive health behavior, including knowledge of risk factors, perceived susceptibility, severity and barriers, and cues to action. We assessed confidence in findings using an adapted GRADE CERQual tool. We included 11 qualitative systematic reviews from 2111 articles. In these studies, migrants report several facilitators to public health interventions. Acceptability depended on migrants' relationship with healthcare practitioners, knowledge of the disease, and degree of disease-related stigma. Facilitators to public health interventions relevant for migrant populations may provide clues for implementation. Trust, cultural sensitivity, and communication skills also have implications for linkage to care and public health practitioner education. Recommendations from practitioners continue to play a key role in the acceptance of infectious disease interventions.

Some Cochrane risk-of-bias items are not important in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of bias-related study characteristics on treatment effects in osteoarthritis (OA) trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on OA trials included in Cochrane reviews, the impact of study characteristics on treatment effect estimates was evaluated. Characteristics included items of the risk of bias (RoB) tool, trial size, single vs. multisite, and source of funding. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Meta-regression was performed to identify "relevant study-level covariates" that decrease the between-study variance (τˆ2). RESULTS: Twenty reviews, including 126 OA trials with a high degree of heterogeneity, were included (τˆ2 = 0.1247). Among the RoB domains, only patient blinding had an impact on the results (reducing heterogeneity according to τˆ2 < 7%). Inadequate blinding of patients yielded larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.29, P = 0.035). The most important study characteristic was trial size (heterogeneity reduced by 25%), with small trials reporting larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16-0.42, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In musculoskeletal reviews addressing pain, all the items included in the Cochrane RoB tool might not be equally important. OA trial results may be affected by bias constructs that are not yet fully elucidated.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports. RESULTS: Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ. CONCLUSIONS: The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively. RESULTS: Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Prevention and assessment of infectious diseases among children and adult migrants arriving to the European Union/European Economic Association: a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews for public health and health systems.

INTRODUCTION: The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is developing evidence-based guidance for voluntary screening, treatment and vaccine prevention of infectious diseases for newly arriving migrants to the European Union/European Economic Area. The objective of this systematic review protocol is to guide the identification, appraisal and synthesis of the best available evidence on prevention and assessment of the following priority infectious diseases: tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis (polio), Haemophilus influenza disease, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The search strategy will identify evidence from existing systematic reviews and then update the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence using prospective trials, economic evaluations and/or recently published systematic reviews. Interdisciplinary teams have designed logic models to help define study inclusion and exclusion criteria, guiding the search strategy and identifying relevant outcomes. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical or safety issues. We anticipate disseminating the findings through open-access publications, conference abstracts and presentations. We plan to publish technical syntheses as GRADEpro evidence summaries and the systematic reviews as part of a special edition open-access publication on refugee health. We are following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols reporting guideline. This protocol is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42016045798.

Knowledge for knowledge translation: the role of the Cochrane Collaboration.

Knowledge-translation (KT) activities, including continuing education, should be informed by the totality of available research evidence. Systematic reviews are a generic methodology used to synthesize evidence from a broad range of research methods addressing different questions. Over the past decade, there has been a dramatic increase in the availability of systematic reviews that could support KT activities. However, the conduct of systematic reviews is technically challenging, and it is not surprising that the quality of available reviews is variable. In addition, unless attempts are made to update systematic reviews, they rapidly become out of date. The Cochrane Collaboration is a unique, worldwide, not-for-profit organization that aims to help people make well-informed decisions about all forms of health care by preparing, maintaining, and promoting the accessibility of systematic reviews of the effects of health care interventions. Globally, over 13, 000 consumers, clinicians, policymakers, and researchers are involved with The Cochrane Collaboration and have to date produced over 2, 500 systematic reviews that can be used to inform KT activities. The Cochrane Collaboration publishes its reviews quarterly in The Cochrane Library. Cochrane reviews have been used to develop a number of KT-derivative products for professionals, consumers, and policymakers. Whereas most Cochrane Review groups focus on specific clinical areas, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group undertakes reviews of interventions to improve health care delivery and health care systems, including reviews of different KT activities. We summarize the activities of The Cochrane Collaboration and how these can contribute to KT activities.

Traditional versus room service menu styles for pediatric patients.

PURPOSE: To compare patient satisfaction with a room service (RS) menu style versus a traditional menu (TM) in a Canadian pediatric hospital. METHODS: A sample of 20 subjects (Group A) was surveyed before implementation of the RS menu and a second sample of 20 subjects (Group B) was surveyed after implementation. RESULTS: All subjects in Group B rated overall satisfaction with meals as greatly exceeding or exceeding expectations after implementing the new menu style. Also, 65% of Group B subjects rated quality of food as greatly exceeding or exceeding their expectations after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: To improve meal satisfaction for pediatric oncology and hemodialysis patients, the RS menu style is a worthwhile option.

Impact of program duration and contact frequency on efficacy and cost of cardiac rehabilitation: results of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention through cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has been recommended for most patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Although generally reimbursed for 3 months, to date, optimal CR program duration and frequency of patient contact has yet to be identified. This study compared standard (33 sessions for 3 months) versus distributed (33 sessions for 12 months) CR for effects on exercise variables, risk factors, health-related quality of life (HRQL), depressive symptoms, and direct costs to the cardiac health care system. METHODS: We randomly assigned 392 patients to either standard CR (n = 196) or distributed CR (n = 196). Outcomes were cardiorespiratory fitness, daily physical activity, coronary risk factors, generic and heart disease HRQL, and depressive symptoms, measured 12 and 24 months after program intake. Secondary outcomes included these variables measured after 3 months. Costs to the cardiac health care system were determined 2 years after program initiation. RESULTS: Both groups showed improvements over time in cardiorespiratory fitness, daily physical activity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, generic and heart disease HRQL, and depressive symptoms. Over time, blood pressure and body mass index values worsened. Smoking status, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels remained unchanged. There were no clinically meaningful or statistically significant between group differences for outcomes at 12 or 24 months. The costs of the programs to the cardiac health care system were not different. CONCLUSIONS: From a clinical standpoint, this study indicates that both standard and distributed program formats serve patients with CAD equally well over the longer term. Programs could use either program delivery model (standard or distributed) depending on patient or program needs. Costs to the cardiac health care system are similar.

Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews.

Authors of Cochrane reviews are expected to update their reviews every 2 years. The updating process helps to ensure that reviews are current and include recent evidence. However, the updating process is time-consuming for authors, particularly when Cochrane methods evolve and authors are required to revisit some of the originally included studies.The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool is a mandatory component of Cochrane reviews, providing an assessment of the potential biases of included studies. The tool has been modified most recently in 2011, and the expectation is that new versions will continue to be produced and utilised in all Cochrane reviews. In this commentary we discuss, in the context of updating scenarios that are likely to be encountered, the potential options systematic review authors may have recourse to when the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool has been modified between the original review and its update. We recommend that authors who are updating reviews should revise their original assessments of included studies using the most recent version of the risk of bias tool. Despite the increased workload, use of the most recent version of the tool facilitates consistency of methods and reporting both across and within reviews, and ensures currency to the methodological rigour.