Costs and healthcare utilisation due to respiratory syncytial virus disease in paediatric patients in Italy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a frequent cause of acute lower respiratory infection in children, imposing a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems. This systematic review aimed to assess the economic burden and healthcare utilisation of RSV in children aged 0-59 months in Italy. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the International HTA Database, including studies published in English or Italian, was conducted between January 2000 and July 2022. Inclusion criteria required studies to be conducted in Italy and provide data on the economic costs and healthcare resource utilisation related to RSV infections. RESULTS: Out of 20,845 records screened, 18 articles met the inclusion criteria. Only one study provided comprehensive data on RSV disease costs, including hospitalisation, diagnostic tests, and medical procedures for infants with RSV-bronchiolitis. The mean cost per inpatient was higher for RSV-positive children (€5753.43 ± €2041.62) than that for RSV-negative children. Additionally, five studies reported a median length of hospital stay of 5 days for RSV-infected children, and four studies indicated a higher frequency of intensive care unit admissions for RSV-infected children than for those with other viral infections. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review to examine the economic burden and healthcare utilisation of RSV in children aged 0-59 months in Italy. While limited data were available, the findings underscore the urgency to conduct further research and gather additional evidence on the costs and healthcare resource utilisation associated with RSV infections. Such efforts are essential for informing the development of effective prevention strategies for paediatric RSV infections in Italy.

Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) featuring rule- or algorithm-based software integrated with electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Information on system design, capabilities, acquisition, implementation context, and effects on mortality, morbidity, and economic outcomes were extracted. Twenty-eight RCTs were included. CDSS use did not affect mortality (16 trials, 37395 patients; 2282 deaths; risk ratio [RR] = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.85, 1.08; I(2) = 41%). A statistically significant effect was evident in the prevention of morbidity, any disease (9 RCTs; 13868 patients; RR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.68, 0.99; I(2) = 64%), but selective outcome reporting or publication bias cannot be excluded. We observed differences for costs and health service utilization, although these were often small in magnitude. Across clinical settings, new generation CDSSs integrated with EHRs do not affect mortality and might moderately improve morbidity outcomes.

Clinical and economic burden of respiratory syncytial virus in children aged 0-5 years in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is among the leading causes of hospitalization due to lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in children younger than 5 years worldwide and the second cause of infant death after malaria. RSV infection occurs in almost all the infants before the second year of life with variable clinical severity, often requiring medical assistance. This analysis investigated patients aged 0-5 years with RSV infection focusing on epidemiology, clinical features, and economic burden of RSV-associated hospitalizations in a setting of Italian real clinical practice. METHODS: An observational retrospective analysis was conducted on administrative databases of healthcare entities covering around 2.6 million residents of whom 120,000 health-assisted infants aged < 5 years. From 2010 to 2018, pediatric patients were included in the presence of hospitalization discharge diagnosis for RSV infections, and RSV-related acute bronchiolitis or pneumonia. Epidemiology, demographics, clinical picture and costs were evaluated in RSV-infected patients, overall and stratified by age ranges (0-1, 1-2, 2-5 years) and compared with an age-matched general population. RESULTS: Overall 1378 RSV-infected children aged 0-5 years were included. Among them, the annual incidence rate of RSV-related hospitalizations was 175-195/100,000 people, with a peak in neonates aged < 1 year (689-806/100,000). While nearly 85% of infected infants were healthy, the remaining 15% presented previous hospitalization for known RSV risk factors, like preterm birth, or congenital heart, lung, and immune diseases. The economic analysis revealed that direct healthcare costs per patient/year were markedly higher in RSV patients than in the general population (3605€ vs 344€). CONCLUSIONS: These findings derived from the real clinical practice in Italy confirmed that RSV has an important epidemiological, clinical, and economic burden among children aged 0-5 years. While the complex management of at-risk infants was confirmed, our data also highlighted the significant impact of RSV infection in infants born at term or otherwise healthy, demonstrating that all infants need protection against RSV disease, reducing then the risk of medium and long-term complications, such as wheezing and asthma.

Assessing the burden of bronchiolitis and lower respiratory tract infections in children ≤24 months of age in Italy, 2012-2019.

Background: Bronchiolitis is the most common lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in children and is mainly caused by the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). Bronchiolitis presents seasonally and lasts about five months, usually between October to March, with peaks of hospitalizations between December and February, in the Northern Hemisphere. The burden of bronchiolitis and RSV in primary care is not well understood. Materials and methods: This retrospective analysis used data from Pedianet, a comprehensive paediatric primary care database of 161 family paediatricians in Italy. We evaluated the incidence rates (IR) of all-cause bronchiolitis (ICD9-CM codes 466.1, 466.11 or 466.19), all-cause LRTIs, RSV-bronchiolitis and RSV-LRTIs in children from 0 to 24 months of age, between January 2012 to December 2019. The role of prematurity (<37 weeks of gestational age) as a bronchiolitis risk factor was evaluated and expressed as odds ratio. Results: Of the 108,960 children included in the study cohort, 7,956 episodes of bronchiolitis and 37,827 episodes of LRTIs were recorded for an IR of 47 and 221 × 1,000 person-years, respectively. IRs did not vary significantly throughout the eight years of RSV seasons considered, showing a seasonality usually lasting five months, between October and March, while the peak of incidence was between December and February. Bronchiolitis and LRTI IRs were higher during the RSV season, between October and March, regardless of the month of birth, with bronchiolitis IR being higher in children aged ≤12 months. Only 2.3% of bronchiolitis and LRTI were coded as RSV-related. Prematurity and comorbidity increased the risk of bronchiolitis; however, 92% of cases happened in children born at term, and 97% happened in children with no comorbidities or otherwise healthy. Conclusions: Our results confirm that all children aged ≤24 months are at risk of bronchiolitis and LRTI during the RSV season, regardless of the month of birth, gestational age or underlying health conditions. The IRs of bronchiolitis and LRTI RSV-related are underestimated due to the poor outpatient epidemiological and virological surveillance. Strengthening the surveillance system at the paediatric outpatient level, as well as at the inpatient level, is needed to unveil the actual burden of RSV-bronchiolitis and RSV-LRTI, as well as to evaluate the effectiveness of new preventive strategies for anti-RSV.

Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus Epidemiological Burden in Pediatric Outpatients in Italy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Human respiratory syncytial virus (hRSV) is a key contributor to lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), affecting children aged 0-5 years and often leading to outpatient visits, emergency department utilization, and hospitalization. With the development of hRSV vaccines for mitigation, understanding the epidemiological impact of hRSV infections among 0-5-year-old pediatric outpatients in Italy is crucial. METHODS: This systematic review conducted searches on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the International HTA Database, yielding 20,845 English and Italian records from January 2000 to July 2022. RESULTS: Six eligible articles were identified following inclusion and exclusion criteria. These studies demonstrated hRSV-positivity proportions ranging from 18% to 41% in pediatric outpatients with respiratory infections. However, data comparability was hindered by diverse diagnostic approaches, data sources, sample populations, and study designs. Notably, hRSV-positivity showed temporal variability, rising from 23.8% (2001-2002) to 40.6% (2019-2020). This trend could stem from evolving epidemiological factors, heightened clinician awareness in hRSV diagnosis, or more sensitive molecular techniques. CONCLUSION: As the first review of its kind, this study underscores the need for more comprehensive data to inform effective preventive strategies against hRSV-related burdens in pediatric outpatients.

Consistency of causal claims in observational studies: a review of papers published in a general medical journal.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the consistency of causal statements in observational studies published in The BMJ. DESIGN: Review of observational studies published in a general medical journal. DATA SOURCE: Cohort and other longitudinal studies describing an exposure-outcome relationship published in The BMJ in 2018. We also had access to the submitted papers and reviewer reports. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of published research papers with 'inconsistent' use of causal language. Papers where language was consistently causal or non-causal were classified as 'consistently causal' or 'consistently not causal', respectively. For the 'inconsistent' papers, we then compared the published and submitted version. RESULTS: Of 151 published research papers, 60 described eligible studies. Of these 60, we classified the causal language used as 'consistently causal' (48%), 'inconsistent' (20%) and 'consistently not causal'(32%). Eleven out of 12 (92%) of the 'inconsistent' papers were already inconsistent on submission. The inconsistencies found in both submitted and published versions were mainly due to mismatches between objectives and conclusions. One section might be carefully phrased in terms of association while the other presented causal language. When identifying only an association, some authors jumped to recommending acting on the findings as if motivated by the evidence presented. CONCLUSION: Further guidance is necessary for authors on what constitutes a causal statement and how to justify or discuss assumptions involved. Based on screening these papers, we provide a list of expressions beyond the obvious 'cause' word which may inspire a useful more comprehensive compendium on causal language.

No evidence found for an association between trial characteristics and treatment effects in randomized trials of testosterone therapy in men: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to identify potential trial characteristics associated with reported treatment effect estimates in randomized trials of testosterone therapy in adult men. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a meta-epidemiological study. MEDLINE was searched for meta-analyses of randomized trials of testosterone therapy in men published between 2008 and 2018. Data on trial characteristics were extracted independently by two reviewers. The impact of trial characteristics on reported treatment effects was investigated using a two-step meta-analytic approach. RESULTS: We identified 132 randomized trials, included in 19 meta-analyses, comprising data from 10,725 participants. None of the investigated design characteristics, including year of publication, sample size, trial registration status, center status, regionality, funding source, and conflict of interest were statistically significantly associated with reported treatment effects of testosterone therapy in men. Although trials rated at high risk of bias overall reported treatment effects that were 21% larger compared with trials rated at low risk of bias overall, the 95% confidence interval included the null (ratio of odds ratio: 0.79, 95% confidence interval: 0.60 to 1.03). CONCLUSION: The present study found no clear evidence that trial characteristics are associated with treatment effects in randomized trials of testosterone therapy in men. To establish stronger evidence about the treatment effects of testosterone therapy in men, future randomized trials should not only be adequately designed but also transparently reported. STUDY REGISTRATION: osf.io/x9g6m.

External factors may influence Cochrane reviewers when classifying the risk of bias of original reports.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to explore contextual factors associated with high or low risk-of-bias judgment in case of incomplete or unclear information in study reports. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Research-on-research study, using matched case-control design, with a sample of 304 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in two Cochrane reviews for which there was disagreement on the risk-of-bias judgment related to incomplete or unclear information in the study report. A case was defined as an RCT judged at high or low risk of bias; a control was the same RCT judged at unclear risk. We used a conditional logistic regression model for analysis. RESULTS: Review authors being also authors of the RCT were more likely to assess an item at low risk of bias than unclear (OR: 11.71; 95% CI: 1.39-98.76). Earlier trials in a review were more often assigned a low risk (OR: 0.37; [0.15-0.96]). Review groups and authors that had completed a lower number of reviews slightly more often assigned a low risk, whereas others reported "unclear" (OR: 0.97, [95% CI: 0.95-0.99] for groups) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.998) for authors). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-of-bias assessment of RCTs in case of incomplete or unclear information may be affected by contextual factors.

Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the frequency and reasons for disagreements in risk of bias assessments for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review. DESIGN: Research on research study, using cross-sectional design. DATA SOURCES: 2796 Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. DATA SELECTION: RCTs included in more than one review. DATA EXTRACTION: Risk of bias assessment and support for judgement for five key risk of bias items. DATA SYNTHESIS: For each item, we compared risk of bias assessment made in each review and calculated proportion of agreement. Two reviewers independently analysed 50% of all disagreements by comparing support for each judgement with information from study report to evaluate whether disagreements were related to a difference in information (eg, contact the study author) or a difference in interpretation (same support for judgement but different interpretation). They also identified main reasons for different interpretation. RESULTS: 1604 RCTs were included in more than one review. Proportion of agreement ranged from 57% (770/1348 trials) for incomplete outcome data to 81% for random sequence generation (1193/1466). Most common source of disagreement was difference in interpretation of the same information, ranging from 65% (88/136) for random sequence generation to 90% (56/62) for blinding of participants and personnel. Access to different information explained 32/136 (24%) disagreements for random sequence generation and 38/205 (19%) for allocation concealment. Disagreements related to difference in interpretation were frequently related to incomplete or unclear reporting in the study report (83% of disagreements related to different interpretation for random sequence generation). CONCLUSIONS: Risk of bias judgements of RCTs included in more than one Cochrane review differed substantially. Most disagreements were related to a difference in interpretation of an incomplete or unclear description in the study report. A clearer guidance on common causes of incomplete information may improve agreement.

Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify factors affecting the use of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, specifically authors' attitudes toward and experiences with it. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was distributed to authors of observational studies recruited via social media, personal network snowballing, and mass mailings using targeted search strategies. Data on demographics, awareness, motivators, and usage were collected in conjunction with a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale on which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. RESULTS: One thousand fifteen participants completed the survey. Of these, 185 (18.2%) indicated they had never heard of STROBE nor used it previously, 195 (19.2%) had heard of it but never used it, and 635 (62.6%) had used it. Journals promoting STROBE were both key motivators and awareness mechanisms; peers and educational workshops were also important influencing factors to a lesser degree. The internal consistency of the modified UTAUT scale was strong (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). CFA supported a four-factor model with 23 questions. CONCLUSION: The endorsement of STROBE by journals is key to authors' awareness and use of the guideline. We tested and validated our scale which can guide future research on reporting guidelines.

Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine whether disagreements among multiple data sources affect systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible RCTs examined gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression, reported in public (e.g., journal articles) and nonpublic sources (clinical study reports [CSRs] and individual participant data [IPD]). RESULTS: We found 21 gabapentin RCTs (74 reports, 6 IPD) and 7 quetiapine RCTs (50 reports, 1 IPD); most were reported in journal articles (18/21 [86%] and 6/7 [86%], respectively). When available, CSRs contained the most trial design and risk of bias information. CSRs and IPD contained the most results. For the outcome domains "pain intensity" (gabapentin) and "depression" (quetiapine), we found single trials with 68 and 98 different meta-analyzable results, respectively; by purposefully selecting one meta-analyzable result for each RCT, we could change the overall result for pain intensity from effective (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.63 to -0.27) to ineffective (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.12). We could change the effect for depression from a medium effect (SMD = -0.55; 95% CI: -0.85 to -0.25) to a small effect (SMD = -0.26; 95% CI: -0.41 to -0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements across data sources affect the effect size, statistical significance, and interpretation of trials and meta-analyses.

Implementing an evidence-based computerized decision support system linked to electronic health records to improve care for cancer patients: the ONCO-CODES study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are computer programs that provide doctors with person-specific, actionable recommendations, or management options that are intelligently filtered or presented at appropriate times to enhance health care. CDSSs might be integrated with patient electronic health records (EHRs) and evidence-based knowledge. METHODS/DESIGN: The Computerized DEcision Support in ONCOlogy (ONCO-CODES) trial is a pragmatic, parallel group, randomized controlled study with 1:1 allocation ratio. The trial is designed to evaluate the effectiveness on clinical practice and quality of care of a multi-specialty collection of patient-specific reminders generated by a CDSS in the IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IRST) hospital. We hypothesize that the intervention can increase clinician adherence to guidelines and, eventually, improve the quality of care offered to cancer patients. The primary outcome is the rate at which the issues reported by the reminders are resolved, aggregating specialty and primary care reminders. We will include all the patients admitted to hospital services. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: The results of our study will contribute to the current understanding of the effectiveness of CDSSs in cancer hospitals, thereby informing healthcare policy about the potential role of CDSS use. Furthermore, the study will inform whether CDSS may facilitate the integration of primary care in cancer settings, known to be usually limited. The increasing use of and familiarity with advanced technology among new generations of physicians may support integrated approaches to be tested in pragmatic studies determining the optimal interface between primary and oncology care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02645357.