Comparative diagnostic accuracy of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) enhanced MR imaging and contrast enhanced CT for the detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and impact on patient management of hepatocyte-specific gadoxetic acid enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (GA-MRI) compared to contrast enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in patients with liver metastases. METHOD: Four biomedical databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, York CRD) were searched from January 1991 to February 2016. Studies investigating the accuracy or management impact of GA-MRI compared to CE-CT in patients with known or suspected liver metastases were included. Bias was evaluated using QUADAS-II. Univariate meta-analysis of sensitivity ratios (RR) were conducted in the absence of heterogeneity, calculated using I 2 , Tau values (τ) and prediction intervals. RESULTS: Nine diagnostic accuracy studies (537 patients with 1216 lesions) and four change in management studies (488 patients with 281 lesions) were included. Per-lesion sensitivity and specificity estimates for GA-MRI ranged from 86.9-100.0 % and 80.2-98.0 %, respectively, compared to 51.8-84.6 % and 77.2-98.0 % for CE-CT. Meta-analysis found GA-MRI to be significantly more sensitive than CE-CT (RR = 1.29, 95 % CI = 1.18-1.40, P < 0.001), with equivalent specificity (RR = 0.97, 95 % CI 0.910-1.042, P = 0.44). The largest difference was observed for lesions smaller than 10 mm for which GA-MRI was significantly more sensitive (RR = 2.21, 95 % CI = 1.47-3.32, P < 0.001) but less specific (RR = 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87-0.98, P = 0.008). GA-MRI affected clinical management in 26 of 155 patients (16.8 %) who had a prior CE-CT; however, no studies investigated the consequences of using GA-MRI instead of CE-CT. CONCLUSION: GA-MRI is significantly more sensitive than CE-CT for detecting liver metastases, which leads to a modest impact on patient management in the context of an equivocal CE-CT result.

Provision of Meaningful Care at Diagnosis, Birth, and after Stillbirth: A Qualitative Synthesis of Parents' Experiences.

BACKGROUND: The care provided to parents experiencing stillbirth can have significant and lasting impacts on their immediate and long-term psychological well being. The aim of this qualitative synthesis was to investigate parents' experiences of care received during and after stillbirth. METHODS: Qualitative findings extracted from 20 included studies were pooled using a meta-aggregative approach. RESULTS: Four meta-syntheses encompassing parents' experiences of care at diagnosis of stillbirth, induction and birth, immediately postbirth and onwards, revealed care strategies that parents appreciated and found helpful, and also actions and behaviors that were distressing. Helpful strategies included a warm and sensitive communication style, provision of clear and understandable information, shared decision making, and respect for individual needs and preferences. Parents appreciated guidance from health care professionals about seeing and holding, including being prepared for their baby's possible appearance, information on how to spend time with their baby, and collection of memorabilia. After stillbirth, offers of follow-up care, including referrals for professional support, were appreciated. CONCLUSIONS: Care received during and after stillbirth may have lasting impacts on parents' future well being. Health care professionals may aid in improving parents' well being after stillbirth by providing care that is cognizant of parents' emotional states. Care strategies arising from the findings of this review are suggested.

Improving communication between health-care professionals and patients with limited English proficiency in the general practice setting.

Quality service provision and patient safety and satisfaction in encounters with health-care professionals relies on effective communication between the practitioner and patient. This study aimed to identify effective practices for improving communication between clinical staff in general practice and patients with limited English proficiency, and to promote their implementation in general practice. Effective interventions and strategies were identified from a review of international research. Experiences with their use in practice were explored via focus group discussions with general practitioners and practice nurses. The results suggest that, wherever possible, communication in the patient's primary language is preferable; use of a qualified medical interpreter should be promoted, and practices should have a standardised and documented procedure for accessing interpreter services. General practice staff must increase their awareness about services that are available to facilitate communication with patients with limited English proficiency, and also develop attitudes, both individual and organisational, that will maximise the effectiveness of these strategies. These findings were used to develop brief, evidence-based practice guidelines that were disseminated to focus group participants for evaluation of utility and general feedback. This evidence-based guidance is now available to assist clinical and administrative general practice staff across regional and metropolitan South Australia.

Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence data.

AIM: There currently does not exist guidance for authors aiming to undertake systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies, such as those reporting prevalence and incidence information. These reviews are particularly useful to measure global disease burden and changes in disease over time. The aim of this article is to provide guidance for conducting these types of reviews. METHODS: A methodological working group of the Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, was formed to create guidance for conducting systematic reviews of studies reporting prevalence and cumulative incidence information. All methodological output of the group was subject to peer review and feedback by members of the international evidence synthesis community. RESULTS: Systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence data should follow the same structured steps as systematic reviews of effectiveness. However, many of these steps need to be tailored for this type of evidence, particularly surrounding the stages of critical appraisal and synthesis. CONCLUSION: Prevalence and incidence systematic review and meta-analysis is an emerging methodology in the field of evidence synthesis. These reviews can provide useful information for healthcare professionals and policymakers on the burden of disease, show changes and trends over time in disease, and inform geographical distributions of disease and conditions.

Caring for families experiencing stillbirth: Evidence-based guidance for maternity care providers.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidance is needed to inform care provided to mothers and families who experience stillbirth. This paper focuses upon how meaningful and culturally appropriate care can be provided to mothers and families from when they are informed that their baby will be stillborn to many years after the experience. Avoidable suffering may be occurring in the clinical setting. AIMS: To promote and inform meaningful and culturally appropriate evidence-informed practice amongst maternity care providers caring for mothers and families who experience stillbirth. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review was conducted which primarily synthesised relevant qualitative research studies. An expert advisory group comprised of stillbirth researchers, clinicians, and parents who have experienced stillbirth provided guidance for the review and the development of implications for practice. FINDINGS: Grieving parents want staff to demonstrate sensitivity and empathy, validate their emotions, provide clear, information, and be aware that the timing of information may be distressing. Parents want support and guidance when making decisions about seeing and holding their baby. Sensitivity, respect, collaboration, and information are essential throughout the experience of stillbirth. Culturally appropriate care is important and may require staff to accommodate different cultural practices. CONCLUSION: The findings of the review and expert consensus inform the provision of meaningful and culturally appropriate care for mothers and families that have experienced stillbirth. Evidence informed implications for practice are provided to guide the actions, communication, and behaviours of maternity care providers.

Enablers and barriers to the implementation of primary health care interventions for Indigenous people with chronic diseases: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Access to appropriate, affordable, acceptable and comprehensive primary health care (PHC) is critical for improving the health of Indigenous populations. Whilst appropriate infrastructure, sufficient funding and knowledgeable health care professionals are crucial, these elements alone will not lead to the provision of appropriate care for all Indigenous people. This systematic literature review synthesised international evidence on the factors that enable or inhibit the implementation of interventions aimed at improving chronic disease care for Indigenous people. METHODS: A systematic review using Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) (PubMed platform), Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), ATSIHealth, Australian Indigenous HealthInfoNet via Informit Online and Primary Health Care Research and Information Service (PHCRIS) databases was undertaken. Studies were included if they described an intervention for one or more of six chronic conditions that was delivered in a primary health care setting in Australia, New Zealand, Canada or the United States. Attitudes, beliefs, expectations, understandings and knowledge of patients, their families, Indigenous communities, providers and policy makers were of interest. Published and unpublished qualitative and quantitative studies from 1998 to 2013 were considered. Qualitative findings were pooled using a meta-aggregative approach, and quantitative data were presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS: Twenty three studies were included. Meta-aggregation of qualitative data revealed five synthesised findings, related to issues within the design and planning phase of interventions, the chronic disease workforce, partnerships between service providers and patients, clinical care pathways and patient access to services. The available quantitative data supported the qualitative findings. Three key features of enablers and barriers emerged from the findings: (1) they are not fixed concepts but can be positively or negatively influenced, (2) the degree to which the work of an intervention can influence an enabler or barrier varies depending on their source and (3) they are inter-related whereby a change in one may effect a change in another. CONCLUSIONS: Future interventions should consider the findings of this review as it provides an evidence-base that contributes to the successful design, implementation and sustainability of chronic disease interventions in primary health care settings intended for Indigenous people.

Constructing a search strategy and searching for evidence. A guide to the literature search for a systematic review.

This article is the third in a new series on the systematic review from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an international collaborative supporting evidence-based practice in nursing, medicine, and allied health fields. The purpose of the series is to show nurses how to conduct a systematic review-one step at a time. This article details the major considerations surrounding search strategies and presents an example of a search using the PubMed platform (pubmed.gov).

The development of a critical appraisal tool for use in systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Recently there has been a significant increase in the number of systematic reviews addressing questions of prevalence. Key features of a systematic review include the creation of an a priori protocol, clear inclusion criteria, a structured and systematic search process, critical appraisal of studies, and a formal process of data extraction followed by methods to synthesize, or combine, this data. Currently there exists no standard method for conducting critical appraisal of studies in systematic reviews of prevalence data. METHODS: A working group was created to assess current critical appraisal tools for studies reporting prevalence data and develop a new tool for these studies in systematic reviews of prevalence. Following the development of this tool it was piloted amongst an experienced group of sixteen healthcare researchers. RESULTS: The results of the pilot found that this tool was a valid approach to assessing the methodological quality of studies reporting prevalence data to be included in systematic reviews. Participants found the tool acceptable and easy to use. Some comments were provided which helped refine the criteria. CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study found that this tool was well-accepted by users and further refinements have been made to the tool based on their feedback. We now put forward this tool for use by authors conducting prevalence systematic reviews.

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment.

BACKGROUND: Governments and other payers are yet to determine optimal processes by which to review the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of technologies and procedures that are in active use within health systems, and rescind funding (partially or fully) from those that display poor profiles against these parameters. To further progress a disinvestment agenda, a model is required to support payers in implementing disinvestment in a transparent manner that may withstand challenge from vested interests and concerned citizens. Combining approaches from health technology assessment and deliberative democratic theory, this project seeks to determine if and how wide stakeholder engagement can contribute to improved decision-making processes, wherein the views of both vested and non-vested stakeholders are seen to contribute to informing policy implementation within a disinvestment context. METHODS/DESIGN: Systematic reviews pertaining to illustrative case studies were developed and formed the evidence base for discussion. Review findings were presented at a series of deliberative, evidence-informed stakeholder engagements, including partisan (clinicians and consumers) and non-partisan (representative community members) stakeholders. Participants were actively facilitated towards identifying shared and dissenting perspectives regarding public funding policy for each of the case studies and developing their own funding models in response to the evidence presented. Policy advisors will subsequently be invited to evaluate disinvestment options based on the scientific and colloquial evidence presented to them, and to explore the value of this information to their decision-making processes with reference to disinvestment. DISCUSSION: Analysis of the varied outputs of the deliberative engagements will contribute to the methodological development around how to best integrate scientific and colloquial evidence for consideration by policy advisors. It may contribute to the legitimization of broad and transparent stakeholder engagement in this context. It is anticipated that decision making will benefit from the knowledge delivered through informed deliberation with engaged stakeholders, and this will be explored through interviews with key decision makers.