Audit and feedback to change diagnostic image ordering practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of diagnostic imaging (DI) tests may be unnecessary, leading to increased healthcare costs and the possibility of patient harm. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of audit and feedback (AF) interventions directed at healthcare providers on reducing image ordering. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of AF on the appropriateness of DI ordering. METHODS: Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registry on December 22nd, 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized control trials (RCTs), targeted healthcare professionals, and studied AF as the sole intervention or as the core component of a multi-faceted intervention. Risk of bias for each study was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were completed using RevMan software and results were displayed in forest plots. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs enrolling 4311 clinicians or practices were included. AF interventions resulted in 1.5 fewer image test orders per 1000 patients seen than control interventions (95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -2.6 to -0.4, p-value = 0.009). The effect of AF on appropriateness was not statistically significant, with a 3.2% (95% CI -1.5 to 7.7%, p-value = 0.18) greater likelihood of test orders being considered appropriate with AF vs control interventions. The strength of evidence was rated as moderate for the primary objective but was very low for the appropriateness outcome because of risk of bias, inconsistency in findings, indirectness, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: AF interventions are associated with a modest reduction in total DI ordering with moderate certainty, suggesting some benefit of AF. Individual studies document effects of AF on image order appropriateness ranging from a non-significant trend toward worsening to a highly significant improvement, but the weighted average effect size from the meta-analysis is not statistically significant with very low certainty.

Interventions to Influence Opioid Prescribing Practices for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: This study is a systematic review of interventions to improve adherence to guideline recommendations for prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Investigators searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and Joanna Briggs Institute Evid Based Pract database from inception until June 3, 2019. Interventional studies to improve adherence to recommendations made by opioid guidelines for chronic noncancer pain in North America were eligible if outcomes included adherence to guideline recommendations or change in quantity of opioids prescribed. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. Quantitative synthesis was performed using random effects meta-analysis. Confidence in evidence was determined using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 20 studies (8 controlled and 12 prospective cohort) involving 1,491 providers and 72 clinics met inclusion. Interventions included education, audit and feedback, interprofessional support, shared decision making, and multifaceted strategies. Multifaceted interventions improved the use of urine drug testing (n=2, or =2.31, 95% CI=1.53, 3.49, z=3.98, p<0.01; high-certainty evidence), treatment agreements (n=2, or =1.96, 95% CI=1.47, 2.61, z=4.56, p<0.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and mental health screening (n=2, 2.57-fold, 95% CI=1.56, 4.24, z=2.32, p=0.02; low-certainty evidence) when prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that several interventions improved the use of treatment agreements, urine drug testing, and prescription drug monitoring programs. CONCLUSIONS: Mostly very low-certainty evidence supports a number of interventions for improving adherence to risk management strategies when prescribing opioids for chronic noncancer pain; however, the effect on patient important outcomes (e.g., overdose, addiction, death) is uncertain.

Prescriber adherence to guidelines for chronic noncancer pain management with opioids: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This review quantified prescriber adherence to opioid prescribing guidelines for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). METHOD: We searched CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database from inception until June 3, 2019. Studies that focused on provider adherence to opioids guidelines for CNCP in North America were eligible. Four reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were eligible, comprising 17 cross-sectional studies (n = 11,835 providers) and 22 chart reviews (n = 22,512 patients). Survey data indicated that adherence was 49% (95% CI [40, 59]) for treatment agreements, 33% (95% CI [19%, 47%]) for urine drug testing, 48% (95% CI [26%, 71%]) for consultation with drug monitoring program, 57% (95% CI [35%, 79%]) for assessing risk of aberrant medication-taking behavior, and 61% (95% CI [35%, 87%]) for mental health screening. Chart review data indicated that the proportion of patients with documentation was 40% (95% CI [29, 51]) for treatment agreements, 41% (95% CI [32%, 50%]) for urine drug testing, 40% (95% CI [2%, 78%]) for consultation with drug monitoring program, 41% (95% CI [20%, 64%]) for assessing risk of aberrant medication-taking behavior, and 22% (95% CI [9%, 33%]) for mental health screening. Year of publication, practice guideline referenced, and risk of bias explained significant heterogeneity. No study evaluated whether nonadherence to recommendations reflected well-justified deviations to care. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to guideline recommendations for opioids for CNCP is low. It is unclear whether nonadherence reflects thoughtful deviations in care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Validated methods to identify patients with asthma-COPD overlap in healthcare databases: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Asthma-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) overlap (ACO) is characterised by patients presenting symptoms of both asthma and COPD. Many efforts have been made to validate different methods of identifying asthma-COPD overlap cases based on symptoms, spirometry and medical history in epidemiological studies using healthcare databases. There are various coding algorithm strategies that can be used and selection depends on targeted validation. The primary objectives of this systematic review are to identify validated methods (or algorithms) that identify patients with ACO from healthcare databases and summarise the reported validity measures of these methods. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE databases and the Web of Science will be systematically searched by using appropriate search strategies that are able to identify studies containing validated codes and algorithms for the diagnosis of ACO in healthcare databases published, in English, before October 2018. For each selected study, we require the presence of at least one test measure (eg, sensitivity, specificity etc). We will also include studies, in which the validated algorithm is compared with an external reference standard such as questionnaires completed by patients or physicians, medical charts review, manual review or an independent second database. For all selected studies, a uniform table will be created to summarise the following vital information: name of author, publication year, country, data source, population, clinical outcome, algorithms, reference standard method of validation and characteristics of the test measure used to determine validity. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087472.

CD8+ T-cells count in acute myocardial infarction in HIV disease in a predominantly male cohort.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus- (HIV-) infected persons have a higher risk for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) than HIV-uninfected persons. Earlier studies suggest that HIV viral load, CD4+ T-cell count, and antiretroviral therapy are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Whether CD8+ T-cell count is associated with CVD risk is not clear. We investigated the association between CD8+ T-cell count and incident AMI in a cohort of 73,398 people (of which 97.3% were men) enrolled in the U.S. Veterans Aging Cohort Study-Virtual Cohort (VACS-VC). Compared to uninfected people, HIV-infected people with high baseline CD8+ T-cell counts (>1065 cells/mm3) had increased AMI risk (adjusted HR=1.82, P<0.001, 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.28). There was evidence that the effect of CD8+ T-cell tertiles on AMI risk differed by CD4+ T-cell level: compared to uninfected people, HIV-infected people with CD4+ T-cell counts≥200 cells/mm3 had increased AMI risk with high CD8+ T-cell count, while those with CD4+ T-cell counts<200 cells/mm3 had increased AMI risk with low CD8+ T-cell count. CD8+ T-cell counts may add additional AMI risk stratification information beyond that provided by CD4+ T-cell counts alone.