Concern noted: A descriptive study of editorial expressions of concern in PubMed and PubMed Central.

BACKGROUND: An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued for publications in PubMed and PMC up to 22 August 2016. We also searched the archives of the Retraction Watch blog, some journal and publisher websites, and studies of EEoCs. In addition, we searched for retractions of EEoCs and affected articles in PubMed up to 8 December 2016. We analyzed overall historical trends, as well as reported reasons and subsequent editorial actions related to EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016. RESULTS: After screening 5,076 records, we identified 230 EEoCs that affect 300 publications indexed in PubMed, the earliest issued in 1985. Half of the primary EEoCs were issued between 2014 and 2016 (52%). We found evidence of some EEoCs that had been removed by the publisher without leaving a record and some were not submitted for PubMed or PMC indexing. A minority of publications affected by EEoCs had been retracted by early December 2016 (25%). For the subset of 92 EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016, affecting 99 publications, the rate of retraction was similar (29%). The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation of the publication (68%), and 31% of cases remained open. Issues with images were raised in 40% of affected publications. Ongoing monitoring after the study identified another 17 EEoCs to year's end in 2016, increasing the number of EEoCs to 247 and publications in PubMed known to be affected by EEoCs to 320 at the end of 2016. CONCLUSIONS: EEoCs have been rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, but their use has been increasing. Most have not led to retractions, and many remain unresolved. Lack of prominence and inconsistencies in management of EEoCs reduce the ability of these notices to alert the scientific community to potentially serious problems in publications. EEoCs will be made identifiable in PubMed in 2017.

Nondisclosure of Financial Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: An Intractable Problem?

In a Perspective linked to Stelfox and colleagues, Hilda Bastian discusses the challenges of improving transparency and management of financial conflicts of interest among committees that develop guidelines for medical practice.

A stronger post-publication culture is needed for better science.

Hilda Bastian considers post-publication commenting and the cultural changes that are needed to better capture this intellectual effort. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Core competencies for shared decision making training programs: insights from an international, interdisciplinary working group.

Shared decision making is now making inroads in health care professionals' continuing education curriculum, but there is no consensus on what core competencies are required by clinicians for effectively involving patients in health-related decisions. Ready-made programs for training clinicians in shared decision making are in high demand, but existing programs vary widely in their theoretical foundations, length, and content. An international, interdisciplinary group of 25 individuals met in 2012 to discuss theoretical approaches to making health-related decisions, compare notes on existing programs, take stock of stakeholders concerns, and deliberate on core competencies. This article summarizes the results of those discussions. Some participants believed that existing models already provide a sufficient conceptual basis for developing and implementing shared decision making competency-based training programs on a wide scale. Others argued that this would be premature as there is still no consensus on the definition of shared decision making or sufficient evidence to recommend specific competencies for implementing shared decision making. However, all participants agreed that there were 2 broad types of competencies that clinicians need for implementing shared decision making: relational competencies and risk communication competencies. Further multidisciplinary research could broaden and deepen our understanding of core competencies for shared decision making training.

Evidence-based health information from the users' perspective--a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based information is a precondition for informed decision-making and participation in health. There are several recommendations and definitions available on the generation and assessment of so called evidence-based health information for patients and consumers (EBHI). They stress the importance of objectively informing people about benefits and harms and any uncertainties in health-related procedures. There are also studies on the comprehensibility, relevance and user-friendliness of these informational materials. But to date there has been little research on the perceptions and cognitive reactions of users or lay people towards EBHI. The aim of our study is to define the spectrum of consumers' reaction patterns to written EBHI in order to gain a deeper understanding of their comprehension and assumptions, as well as their informational needs and expectations. METHODS: This study is based on an external user evaluation of EBHI produced by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), commissioned by the IQWiG. The EBHI were examined within guided group discussions, carried out with lay people. The test readers' first impressions and their appraisal of the informational content, presentation, structure, comprehensibility and effect were gathered. Then a qualitative text analysis of 25 discussion transcripts involving 94 test readers was performed. RESULTS: Based on the qualitative text analysis a framework for reaction patterns was developed, comprising eight main categories: (i) interest, (ii) satisfaction, (iii) reassurance and trust, (iv) activation, (v) disinterest, (vi) dissatisfaction and disappointment, (vii) anxiety and worry, (viii) doubt. CONCLUSIONS: Many lay people are unfamiliar with core characteristics of this special information type. Two particularly critical issues are the description of insufficient evidence and the attendant absence of clear-cut recommendations. Further research is needed to examine strategies to explain the specific character of EBHI so as to minimize unintended or adverse reaction patterns. The presented framework describes the spectrum of users' reaction patterns to EBHI. It may support existing best practice models for editing EBHI.

PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts.

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

Integrating values and consumer involvement in guidelines with the patient at the center: article 8 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.

INTRODUCTION: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. They are also realizing the need to involve consumers of healthcare (patients, caregivers, and the public) and integrate their values and preferences in clinical guideline development. This is the eighth of a series of 14 articles that were prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases. It focuses on where to find information about consumer values and preferences, at what points in the guideline development process to integrate their values and preferences, and why. METHODS: In this review, we addressed the following questions: (1) What do we mean by "consumers"? (2) Why integrate the values and preferences of consumers of healthcare (patients, caregivers, and the public) into clinical practice guidelines? (3) What are the sources of information on consumer values? (4) When and how should consumer values and preferences be integrated into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease guideline recommendations? We defined consumers as patients, caregivers, and members of the public, excluding groups that may also be identified as consumers of guidelines including health professionals, providers, and commissioners of services. We searched PubMed and other databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, supplemented by a rapid appraisal of a selection of qualitative studies, experience of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions. RESULTS: A clear distinction needs to be made between the use of information on consumer values and preferences by guideline developers, and the direct involvement of consumers in guideline development processes. Sources of information on consumer values include the research literature and direct elicitation of values both from organizations representing consumer interests and from individuals. To complement the identification of consumer values, there are a range of methods for involving consumers at all stages of guideline development, from consultation to direct membership of guideline development groups. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based guidelines need to consider explicitly the values and preferences of all relevant stakeholders (including those of consumers) and to provide opportunities for patients, caregivers, and the public to engage in the processes that consider and integrate those values into the development of guideline recommendations.

Choosing health technology assessment and systematic review topics: the development of priority-setting criteria for patients' and consumers' interests.

BACKGROUND: The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) was established in 2003 by the German parliament. Its legislative responsibilities are health technology assessment, mostly to support policy making and reimbursement decisions. It also has a mandate to serve patients' interests directly, by assessing and communicating evidence for the general public. OBJECTIVES: To develop a priority-setting framework based on the interests of patients and the general public. METHODS: A theoretical framework for priority setting from a patient/consumer perspective was developed. The process of development began with a poll to determine level of lay and health professional interest in the conclusions of 124 systematic reviews (194 responses). Data sources to identify patients' and consumers' information needs and interests were identified. RESULTS: IQWiG's theoretical framework encompasses criteria for quality of evidence and interest, as well as being explicit about editorial considerations, including potential for harm. Dimensions of "patient interest" were identified, such as patients' concerns, information seeking, and use. Rather than being a single item capable of measurement by one means, the concept of "patients' interests" requires consideration of data and opinions from various sources. CONCLUSIONS: The best evidence to communicate to patients/consumers is right, relevant and likely to be considered interesting and/or important to the people affected. What is likely to be interesting for the community generally is sufficient evidence for a concrete conclusion, in a common condition. More research is needed on characteristics of information that interest patients and consumers, methods of evaluating the effectiveness of priority setting, and methods to determine priorities for disinvestment.

Integrating patients' views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: Patient involvement is widely acknowledged to be a valuable component in health technology assessment (HTA) and healthcare decision making. However, quantitative approaches to ascertain patients' preferences for treatment endpoints are not yet established. The objective of this study is to introduce the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a preference elicitation method in HTA. Based on a systematic literature review on the use of AHP in health care in 2009, the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) initiated an AHP study related to its HTA work in 2010. METHODS: The AHP study included two AHP workshops, one with twelve patients and one with seven healthcare professionals. In these workshops, both patients and professionals rated their preferences with respect to the importance of different endpoints of antidepressant treatment by a pairwise comparison of individual endpoints. These comparisons were performed and evaluated by the AHP method and relative weights were generated for each endpoint. RESULTS: The AHP study indicates that AHP is a well-structured technique whose cognitive demands were well handled by patients and professionals. The two groups rated some of the included endpoints of antidepressant treatment differently. For both groups, however, the same six of the eleven endpoints analyzed accounted for more than 80 percent of the total weight. CONCLUSIONS: AHP can be used in HTA to give a quantitative dimension to patients' preferences for treatment endpoints. Preference elicitation could provide important information at various stages of HTA and challenge opinions on the importance of endpoints.

[Online surveys at www.gesundheitsinformation.de: identifying the potential need for evidence-based health information]. / Online-Umfragen auf Gesundheitsinformation.de: Ermittlung potenzieller Informationsbedürfnisse für evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformationen.

There is some evidence that involving patients in the development of health information can increase the relevance and understandability of this information. The German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) publishes easy-to-understand and freely accessible evidence-based health information on its bilingual website gesundheitsinformation.de / informedhealthonline.org. The aim of the Institute is to determine the information needs of the general public and patients, and to take those needs into account when producing its health information. One way in which this is done is by carrying out online surveys before the information is produced, asking the users of the website about their level of interest in various aspects of a topic. In this article we present two examples of such surveys - on the topics of "endometriosis" and "skin cancer screening and prevention" - as well as the results of these surveys and how the results influenced the contents of the health information produced. Our experience with a total of seven surveys suggests that online surveys can be a helpful additional tool to identify information gaps and determine information needs and areas of special interest. In addition, surveys provide a way to interact with the users of the website. In their current form, however, online surveys also have methodological limitations that need to be considered when developing these surveys and interpreting their results.

Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?

When Archie Cochrane reproached the medical profession for not having critical summaries of all randomised controlled trials, about 14 reports of trials were being published per day. There are now 75 trials, and 11 systematic reviews of trials, per day and a plateau in growth has not yet been reached. Although trials, reviews, and health technology assessments have undoubtedly had major impacts, the staple of medical literature synthesis remains the non-systematic narrative review. Only a small minority of trial reports are being analysed in up-to-date systematic reviews. Given the constraints, Archie Cochrane's vision will not be achieved without some serious changes in course. To meet the needs of patients, clinicians, and policymakers, unnecessary trials need to be reduced, and systematic reviews need to be prioritised. Streamlining and innovation in methods of systematic reviewing are necessary to enable valid answers to be found for most patient questions. Finally, clinicians and patients require open access to these important resources.

Effects of treatment in women with gestational diabetes mellitus: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the benefits and harms of treatments for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, AMED, BIOSIS, CCMed, CDMS, CDSR, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, HTA, NHS EED, Heclinet, SciSearch, several publishers' databases, and reference lists of relevant secondary literature up to October 2009. Review methods Included studies were randomised controlled trials of specific treatment for gestational diabetes compared with usual care or "intensified" compared with "less intensified" specific treatment. RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials matched the inclusion criteria for specific versus usual treatment. All studies used a two step approach with a 50 g glucose challenge test or screening for risk factors, or both, and a subsequent 75 g or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test. Meta-analyses did not show significant differences for most single end points judged to be of direct clinical importance. In women specifically treated for gestational diabetes, shoulder dystocia was significantly less common (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75), and one randomised controlled trial reported a significant reduction of pre-eclampsia (2.5 v 5.5%, P=0.02). For the surrogate end point of large for gestational age infants, the odds ratio was 0.48 (0.38 to 0.62). In the 13 randomised controlled trials of different intensities of specific treatments, meta-analysis showed a significant reduction of shoulder dystocia in women with more intensive treatment (0.31, 0.14 to 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for gestational diabetes, consisting of treatment to lower blood glucose concentration alone or with special obstetric care, seems to lower the risk for some perinatal complications. Decisions regarding treatment should take into account that the evidence of benefit is derived from trials for which women were selected with a two step strategy (glucose challenge test/screening for risk factors and oral glucose tolerance test).