Single-Strain Probiotic Lactobacilli for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Probiotics are known for their positive effects on the gut microbiota. There is growing evidence that the infant gut and skin colonization have a role in the development of the immune system, which may be helpful in the prevention and treatment of atopic dermatitis. This systematic review focused on evaluating the effect of single-strain probiotic lactobacilli consumption on treating children's atopic dermatitis. Seventeen randomized placebo-controlled trials with the primary outcome of the Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index were included in the systematic review. Clinical trials using single-strain lactobacilli were included. The search was conducted until October 2022 using PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Cochrane library and manual searches. The Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analyses and sub meta-analyses were performed using Cochrane Collaboration methodology. Due to different methods of reporting the SCORAD index, only 14 clinical trials with 1124 children were included in the meta-analysis (574 in the single-strain probiotic lactobacilli group and 550 in the placebo group) and showed that single-strain probiotic lactobacilli statistically significantly reduced the SCORAD index compared to the placebo in children with atopic dermatitis (mean difference [MD]: -4.50; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.50 to -1.49; Z = 2.93; p = 0.003; heterogeneity I2 = 90%). The subgroup meta-analysis showed that strains of Limosilactobacillus fermentum were significantly more effective than strains of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei or Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus. A longer treatment time and younger treatment age statistically significantly reduced symptoms of atopic dermatitis. The result of this systematic review and meta-analysis shows that certain single-strain probiotic lactobacilli are more successful than others in reducing atopic dermatitis severity in children. Therefore, careful consideration to strain selection, treatment time and the age of the treated patients are important factors in enhancing the effectiveness of reducing atopic dermatitis in children when choosing probiotic single-strain lactobacilli.

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. CHARTING METHODS: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. RESULTS: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).

The Bridge Building Model: connecting evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research.

This paper describes a model developed by an interdisciplinary team of research and public engagement specialists, with backgrounds in health and social care research, higher education, evidence-based practice, leadership, commissioning research and public involvement and engagement. The model we propose combines evidence-based practice, evidence-based research, public involvement and needs led research. Our aim is to capitalise on the joining of the rationale and methods for these approaches, which have all been highlighted as important, but for which there has been a lack of models for integration. Our ambition is to argue for and show an effective and evidence-based way of working that bridges health and social care needs identification, evidence-based practice and research.

This paper describes a model that combines different concepts in healthcare research that the authors suggest belong together. The concepts are; Evidence Based Practice, where healthcare is based on the best research evidence, Evidence Based Research, where new research is developed in the context of what research already exists, public involvement in research, where service users, carers and health and social care professionals engage with research, and Needs Led Research, where new research addresses the needs of people that use healthcare services.Combining these important approaches in our model is new and we argue for and show a way of working that 'builds bridges' between health and social care needs, healthcare practice and research.The Bridge Building Model has been developed by a team of research and public involvement specialists, with a variety of backgrounds in health and social care research. These include education, healthcare leadership using evidence in healthcare and research funding.

Relationship between teaching modality and COVID-19, well-being, and teaching satisfaction (campus & corona): A cohort study among students in higher education.

OBJECTIVES: Higher education institutions all over the world struggled to balance the need for infection control and educational requirements, as they prepared to reopen after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A particularly difficult choice was whether to offer for in-person or online teaching. Norwegian universities and university colleges opted for a hybrid model when they reopened for the autumn semester, with some students being offered more in-person teaching than others. We seized this opportunity to study the association between different teaching modalities and COVID-19 risk, quality of life (subjective well-being), and teaching satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. METHODS: We recruited students in higher education institutions in Norway who we surveyed biweekly from September to December in 2020. RESULTS: 26 754 students from 14 higher education institutions provided data to our analyses. We found that two weeks of in-person teaching was negatively associated with COVID-19 risk compared to online teaching, but the difference was very uncertain (-22% relative difference; 95% CI -77%-33%). Quality of life was positively associated with in-person teaching (3%; 95% CI 2%-4%), as was teaching satisfaction (10%; 95% CI 8%-11%). CONCLUSION: The association between COVID-19 infection and teaching modality was highly uncertain. Shifting from in-person to online teaching seems to have a negative impact on the well-being of students in higher education.

Evidence Synthesis International (ESI): Position Statement.

This paper is the initial Position Statement of Evidence Synthesis International, a new partnership of organizations that produce, support and use evidence synthesis around the world. The paper (i) argues for the importance of synthesis as a research exercise to clarify what is known from research evidence to inform policy, practice and personal decision making; (ii) discusses core issues for research synthesis such as the role of research evidence in decision making, the role of perspectives, participation and democracy in research and synthesis as a core component of evidence ecosystems; (iii) argues for 9 core principles for ESI on the nature and role of research synthesis; and (iv) lists the 5 main goals of ESI as a coordinating partnership for promoting and enabling the production and use of research synthesis.

Development of a Tailored Intervention With Computerized Clinical Decision Support to Improve Quality of Care for Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Multi-Method Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice patterns greatly diverge from evidence-based recommendations to manage knee osteoarthritis conservatively before resorting to surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to tailor a guideline-based computerized decision support (CDS) intervention that facilitates the conservative management of knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Experts with backgrounds in clinical medicine, research, implementation, or health informatics suggested the most important recommendations for implementation, how to develop an implementation strategy, and how to form the CDS algorithms. In 6 focus group sessions, 8 general practitioners and 22 patients from Norway, Belgium, and Finland discussed the suggested CDS intervention and identified factors that would be most critical for the success of the intervention. The focus group moderators used the GUideline Implementation with DEcision Support checklist, which we developed to support consideration of CDS success factors. RESULTS: The experts prioritized 9 out of 22 recommendations for implementation. We formed the concept for 6 CDS algorithms to support implementation of these recommendations. The focus group suggested 59 unique factors that could affect the success of the presented CDS intervention. Five factors (out of the 59) were prioritized by focus group participants in every country, including the perceived potential to address the information needs of both patients and general practitioners; the credibility of CDS information; the timing of CDS for patients; and the need for personal dialogue about CDS between the general practitioner and the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The focus group participants supported the CDS intervention as a tool to improve the quality of care for patients with knee osteoarthritis through shared, evidence-based decision making. We aim to develop and implement the CDS based on these study results. Future research should address optimal ways to (1) provide patient-directed CDS, (2) enable more patient-specific CDS within the context of patient complexity, and (3) maintain user engagement with CDS over time.

Simulation-based training for nurses: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training is a widespread strategy to improve health-care quality. However, its effect on registered nurses has previously not been established in systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate effect of simulation-based training on nurses' skills and knowledge. METHODS: We searched CDSR, DARE, HTA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and SveMed+ for randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating effect of simulation-based training among nurses. Searches were completed in December 2016. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full-text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We compared simulation-based training to other learning strategies, high-fidelity simulation to other simulation strategies, and different organisation of simulation training. Data were analysed through meta-analysis and narrative syntheses. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. For the comparison of simulation-based training to other learning strategies on nurses' skills, six studies in the meta-analysis showed a significant, but small effect in favour of simulation (SMD -1.09, CI -1.72 to -0.47). There was large heterogeneity (I2 85%). For the other comparisons, there was large between-study variation in results. The quality of evidence for all comparisons was graded as low. CONCLUSION: The effect of simulation-based training varies substantially between studies. Our meta-analysis showed a significant effect of simulation training compared to other learning strategies, but the quality of evidence was low indicating uncertainty. Other comparisons showed inconsistency in results. Based on our findings simulation training appears to be an effective strategy to improve nurses' skills, but further good-quality RCTs with adequate sample sizes are needed.

Quality of Community-Based Osteoarthritis Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the state of quality of care for osteoarthritis (OA) by summarizing studies that have assessed the care provided to patients. METHODS: A systematic review of community-based observational studies of actual clinical practice treating people with OA compared with quality indicators (QIs) was performed. Four databases were searched from January 2000 to November 2015. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The outcome was adherence to the QIs (pass rate). The overall pass rate (the total number of indicators passed divided by the total number of indicators for which the patients were eligible) was extracted from each study. When at least 50% of the studies had comparable individual QIs, the data were pooled with proportion meta-analyses. RESULTS: Fifteen studies comprising 16,103 patients were included, and the median overall pass rate across studies was 41% (range 22-65%). The pooled pass rates for individual QIs were "referral to orthopedic surgeon if no response to other therapy": 59.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 47.5-70.3); "paracetamol or acetaminophen first drug used": 46.0% (95% CI 26.6-66.7); "assessed for pain and/or function": 45.5% (95% CI 33.9-57.6); "referral or recommendation to exercise": 38.7% (28.9-49.5); "offered education and self-management": 35.4% (95% CI 27.8-44.0); and "informed about potential risks if NSAIDs prescribed": 34.1% (95% CI 24.7-44.9). CONCLUSION: There is room for improvement in community-based OA care.

Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care.

BACKGROUND: This paper extends the findings of the Cochrane systematic review of audit and feedback on professional practice to explore the estimate of effect over time and examine whether new trials have added to knowledge regarding how optimize the effectiveness of audit and feedback. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized trials of audit and feedback compared to usual care, with objectively measured outcomes assessing compliance with intended professional practice. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted variables related to the intervention, the context, and trial methodology. The median absolute risk difference in compliance with intended professional practice was determined for each study, and adjusted for baseline performance. The effect size across studies was recalculated as studies were added to the cumulative analysis. Meta-regressions were conducted for studies published up to 2002, 2006, and 2010 in which characteristics of the intervention, the recipients, and trial risk of bias were tested as predictors of effect size. RESULTS: Of the 140 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) included in the Cochrane review, 98 comparisons from 62 studies met the criteria for inclusion. The cumulative analysis indicated that the effect size became stable in 2003 after 51 comparisons from 30 trials. Cumulative meta-regressions suggested new trials are contributing little further information regarding the impact of common effect modifiers. Feedback appears most effective when: delivered by a supervisor or respected colleague; presented frequently; featuring both specific goals and action-plans; aiming to decrease the targeted behavior; baseline performance is lower; and recipients are non-physicians. DISCUSSION: There is substantial evidence that audit and feedback can effectively improve quality of care, but little evidence of progress in the field. There are opportunity costs for patients, providers, and health care systems when investigators test quality improvement interventions that do not build upon, or contribute toward, extant knowledge.

Reducing hospital admissions from nursing homes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The geriatric nursing home population is vulnerable to acute and deteriorating illness due to advanced age, multiple chronic illnesses and high levels of dependency. Although the detriments of hospitalising the frail and old are widely recognised, hospital admissions from nursing homes remain common. Little is known about what alternatives exist to prevent and reduce hospital admissions from this setting. The objective of this study, therefore, is to summarise the effects of interventions to reduce acute hospitalisations from nursing homes. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in Cochrane Library, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science in April 2013. Studies were eligible if they had a geriatric nursing home study population and were evaluating any type of intervention aiming at reducing acute hospital admission. Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, quasi randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series were eligible study designs. The process of selecting studies, assessing them, extracting data and grading the total evidence was done by two researchers individually, with any disagreement solved by a third. We made use of meta-analyses from included systematic reviews, the remaining synthesis is descriptive. Based on the type of intervention, the included studies were categorised in: 1) Interventions to structure and standardise clinical practice, 2) Geriatric specialist services and 3) Influenza vaccination. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews and five primary studies were included, evaluating a total of 11 different interventions. Fewer hospital admissions were found in four out of seven evaluations of structuring and standardising clinical practice; in both evaluations of geriatric specialist services, and in influenza vaccination of residents. The quality of the evidence for all comparisons was of low or very low quality, using the GRADE approach. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, eleven interventions to reduce hospital admissions from nursing homes were identified. None of them were tested more than once and the quality of the evidence was low for every comparison. Still, several interventions had effects on reducing hospital admissions and may represent important aspects of nursing home care to reduce hospital admissions.

Acute hospital admissions from nursing homes: predictors of unwarranted variation?

BACKGROUND: The geriatric nursing home population is frail and vulnerable to sudden changes in their health condition. Very often, these incidents lead to hospitalization, in which many cases represent an unfavourable discontinuity of care. Analysis of variation in hospitalization rates among nursing homes where similar rates are expected may identify factors associated with unwarranted variation. OBJECTIVES: To 1) quantify the overall and diagnosis specific variation in hospitalization rates among nursing homes in a well-defined area over a two-year period, and 2) estimate the associations between the hospitalization rates and characteristics of the nursing homes. METHOD: The acute hospital admissions from 38 nursing homes to two hospitals were identified through ambulance records and linked to hospital patient journals (n = 2451). Overall variation in hospitalization rates for 2 consecutive years was tested using chi-square and diagnosis-specific variation using Systematic Component of Variation. Associations between rates and nursing home characteristics were tested using multiple regression and ANOVA. RESULTS: Annual hospitalization rates varied significantly between 0.16 and 1.49 per nursing home. Diagnoses at discharge varied significantly between the nursing homes. The annual hospitalization rates correlated significantly with size (r = -0.38) and percentage short-term beds (r = 0.41), explaining 32% of the variation observed (R (2) = 0.319). No association was found for ownership status (r = 0.05) or location of the nursing home (p = 0.52). CONCLUSION: A more than nine-fold variation in annual hospitalization rates among the nursing homes in one municipality suggests the presence of unwarranted variation. This finding demands for political action to improve the premises for a more uniform practice in nursing homes.

Internet trials: participant experiences and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Use of the Internet to conduct randomised controlled trials is increasing, and provides potential to increase equity of access to medical research, increase the generalisability of trial results and decrease the costs involved in conducting large scale trials. Several studies have compared response rates, completeness of data, and reliability of surveys using the Internet and traditional methods, but very little is known about participants' attitudes towards Internet-based randomised trials or their experience of participating in an Internet-based trial. OBJECTIVE: To obtain insights into the experiences and perspectives of participants in an Internet-based randomised controlled trial, their attitudes to the use of the Internet to conduct medical research, and their intentions regarding future participation in Internet research. METHODS: All English speaking participants in a recently completed Internet randomised controlled trial were invited to participate in an online survey. RESULTS: 1246 invitations were emailed. 416 participants completed the survey between May and October 2009 (33% response rate). Reasons given for participating in the Internet RCT fell into 4 main areas: personal interest in the research question and outcome, ease of participation, an appreciation of the importance of research and altruistic reasons. Participants' comments and reflections on their experience of participating in a fully online trial were positive and less than half of participants would have participated in the trial had it been conducted using other means of data collection. However participants identified trade-offs between the benefits and downsides of participating in Internet-based trials. The main trade-off was between flexibility and convenience - a perceived benefit - and a lack connectedness and understanding - a perceived disadvantage. The other tradeoffs were in the areas of: ease or difficulty in use of the Internet; security, privacy and confidentiality issues; perceived benefits and disadvantages for researchers; technical aspects of using the Internet; and the impact of Internet data collection on information quality. Overall, more advantages were noted by participants, consistent with their preference for this mode of research over others. The majority of participants (69%) would prefer to participate in Internet-based research compared to other modes of data collection in the future. CONCLUSION: Participants in our survey would prefer to participate in Internet-based trials in the future compared to other ways of conducting trials. From the participants' perspective, participating in Internet-based trials involves trade-offs. The central trade-off is between flexibility and convenience - a perceived benefit - and lack of connectedness and understanding - a perceived disadvantage. Strategies to maintain the convenience of the Internet while increasing opportunities for participants to feel supported, well-informed and well-understood would seem likely to increase the acceptability of Internet-based trials.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors. MAIN RESULTS: We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.