Toward a global harmonization of service infrastructure in academic clinical trial units: an international survey.

Background: Clinicians around the world perform clinical research in addition to their high workload. To meet the demands of high quality Investigator Initiated Trials (IITs), Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) (as part of Academic Research Institutions) are implemented worldwide. CTUs increasingly hold a key position in facilitating the international mutual acceptance of clinical research data by promoting clinical research practices and infrastructure according to international standards. Aim: In this project, we aimed to identify services that established and internationally operating CTUs - members of the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) - consider most important to ensure the smooth processing of a clinical trial while meeting international standards. We thereby aim to drive international harmonization by providing emerging and growing CTUs with a resource for informed service range set-up. Methods: Following the AMEE Guide, we developed a questionnaire, addressing the perceived importance of different CTU services. Survey participants were senior representatives of CTUs and part of the ICN with long-term experience in their field and institution. Results: Services concerning quality and coordination of a research project were considered to be most essential, i.e., Quality management, Monitoring and Project management, followed by Regulatory & Legal affairs, Education & Training, and Data management. Operative services for conducting a research project, i.e., Study Nurse with patient contact and Study Nurse without patient contact, were considered to be least important. Conclusion: To balance the range of services offered while meeting high international standards of clinical research, emerging CTUs should focus on offering (quality) management services and expertise in regulatory and legal affairs. Additionally, education and training services are required to ensure clinicians are well trained on GCP and legislation. CTUs should evaluate whether the expertise and resources are available to offer operative services.

[First experiences with the implementation of EU Regulation 536/2014 (CTR) from the perspective of non-commercial academic research]. / Erste Erfahrungen bei der Umsetzung der EU-Verordnung 536/2014 (CTR) aus Sicht der nichtkommerziellen akademischen Forschung.

With the implementation of the new EU Regulation 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation - CTR) on 31 January 2022, the approval and conduct of clinical trials with medicinal products for human use are to be harmonized within the European Union (EU). Approval is granted via the electronic Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS) portal of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In addition to commercial sponsors, sponsors at academic institutions are also affected by the implementation of the CTR in the context of investigator-initiated clinical trials (IITs). Numerous changes in the process map for regulated drug trials are necessary.New aspects concern the general user structure and the role and permission concept of CTIS. Requirements that previously applied only to investigational medicinal products/placebo now also apply to auxiliary medicinal products. Investigational and auxiliary medicinal products not yet approved in the EU must be registered in the XEVMPD drug database. Other significant changes include the reporting of "serious breaches," the publication of relevant study documents, the introduction of a "summary in layman's terms," the archiving period of 25 years, the implementation of "low intervention clinical trials," and the possibility of co-sponsorship.First experience with the application process shows that the new system needs to be further improved. This concerns, for example, the EU-wide harmonization of requirements and the elimination of technical deficiencies. In the medium and long term, however, simplifications with regard to regulatory processes should be noticeable. What is needed here are intensified agreements with national higher authorities and ethics committees, effective knowledge management, and improved communication.

Psychological and social consequences of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Genomics-based noninvasive prenatal tests (NIPT) allow screening for chromosomal anomalies such as Down syndrome (trisomy 21). The technique uses cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) that circulates in the maternal blood and is detectable from 5 weeks of gestation onwards. Parents who choose to undergo this relatively new test (introduced in 2011) might be aware of its positive features (i.e. clinical safety and ease of use); however, they might be less aware of the required decisions and accompanying internal conflicts following a potential positive test result. To show the evidence on psychological and social consequences of the use of NIPT, we conducted a scoping review. METHODS: We systematically searched four electronic databases (MEDLINE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsychINFO (EBSCO)) for studies that investigated the psychological or social consequences of the use of NIPT by pregnant women or expecting parents. The search was limited to studies published between 2011 and August 8, 2018. We identified 2488 studies and, after removal of duplicates, screened 2007 titles and abstracts, and then assessed 99 articles in full text (both screenings were done independently in duplicate). We included 7 studies in our analysis. RESULTS: Five studies assessed anxiety, psychological distress and/or decisional regret among women with validated psychological tests like the Spielberger State Trait-Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Pregnancy-Related Anxiety Questionnaire-Revised (PRAQ-R), the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) or the Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). Two studies assessed women's experiences with and feelings after NIPT in interviews or focus groups. The included studies were heterogeneous in location, study setting, inclusion criteria, outcome assessment, and other characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Only few studies on psychological consequences of NIPT have been identified. The studies assessed only short-term psychological consequences of NIPT at baseline and/or after receiving the results or after giving birth. Studies show that short term anxiety decreased when women received negative NIPT results and that decisional regret was generally low. We could not identify studies on long term consequences of NIPT, as well as studies on women's partners' short and long term outcomes, nor on social consequences of NIPT.

Well informed physician-patient communication in consultations on back pain - study protocol of the cluster randomized GAP trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most frequent causes of health-related work absence. In Germany, more than 70% of adults suffer from at least one back pain episode per annum. It has strong impact on health care costs and patients' quality of life. Patients increasingly seek health information on the internet. However, judging its trustworthiness is difficult. In addition, physicians who are being confronted with this type of information often experience it to complicate the physician-patient interaction. The GAP trial aims to develop, implement and evaluate an evidence-based, easy-to-understand and trustworthy internet information portal on lower back pain to be used by general practitioners and patients during and after the consultation. Effectiveness of GAP portal use compared to routine consultation on improving communication and informedness of both physicians and patients will be assessed. In addition, effects on health care costs and patients' days of sick leave will be evaluated. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective multi-centre, cluster-randomized parallel group trial including 1500 patients and 150 recruiting general practitioners. The intervention group will have access to the GAP portal. The portal will contain brief guides for patients and physicians on how to improve the consultation as well as information on epidemiology, aetiology, symptoms, benefits and harms of treatment options for acute, sub-acute and chronic lower back pain. The GAP portal will be designed to be user-friendly and present information on back pain tailored for either patients or physicians in form of brief fact sheets, educative videos, info-graphics, animations and glossaries. Physicians and patients will assess their informedness and the physician-patient communication in consultations at baseline and at two time points after the consultations under investigation. Days of sick leave and health care costs related to back pain will be compared between control and intervention group using routine data of company health insurance funds. DISCUSSION: The GAP-trial intends to improve the communication between physicians and their patients and the informedness of both groups. If proven beneficial, the evidence-based and user-friendly portal will be made accessible for all patients and health professionals in back pain care. Inclusion of further indications might be implemented and evaluated in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00014279 (registered 27th of April 2018).

Prophylactic antibiotics before cord clamping in cesarean delivery: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The number of clinical trials investigating the optimal timing of prophylactic antibiotics in cesarean section has increased rapidly over the last few years. We conducted a systematic review to inform up-to-date evidence-based guidelines to prevent postpartum infectious morbidity in the mother and rule out any safety issues related to antepartum antibiotic exposure in infants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for published reports of trials. Ongoing or unpublished studies were searched in Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization registry platform. Randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic prophylaxis before and after cord clamping in cesarean section were eligible. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were assessed, and certainty of evidence graded. RESULTS: In total, 18 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Those women who received antibiotics preoperatively were 28% (relative risk 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.92, nine studies, 4342 women, high quality of evidence) less likely to show infectious morbidity as compared with those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. The risk of endomyometritis and/or endometritis was reduced by 43% (relative risk 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.40-0.82, 13 studies, 6250 women, high quality of evidence) and the risk of wound infection by 38% (relative risk 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.81, 14 studies, 6450 women, high quality of evidence) in those who received antibiotics preoperatively as compared to those who received antibiotics after cord clamping. For other maternal infections no significant differences were identified. The risk for neonatal outcomes, such as deaths attributed to infection, sepsis, neonatal antibiotic treatment, intensive care unit admission or antibiotic-related adverse events, was not found to be different, either clinically or statistically, when antibiotics were given before or after cord clamping (moderate to low quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in favor of prophylactic antibiotic administration before, in comparison with after, cord clamping for major maternal infections was of high quality, meaning that further research would be unlikely to change the confidence in these findings. However, we recommend additional research reflecting the precision of the effect estimates for neonatal outcomes.

Lack of controlled studies investigating the risk of postpartum haemorrhage in cesarean delivery after prior use of oxytocin: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. Experimental and clinical studies indicate that prolonged oxytocin exposure in the first or second stage of labour may be associated with impaired uterine contractility and an increased risk of atonic PPH. Therefore, particularly labouring women requiring cesarean delivery constitute a subset of patients that may exhibit an unpredictable response to oxytocin. We mapped the evidence for comparative studies investigating the hypothesis whether the risk for PPH is increased in women requiring cesarean section after induction or augmentation of labour. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for clinical trials in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library (May 2016). Additionally we searched for ongoing or unpublished trials in clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO registry platform. We identified a total of 36 controlled trials investigating the exogenous use of oxytocin in cesarean section. Data were extracted for study key characteristics and the current literature literature was described narratively. RESULTS: Our evidence map shows that the majority of studies investigating the outcome PPH focused on prophylactic oxytocin use compared to other uterotonic agents in the third stage of labour. Only 2 dose-response studies investigated the required oxytocin dose to prevent uterine atony after cesarean delivery for labour arrest. These studies support the hypotheses that labouring women exposed to exogenous oxytocin require a higher oxytocin dose after delivery than non-labouring women to prevent uterine atony after cesarean section. However, the study findings are flawed by limitations of the study design as well as the outcome selection. No clinical trial was identified that directly compared exogenous oxytocin versus no oxytocin application before intrapartum cesarean delivery. CONCLUSION: Despite some evidence from dose-response studies that the use of oxytocin may increase the risk for PPH in intrapartum cesarean delivery, current research has not investigated the prepartal application of oxytocin in well controlled clinical trials. It was striking that most studies on exogenous oxytocin are focused on PPH prophylaxis in the third stage of labour without differing between the indications of cesarean section and hence the prepartal oxytocin status.

Methods for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review methodological articles which focus on nonpublication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for dissemination in meta-analyses. To evaluate whether the methods have been applied to an empirical data set for which one can be reasonably confident that all studies conducted have been included. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analyses. RESULTS: The literature search retrieved 2,224 records, of which we finally included 150 full-text articles. A great variety of methods to detect, quantify, or adjust for dissemination bias were described. Methods included graphical methods mainly based on funnel plot approaches, statistical methods, such as regression tests, selection models, sensitivity analyses, and a great number of more recent statistical approaches. Only few methods have been validated in empirical evaluations using unpublished studies obtained from regulators (Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency). CONCLUSION: We present an overview of existing methods to detect, quantify, or adjust for dissemination bias. It remains difficult to advise which method should be used as they are all limited and their validity has rarely been assessed. Therefore, a thorough literature search remains crucial in systematic reviews, and further steps to increase the availability of all research results need to be taken.

Dissemination bias in systematic reviews of animal research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research. METHODS: Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al. RESULTS: The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%). DISCUSSION: Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.

[Potentials for research and innovations in allied health professions in Germany]. / Einführung: Forschungs- und Innovationspotenziale in den Gesundheitsfachberufen.

In order to address the increasing complexity and continuously changing needs and demands in the German healthcare system, there is a need to strengthen knowledge translation, evidence-based practice and the conduct of clinical trials in the field of allied health professions. An interdisciplinary working group representing the fields of nursing, midwifery, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy developed a guide and a concept for seminars to provide potential analyses for research and innovations in the allied health professions in Germany. These potential analyses compare the current state of health care delivery for specific health problems and the corpus of evidence for the effectiveness of related interventions. Thus innovations can be identified which might improve client-centred healthcare in Germany. The introductory paper briefly reports the activities and results of the working group, describes the international context of transferring research into practice and outlines possibilities for the future development of coordinated research strategies in Germany. The following papers consist of five potential analyses: (1) Advanced Practice Nursing (APN) in long-term care; (2) giving birth in an upright position; (3) treadmill training for patients with Parkinson's disease; (4) training of everyday activities after stroke; and (5) communication training for patients with aphasia.

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows:• To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.• To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.

A protocol for a systematic review on the impact of unpublished studies and studies published in the gray literature in meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of publication bias. Despite methodologists' best efforts to locate all evidence for a given topic the most comprehensive searches are likely to miss unpublished studies and studies that are published in the gray literature only. If the results of the missing studies differ systematically from the published ones, a meta-analysis will be biased with an inaccurate assessment of the intervention's effects.As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:▪ To assess the impact of studies that are not published or published in the gray literature on pooled effect estimates in meta-analyses (quantitative measure).▪ To assess whether the inclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature leads to different conclusions in meta-analyses (qualitative measure). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Methodological research projects of a cohort of meta-analyses which compare the effect of the inclusion or exclusion of unpublished studies or studies published in the gray literature. LITERATURE SEARCH: To identify relevant research projects we will conduct electronic searches in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library; check reference lists; and contact experts. OUTCOMES: 1) The extent to which the effect estimate in a meta-analyses changes with the inclusion or exclusion of studies that were not published or published in the gray literature; and 2) the extent to which the inclusion of unpublished studies impacts the meta-analyses' conclusions. DATA COLLECTION: Information will be collected on the area of health care; the number of meta-analyses included in the methodological research project; the number of studies included in the meta-analyses; the number of study participants; the number and type of unpublished studies; studies published in the gray literature and published studies; the sources used to retrieve studies that are unpublished, published in the gray literature, or commercially published; and the validity of the methodological research project. DATA SYNTHESIS: DATA SYNTHESIS will involve descriptive and statistical summaries of the findings of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in the middle of 2013.

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/DESIGN: As part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy.

BACKGROUND: Access to health information is critical to enable consumers to participate in decisions on health. Increasingly, such information is accessed via the internet, but a number of barriers prevent consumers making effective use of it. These barriers include inadequate skills to search, evaluate and use the information. It has not yet been demonstrated whether training consumers to use the internet for health information can result in positive health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for enhancing consumers' online health literacy (skills to search, evaluate and use online health information). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2008); MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE (Ovid); CINAHL (Dialog); ERIC (CSA Illumina); LISA (CSA Illumina); PsycINFO (Ovid); Index to scientific and technical proceedings; SIGLE; ASLIB Index to Theses; ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts; National Research Register/UK CRN Portfolio database; Current Controlled Trials - MetaRegister of Controlled Trials. We searched all databases for the period January 1990 to March 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs and associated economic evaluations, quasi-RCTs, interrupted time series analyses, and controlled before and after (CBA) studies assessing interventions to enhance consumers' online health literacy, in any language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed their quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for clarification and to seek missing data. We presented results as a narrative and tabular summary, and calculated mean differences where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies: one randomised controlled trial (RCT) and one controlled before and after (CBA) study with a combined total of 470 participants. The RCT compared internet health information classes with patient education classes for participants with HIV infection. Only the RCT, which we rated as having a moderate risk of bias, reported statistically significant positive effects for primary outcomes related to online health literacy in the intervention group, for the following outcomes: 'Self-efficacy for health information seeking', 'health information evaluation skills' and the 'number of times the patient discussed online information with a health provider'. The CBA, which we rated as having a high risk of bias, compared internet health information classes with a control group receiving no intervention among healthy adults aged 50+. It showed significant positive changes only in a secondary (behavioural) outcome in the intervention group, regarding the readiness to adopt the internet as a tool for preventive health information. No adverse effects were reported.There is low quality evidence that such interventions may improve some outcomes relevant to online health literacy in certain populations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the small number of studies and their variable methodological quality, the evidence is too weak to draw any conclusions about implications for the design and delivery of interventions for online health literacy. There is a need for well-designed RCTs to investigate the effects of such interventions. These should involve different participants (in terms of disease status, age, socio-economic group and gender) to analyse the extent to which online health literacy reduces a barrier to using the internet for health information. Trials should be conducted in different settings and should examine interventions to enhance consumers' online health literacy (search, appraisal and use of online health information) like internet training courses, measuring outcomes up to at least one year after the intervention to estimate the sustainability of the intervention effects.

[Uncertainty regarding patient information: insecurity or chance?]. / Unsicherheit in der Patienteninformation--Verunsicherung oder Chance?

There is a considerable amount of uncertainty regarding the care of individual patients. The present paper describes the handling of uncertainties in patient care and its relevance for shared and informed decision-making. What affects the physician-patient relationship, and which strategies may contribute to communicating uncertainties in a constructive manner? Data from clinical trials describe and reduce our knowledge about uncertainty of treatment effects. Regarding rare diseases, however, we are faced with methodological limitations since randomised controlled trials (the highest level of evidence) are not feasible. But other 'low-level' evidence is available and should not be neglected but systematically collected and evaluated as resources for further research activities.

Evidence that patients can understand and use?

The impact that research evidence can have on patients making decisions about their own care is often overlooked. Regardless of whether patients want to lead or fully participate in their care, it appears that patients still want to be informed. We have health information that patients could benefit from knowing, a growing body of evidence and experiences about how to translate this information to patients. The Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation that produces and disseminates systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, translates the evidence from their reviews into summaries for the public. Research is presently being conducted to test a format for the plain language summaries. Principles such as presenting evidence in standard qualitative statements, as relative and absolute risks, as natural frequencies, and in tables are being incorporated into the format. Groups within the Collaboration are also translating the evidence for use by patients and the public. Effective strategies are being used to target patients directly and via their physicians, such as dissemination on specific patient group websites and decision aids. Research evidence and experiences can feed into the creation of evidence that patients can understand and use.

[Patient participation in the Cochrane Collaboration--barriers, experience, and concepts in Germany]. / Patientenbeteiligung in der Cochrane Collaboration--Barrieren, Erfahrungen und Konzepte aus deutscher Sicht.

The aim of the Cochrane Collaboration (CC) is to bridge the gap of information transfer between the clinician and the patient. For this purpose, the CC pursues since years the concept of involving the consumers in the process of collaborative review groups. In spite of a positive experience altogether, some barriers (for example the communication between the scientists involved in CC review groups and the patients) remain to be overcome. To improve the information transfer, the Cochrane Hematological Malignancies Group (CHMG) has built a consumer network within the initiatives of the German Cancer Association, for example devising specific training concepts. The German Cochrane Center, on the other hand, focuses on direct information of patients and interested consumers, and provides translated consumer synopses of all available systematic reviews (SR) adapted for use in the German health system. In the future, it will be necessary to develop more concepts to optimize the patient participation process, and to find methods to measure the impact of these projects on the patient outcome.