Health inequities in dialysis care: A scoping review.

MAIN PROBLEM: We aim to look at potential gaps in current dialysis literature on inequities and explore future research that could contribute to more equitable care. METHODS: Following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a scoping review of health inequities in dialysis. PubMed and Ovid Embase were searched in July 2022 for articles published between 2016 and 2022 that examined at least one of the following NIH defined health inequities: race/ethnicity, sex/gender, LGBTQ+ identity, underserved rural populations, education level, income, and occupation status. Frequencies of each health inequity as well as trends over time of the four most examined inequities were analyzed. RESULTS: In our sample of 69 included studies, gaps were identified in LGBTQ+ identity and patient education. Inequities pertaining to race/ethnicity, sex/gender, underserved rural populations, and income were sufficiently reported. No trends between inequities investigated over time were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review examined current literature on health inequities pertaining to dialysis and found gaps concerning LGBTQ+ and patients with lower levels of education. To help fill these gaps, and possibly alleviate additional burden to these patients, we recommend cultural competency training for providers and dialysis center staff as well as community-based educational programs to improve dialysis patients' health literacy.

Discontinuation and nonpublication analysis of chronic pain randomized controlled trials.

Introduction: The primary objective of this cross-sectional analysis is to evaluate rates of discontinuation and nonpublication of Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of therapeutic interventions to treat chronic pain. Methods: Using ClinicalTrials.gov, a sample was obtained which included clinical trials pertaining to chronic pain. Trials were analyzed for publication status and completion status of each trial. If information was unavailable on the trial registry database, or could not be allocated through a systematic search, the corresponding trialist was contacted and data points were gathered. Results: In our final analysis of the 408 RCTs, we found that 281 (68.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal and 127 (31.1%) were unpublished trials. Of 112 discontinued trials, 59 (52.7%) reached publication. In addition, 221 of 296 completed trials (74.7%) were published, and 75 (25.3%) remained unpublished after trial completion. The most common listed reason for trial discontinuation was administrative recommendations (41 of 71 trials [57.7%]), while not receiving an email reply to our standardized email from the corresponding trialist was the most common result for trial nonpublication (49 of 88 trials [55.7%]). Clinical trials funded by nonindustry sponsors were more likely to reach publication than industry-funded clinical trials (unadjusted odds ratio 1.86 [95% CI, 1.18-2.95]; adjusted odds ratio 3.01 [95% CI, 1.76-5.14]). Conclusion: The rate of discontinuation of RCTs involving patients with chronic pain is concerning. Chronic pain affects many patients; thus, the importance of having quality data from clinical trials cannot be overstated. Our study indicates that chronic pain RCTs are frequently discontinued and their findings often go unpublished - all of which could provide crucial information to providers and patients regarding the treatment of chronic pain. We offer suggestions to enhance chronic pain RCT completion, thereby reducing the waste of resources in chronic pain research.

Factors associated with health inequities in access to kidney transplantation in the USA: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The kidney is the most needed organ for transplantation in the United States. However, demand and scarcity of this organ has caused significant inequities for historically marginalized groups. In this review, we report on the frequency of inequities in all steps of kidney transplantation from 2016 to 2022. Search criteria was based on the National Institute of Health's (NIH) 2022 list of populations who experience health inequities, which includes: race and ethnicity; sex or gender; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer + (LGBTQ+); underserved rural communities; education level; income; and occupation status. We outline steps for future research aimed at assessing interventions and programs to improve health outcomes. METHODS: This scoping review was developed following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. In July 2022, we searched Medline (via PubMed) and Ovid Embase databases to identify articles addressing inequities in access to kidney transplantation in the United States. Articles had to address at least one of the NIH's 2022 health inequity groups. RESULTS: Our sample of 44 studies indicate that Black race, female sex or gender, and low socioeconomic status are negatively associated with referral, evaluation, and waitlisting for kidney transplantation. Furthermore, only two studies from our sample investigated LGBTQ+ identity since the NIH's addition of SGM in 2016 regarding access to transplantation. Lastly, we found no detectable trend in studies for the four most investigated inequity groups between 2016 and 2022. CONCLUSION: Investigations in inequities for access to kidney transplantation for the two most studied groups, race/ethnicity and sex or gender, have shown no change in frequencies. Regarding race and ethnicity, continued interventions focused on educating Black patients and staff of dialysis facilities may increase transplant rates. Studies aimed at assessing effectiveness of the Kidney Paired Donation program are highly warranted due to incompatibility problems in female patients. The sparse representation for the LGBTQ+ population may be due to a lack of standardized data collection for sexual orientation. We recommend this community be engaged via surveys and further investigations.

Health Inequities in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Literature: A Scoping Review.

Although life saving, health inequities exist regarding access and patient outcomes in Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), especially among marginalized groups. This scoping review's goal is to outline existing literature and highlight gaps for future research. Researchers followed guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We conducted a search to identify articles published between 2016 and 2022 regarding CABG and inequity groups, defined by the National Institutes of Health. Fifty-seven articles were included in our final sample. Race/Ethnicity was examined in 39 incidences, Sex or Gender 29 times, Income 17 instances, Geography 10 instances, and Education Level 3 instances. Occupation Status 2 instances, and LGBTQ+ 0 times. Important disparities exist regarding CABG access and outcomes, especially involving members of the LGBTQ+, Native American, and Black communities. Further research is needed to address health disparities and their root causes for focused action and improved health of minoritized groups.

Health inequities in human papillomavirus prevention, diagnostics and clinical care in the USA: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) represents the most common STI in the USA. HPV inequities in prevention, diagnostics and clinical care persist. We define inequities as systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this scoping review are to chart existing data on HPV-related inequities, identify gaps in existing literature and guide future research to reduce these inequities. METHODS: We completed a scoping review following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping reviews extension. We performed a literature search on PubMed and Ovid Embase in July 2022 for articles pertaining to HPV and evaluating populations within the USA. We included English language publications from 2018 to 2022 evaluating at least one health inequity outlined by the National Institutes of Health. General publication characteristics and health inequity data were charted in a masked, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google Form. We analysed frequencies of health inequities and summarised main findings from included studies. RESULTS: Our final sample included 170 publications. The most common inequities examined were race/ethnicity (140 studies), sex or gender (97 studies), and income (69 studies). Many historically marginalised racial/ethnic groups had lower rates of HPV-related knowledge, vaccination and worse overall outcomes related to HPV. Compared with women, men had lower rates of HPV vaccination and provider recommendation, and higher rates of HPV-infection. Results regarding income were largely conflicting. CONCLUSION: Findings from our review demonstrate clear gaps in HPV-related inequity research. Vaccine completion, provider recommendation and intersectionality should continue to be evaluated to implement targeted interventions.

Underreporting of patient-reported outcomes in cystic fibrosis randomized controlled trials using CONSORT-PRO and RoB 2.0.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to foster patient-centered healthcare. The aim of this investigation was to assess the completeness of reporting of PROs in RCTs pertaining to cystic fibrosis (CF). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs concerning CF that included PROs as a primary or secondary outcome. The RCTs were assessed by 2 independent investigators using an adaptation of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) and the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 assessment. We calculated the mean completion percentage of adherence to the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and used bivariate regression models to evaluate for associations with particular trial characteristics. RESULTS: Our systematic search returned 2302 potential studies. Fifty-nine eligible RCTs were included after full-text screening. The RCT mean completeness of reporting was 38.38% (SD = 12.74). We found the following associations between trial characteristics and completeness of PRO reporting: (1) significantly higher reporting completeness for RCTs published in journals requiring adherence to the CONSORT guideline (p-value = 0.049), (2) improved reporting completeness in studies with 'some concerns' of RoB versus 'high' RoB (p-value = 0.042), and (3) significantly better reporting completeness when the PRO is the primary outcome of a RCT (p-value = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Inadequate PRO reporting exists within RCTs focused on CF. Given that CF has substantial effects on quality of life, PROs are imperative to understand patients' experiences. We believe greater adherence to CONSORT-PRO will promote the standardization of PRO reporting and will facilitate comprehension of PROs by stakeholders, patients, and clinicians.

Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Randomized Controlled Trials on Shoulder Rotator Cuff Injuries Is Suboptimal and Requires Standardization.

Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcome (CONSORT-PRO) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving rotator cuff injuries. Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published RCTs focused on rotator cuff injuries that included at least one PRO measure. We included RCTs published from 2006 to 2020. Investigators extracted data from RCTs using the CONSORT-PRO and evaluated each RCT using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Our primary objective was to evaluate the mean completion percentage of CONSORT-PRO. Our secondary objective used bivariate regression analyses to explore the relationship between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting. Results: The initial search returned 467 results, with 33 published RCTs meeting the prespecified inclusion criteria. The mean CONSORT-PRO completeness across all included RCTs was 49.7% (standard deviation 15.43). An increase in sample size was associated with an increase in mean completeness of reporting (t = 2.31; P = .028). The Risk of Bias assessment found 29 (of 33, 87.88%) RCTs had "some concerns" for bias. We did not find any additional significant associations between completeness of reporting and trial characteristics. Conclusions: Randomized controlled trials involving rotator cuff injuries frequently use PRO measures as primary outcomes. Reporting of these PRO measures is suboptimal and may benefit from rigorous standardization. Clinical Relevance: PRO measures are increasingly incorporated as primary or secondary outcomes of RCTs. Appropriate reporting and use of state-of-the-art PRO measures may improve the dissemination of clinical knowledge from RCTs to guide treatment and determine intervention effectiveness. With increased adoption of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System and adherence to CONSORT-PRO, orthopaedic literature may improve PRO reporting to optimize the interpretability of PROs and facilitate patient-centered care.

An Analysis of the Evidence Informing Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Management and Treatment of Breast Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the methodological quality and accuracy of reporting within systematic reviews (SRs) that provide evidence to form clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in the management and treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: The 5 included CPGs for breast cancer management among National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology were searched for all SRs and meta-analyses. The characteristics of each study along with their methodological reporting were extracted from each SR using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tools. Our second objective was to compare SRs produced by Cochrane groups vs non-Cochrane. RESULTS: Our study included 5 CPGs for the management of breast cancer, containing 1341 total references with 69 being unique SRs we analyzed. PRISMA completeness percent had a mean 76.3% (n = 69), while AMSTAR-2 completeness score mean was 66.5% (n = 59). Cochrane SRs were found to adhere far better to PRISMA (0.91 vs. 0.74) and AMSTAR-2 (0.95 vs. 0.62) guidelines compared to the non-Cochrane SRs. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of SRs that underpin CPGs in breast cancer management widely varies. We recommend that authors of SRs adopt a more uniform approach in assessing the quality of reporting within their studies. In addition, CPGs should use a more standardized method to seek out evidence to establish their recommendations. With improved reporting, clinicians may have increased confidence in CPGs and thus increased utilization of CPGs in clinical decision making.