Preliminary comparison of the performance of the National Library of Medicine's systematic review publication type and the sensitive clinical queries filter for systematic reviews in PubMed.

OBJECTIVE: The National Library of Medicine (NLM) inaugurated a "publication type" concept to facilitate searches for systematic reviews (SRs). On the other hand, clinical queries (CQs) are validated search strategies designed to retrieve scientifically sound, clinically relevant original and review articles from biomedical literature databases. We compared the retrieval performance of the SR publication type (SR[pt]) against the most sensitive CQ for systematic review articles (CQrs) in PubMed. METHODS: We ran date-limited searches of SR[pt] and CQrs to compare the relative yield of articles and SRs, focusing on the differences in retrieval of SRs by SR[pt] but not CQrs (SR[pt] NOT CQrs) and CQrs NOT SR[pt]. Random samples of articles retrieved in each of these comparisons were examined for SRs until a consistent pattern became evident. RESULTS: For SR[pt] NOT CQrs, the yield was relatively low in quantity but rich in quality, with 79% of the articles being SRs. For CQrs NOT SR[pt], the yield was high in quantity but low in quality, with only 8% being SRs. For CQrs AND SR[pt], the quality was highest, with 92% being SRs. CONCLUSIONS: We found that SR[pt] had high precision and specificity for SRs but low recall (sensitivity), whereas CQrs had much higher recall. SR[pt] OR CQrs added valid SRs to the CQrs yield at low cost (i.e., added few non-SRs). For searches that are intended to be exhaustive for SRs, SR[pt] can be added to existing sensitive search filters.

Development and validation of study filters for identifying controlled non-randomized studies in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE.

A retrospective analysis published by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) in 2018 concluded that no filter for non-randomized studies (NRS) achieved sufficient sensitivity (≥92%), a precondition for comprehensive information retrieval. New NRS filters are therefore required, taking into account the challenges related to this study type. Our evaluation focused on the development of study filters for NRS with a control group ("controlled NRS"), as this study type allows the calculation of an effect size. In addition, we assumed that due to the more explicit search syntax, controlled NRS are easier to identify than non-controlled ones, potentially resulting in better performance measures of study filters for controlled NRS. Our aim was to develop study filters for identifying controlled NRS in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. We developed two new search filters that can assist clinicians and researchers in identifying controlled NRS in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. The reference set was based on 2110 publications in Medline extracted from 271 Cochrane reviews and on 4333 irrelevant references. The first filter maximizes sensitivity (92.42%; specificity 79.67%, precision 68.49%) and should be used when a comprehensive search is needed. The second filter maximizes specificity (92.06%; precision 82.98%, sensitivity 80.94%) and should be used when a more focused search is sufficient.

Improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the effect of interventions for improving adherence to medications for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) secondary prevention. METHODS: We extracted eligible trials from a 2014 Cochrane systematic review on adherence for any condition. We updated the search from CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Sociological Abstracts and trial registers through November 2016. Study reports needed to be from a randomised controlled trial, incorporate participants identified as having ASCVD and interventions aimed at improving adherence to medicines for secondary prevention of ASCVD and measure both adherence and a clinical outcome. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of studies, extracted data and conducted a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 17 trials (n=17 448 participants). Most trials had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The intervention group adherence rates ranged from 44%to99% and the comparator group adherence rates ranged from 13% to 96%. Three distinct interventions reported improvements in both adherence and clinical outcomes: short message service (65% vs 13% of participants with high adherence in the intervention vs control group), a fixed-dose combination pill (86% vs 65% adherence, risk ratio of being adherent, 1.33; 95% CI 1.26 to 1.41) and a community health worker-based intervention (97% in the intervention group compared with 92% in the control group; OR=2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.19). CONCLUSIONS: We identified three interventions that demonstrated improvements in adherence and clinical outcomes. Ongoing, longer-term trials will help determine whether short-term changes in adherence can be maintained and lead to differences in clinical events.

The efficiency of database searches for creating systematic reviews was improved by search filters.

OBJECTIVES: To compare Clinical Queries (CQs) for randomized trials of therapy 'methods' and 'NOT' limits search filters with Cochrane methods filters. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Analytic survey of Cochrane reviews as the reference standard for retrieving studies included in the reviews ("included studies [ISs]"). The sensitivity and precision of Cochrane content terms + Cochrane methods terms were compared in MEDLINE and Embase with Cochrane content terms + CQs maximally sensitive filter for therapy studies, without and with additional 'NOT' limits (CQ-S [CQ sensitive]; CQ-S + limits) and a balanced filter without and with additional NOT limits (CQ-B [CQ balanced]; CQ-B + limits). RESULTS: Cochrane or CQ methods terms reduced, by 64-96%, the overall retrieval of articles with minimal loss of ISs. Sensitivity was high and similar for the 4 filters. However, CQ-B + limits had the highest precision (2.64%, number needed to be read to find one eligible study [NNR] 38) followed by the CQ-B (1.05%, NNR 95), Cochrane search (0.51%, NNR 198), CQ-S + limits (0.34%, NNR 296), and CQ-S filters (0.31%, NNR 325). CONCLUSION: For systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions, the efficiency of searches in MEDLINE and Embase was better served by the CQs for therapy studies with balanced methods filter and NOT limits.

Development of a Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service-Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo): Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Individual pharmacokinetic assessment is a critical component of tailored prophylaxis for hemophilia patients. Population pharmacokinetics allows using individual sparse data, thus simplifying individual pharmacokinetic studies. Implementing population pharmacokinetics capacity for the hemophilia community is beyond individual reach and requires a system effort. OBJECTIVE: The Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service-Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo) project aims to assemble a database of patient pharmacokinetic data for all existing factor concentrates, develop and validate population pharmacokinetics models, and integrate these models within a Web-based calculator for individualized pharmacokinetic estimation in patients at participating treatment centers. METHODS: Individual pharmacokinetic studies on factor VIII and IX concentrates will be sourced from pharmaceutical companies and independent investigators. All factor concentrate manufacturers, hemophilia treatment centers (HTCs), and independent investigators (identified via a systematic review of the literature) having on file pharmacokinetic data and willing to contribute full or sparse pharmacokinetic data will be eligible for participation. Multicompartmental modeling will be performed using a mixed-model approach for derivation and Bayesian forecasting for estimation of individual sparse data. NONMEM (ICON Development Solutions) will be used as modeling software. RESULTS: The WAPPS-Hemo research network has been launched and is currently joined by 30 HTCs from across the world. We have gathered dense individual pharmacokinetic data on 878 subjects, including several replicates, on 21 different molecules from 17 different sources. We have collected sparse individual pharmacokinetic data on 289 subjects from the participating centers through the testing phase of the WAPPS-Hemo Web interface. We have developed prototypal population pharmacokinetics models for 11 molecules. The WAPPS-Hemo website (available at www.wapps-hemo.org, version 2.4), with core functionalities allowing hemophilia treaters to obtain individual pharmacokinetic estimates on sparse data points after 1 or more infusions of a factor concentrate, was launched for use within the research network in July 2015. CONCLUSIONS: The WAPPS-Hemo project and research network aims to make it easier to perform individual pharmacokinetic assessments on a reduced number of plasma samples by adoption of a population pharmacokinetics approach. The project will also gather data to substantially enhance the current knowledge about factor concentrate pharmacokinetics and sources of its variability in target populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02061072; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02061072 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6mRK9bKP6).