Systematic review of patient preference and adherence to the correct use of graduated compression stockings to prevent deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients.

AIM: The aim of this study was to explore patient preference and adherence to thigh and knee length graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in surgical patients. BACKGROUND: Hospitalised patients are at risk of developing deep vein thrombosis. Mechanical methods of prophylaxis include compression stockings, available as knee or thigh length. Patient adherence to correct stocking use is of critical importance to their effectiveness. DESIGN: Systematic review of quantitative evidence. DATA SOURCES: Eleven databases were searched from inception to 2013 for systematic reviews of compression stockings. Reviews were screened for relevant primary studies and update searches of eight electronic sources were undertaken (2010-2014). REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials and observational studies of surgical patients using compression stockings were quality assessed and data were extracted on patient adherence and preference. A narrative summary is presented. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials and seven observational studies were included in the systematic review. There was substantial variation between studies in terms of patient characteristics, interventions and methods of outcome assessment. CONCLUSION: Patient adherence was generally higher with knee length than thigh length stockings. However, the studies reflect patient adherence in a hospital setting only, where patients are observed by healthcare professionals; it is likely that adherence reduces once patients have been discharged from hospital. Patients preferred knee length stockings over thigh length stockings. In many clinical settings, any difference in efficacy between thigh length and knee length stockings may be rendered irrelevant by patient preference for and likely better adherence to knee length stockings.

Thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients; a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of thigh length versus knee length antiembolism stockings for the prevention of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in surgical patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using direct methods and network meta-analysis. METHODS: Previous systematic reviews and electronic databases were searched to February 2014 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of thigh length or knee length antiembolism stockings in surgical patients. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. Analysis of the DVT data was performed using ORs along with 95% CIs. The I(2) statistic was used to quantify statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: 23 RCTs were included; there was substantial variation between the trials and many were poorly reported with an unclear risk of bias. Five RCTs directly comparing thigh length versus knee length stockings were pooled and the summary estimate of effect favouring thigh length stockings was not statistically significant (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.73). 13 RCTs were included in the network meta-analysis; thigh length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis were more effective than knee length stockings with pharmacological prophylaxis, but again results were not statistically significant (OR 1.76, 95% credible intervals 0.82 to 3.53). CONCLUSIONS: Thigh length stockings may be more effective than knee length stockings, but results did not reach statistical significance and the evidence base is weak. Further research to confirm this finding is unlikely to be worthwhile. While thigh length stockings appear to have superior efficacy, practical issues such as patient acceptability may prevent their wide use in clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014007202.

Improving outcomes for people in mental health crisis: a rapid synthesis of the evidence for available models of care.

BACKGROUND: Crisis Concordat was established to improve outcomes for people experiencing a mental health crisis. The Crisis Concordat sets out four stages of the crisis care pathway: (1) access to support before crisis point; (2) urgent and emergency access to crisis care; (3) quality treatment and care in crisis; and (4) promoting recovery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the models of care for improving outcomes at each stage of the care pathway. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched for guidelines, reviews and, where necessary, primary studies. The searches were performed on 25 and 26 June 2014 for NHS Evidence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and PROSPERO databases, and on 11 November 2014 for MEDLINE, PsycINFO and the Criminal Justice Abstracts databases. Relevant reports and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: When guidelines covered a topic comprehensively, further literature was not assessed; however, where there were gaps, systematic reviews and then primary studies were assessed in order of priority. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Systematic reviews were critically appraised using the Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews assessment tool, trials were assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, studies without a control group were assessed using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) prognostic studies tool and qualitative studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool. A narrative synthesis was conducted for each stage of the care pathway structured according to the type of care model assessed. The type and range of evidence identified precluded the use of meta-analysis. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: One review of reviews, six systematic reviews, nine guidelines and 15 primary studies were included. There was very limited evidence for access to support before crisis point. There was evidence of benefits for liaison psychiatry teams in improving service-related outcomes in emergency departments, but this was often limited by potential confounding in most studies. There was limited evidence regarding models to improve urgent and emergency access to crisis care to guide police officers in their Mental Health Act responsibilities. There was positive evidence on clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of crisis resolution teams but variability in implementation. Current work from the Crisis resolution team Optimisation and RElapse prevention study aims to improve fidelity in delivering these models. Crisis houses and acute day hospital care are also currently recommended by NICE. There was a large evidence base on promoting recovery with a range of interventions recommended by NICE likely to be important in helping people stay well. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Most evidence was rated as low or very low quality, but this partly reflects the difficulty of conducting research into complex interventions for people in a mental health crisis and does not imply that all research was poorly conducted. However, there are currently important gaps in research for a number of stages of the crisis care pathway. Particular gaps in research on access to support before crisis point and urgent and emergency access to crisis care were found. In addition, more high-quality research is needed on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of mental health crisis care, including effective components of inpatient care, post-discharge transitional care and Community Mental Health Teams/intensive case management teams. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013279. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research HTA programme.

Graduated compression stockings for the prevention of deep-vein thrombosis in postoperative surgical patients: a systematic review and economic model with a value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) can occur in surgical patients. Routine prophylaxis can be pharmacological and/or mechanical [e.g. graduated compression stockings (GCSs)]. GCSs are available in knee length or thigh length. OBJECTIVE: To establish the expected value of undertaking additional research addressing the relative effectiveness of thigh-length GCSs versus knee-length GCSs, in addition to pharmacoprophylaxis, for prevention of DVT in surgical patients. DESIGN: Systematic review and economic model, including value of information (VOI) analysis. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing thigh- or knee-length GCSs in surgical patients were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was incidence of DVT. DVT complications and GCSs adverse events were assessed. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. To draw on a wider evidence base, a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was undertaken for the outcome DVT. A review of trials and observational studies of patient adherence was also conducted. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of thigh- and knee-length GCSs and the VOI. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs were included in the review of effectiveness. There was substantial variation between trials in terms of the patient characteristics, interventions and methods of outcome assessment. Five trials comparing knee-length with thigh-length GCSs with or without pharmacoprophylaxis were pooled; the summary estimate of effect indicated a non-significant trend favouring thigh-length GCSs [odds ratio (OR) 1.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 2.73]. Thirteen trials were included in the NMA. In the base-case analysis, thigh-length GCSs with pharmacoprophylaxis were more effective than knee-length GCSs with pharmacoprophylaxis (knee vs. thigh OR 1.76, 95% credible interval 0.82 to 3.53). Overall, thigh-length stockings with pharmacoprophylaxis was the most effective treatment, with a 0.73 probability of being the most effective treatment in a new trial of all the treatments. Patient adherence was generally higher with knee-length GCSs, and patients preferred knee-length GCSs. Thigh-length GCSs were found to be cost-effective in all but the subgroup with the lowest baseline risk, although the absolute differences in costs and effects were relatively small. The expected value of perfect information ranged from £0.2M to £178.0M depending on the scenario and subgroup. The relative effect parameters had the highest expected value of partial perfect information and ranged from £2.0M to £39.4M. The value of further research was most evident in the high-risk subgroups. LIMITATIONS: There was substantial variation across the included trials in terms of patient and intervention characteristics. Many of the included trials were old and poorly reported, which reduces the reliability of the results of the review. CONCLUSIONS: Given that the results from both the standard meta-analysis and the NMA lacked precision (CIs were wide) owing to the heterogeneous evidence base, a new definitive trial in high-risk patients may be warranted. However, the efficiency of any further research (i.e. whether this represents value for money) is dependent on several factors, including the acquisition price of GCSs, expected compliance with thigh-length GCSs wear, and whether or not uncertainty can be resolved around possible effect modifiers, as well as the feasibility and actual cost of undertaking the proposed research. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014007202. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Effectiveness and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery programmes: a rapid evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence on the impact of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing elective surgery in acute hospital settings in the UK. DESIGN: Rapid evidence synthesis. Eight databases were searched from 1990 to March 2013 without language restrictions. Relevant reports and guidelines, websites and reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify additional studies. Systematic reviews, RCTs not included in the systematic reviews, economic evaluations and UK NHS cost analysis, implementation case studies and surveys of patient experience in a UK setting were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the impact of enhanced recovery programmes on health or cost-related outcomes, and assessed implementation case studies and patient experience in UK settings. Studies were quality assessed where appropriate using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects critical appraisal process. RESULTS: 17 systematic reviews and 12 additional RCTs were included. Ten relevant economic evaluations were included. No cost analysis studies were identified. Most of the evidence focused on colorectal surgery. 14 innovation case studies and 15 implementation case studies undertaken in National Health Service settings described factors critical to the success of an enhanced recovery programme. Evidence for colorectal surgery suggests that enhanced recovery programmes may reduce hospital stays by 0.5-3.5 days compared with conventional care. There were no significant differences in reported readmission rates. Other surgical specialties showed greater variation in reductions in length of stay reflecting the limited evidence identified. Findings relating to other outcomes were hampered by a lack of robust evidence and poor reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent, albeit limited, evidence that enhanced recovery programmes can reduce length of patient hospital stay without increasing readmission rates. The extent to which managers and clinicians considering implementing enhanced recovery programmes in UK settings can realise savings will depend on length of stay achieved under their existing care pathway.

An overview and methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of enhanced recovery programmes in colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect. DESIGN: Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process. RESULTS: 10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5 days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling.

Retigabine for the adjunctive treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy with and without secondary generalization : a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of retigabine (GlaxoSmithKline) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of this drug for the treatment of adults with partial-onset seizures in epilepsy, with and without secondary generalization, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination was commissioned to act as the Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG undertakes a critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence of the technology based upon the manufacturer's submission to NICE. The ERG also independently searches for relevant evidence and evaluates modifications to the manufacturer's decision-analytic model. This paper provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions. The clinical effectiveness data were derived from three placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A meta-analysis pooling across all doses of retigabine found beneficial effects of retigabine in terms of responder rate (odds ratio [OR] 2.79; 95 % CI 2.08, 3.76) and rate of seizure freedom (OR 2.54; 95 % CI 0.92, 6.98) [both double-blind phase analyses]. When compared in a network meta-analysis with the selected comparator antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) [eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide, pregabalin, tiagabine and zonisamide], retigabine offered broadly similar efficacy in terms of responder rate and freedom from seizure. The de novo decision-analytic model presented within the submission evaluated the cost effectiveness of retigabine compared with these AEDs and no treatment (i.e. maintenance therapy). After numerous additional analyses, the ERG considered the use of retigabine to be not cost effective for NICE at thresholds below £43,000 if no treatment was considered a relevant comparator. The NICE Appraisal Committee decided that an appropriate comparator was an active treatment. The Committee recommended that retigabine is offered as an option for the adjunctive treatment of partial-onset seizures with or without secondary generalization in adults aged 18 years and older with epilepsy, only when previous treatment with carbamazepine, clobazam, gabapentin, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, sodium valproate and topiramate has not provided an adequate response, or has not been tolerated.

The effectiveness of protocol drive, nurse-initiated discharge in a 23-h post surgical ward: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A 23-h unit was established in June 2005 to relieve pressure on surgical beds. Patients were to be discharged by 0900h without review by a doctor. However, discharge without review remained the exception rather than the rule. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current trial was to asses the affect of a protocol driven, nurse-initiated discharge process on discharge time, patient satisfaction and adverse events. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A large, major metropolitan hospital in Queensland, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing a surgical procedure and requiring an overnight stay in the 23-h unit were eligible for inclusion. 182 were randomised and 131 patients completed the study. METHODS: Participants were randomly assigned into one of two groups: protocol driven, nurse-initiated or usual care. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients discharged by 0900h. Patients completed a self-report questionnaire two weeks after hospital discharge, to evaluate their satisfaction. RESULTS: Of the 131 patients completing the trial, only 82 (62.6%) were discharged by 0900h. In the Protocol group 45 (78.9%) patients were discharged on time compared with 37 (50.0%) in the usual care group. This difference was statistically significant (OR 3.75; 95% CI-1.74-8.21; p=0.001). The average length of stay in the 23-h unit was 16.5(SD 6.8)h. This did not differ by group (MD 0.29; 95% CI-2.13-2.71; p=0.81). The overall mean satisfaction score was 95.4 (SD 8.8) and results were similar between groups (Protocol group 96.2 versus usual care group 94.6; p=0.40). CONCLUSIONS: A protocol driven, nurse-initiated discharge process in an overnight post surgery unit results in a higher proportion of patients being discharged by 0900h without compromising patient satisfaction.