Development and Validation of a Hospital Indicator of Activity-Based Costs for Injury Admissions.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a hospital indicator of resource use for injury admissions. METHODS: We focused on resource use for acute injury care and therefore adopted a hospital perspective. We included patients ≥16 years old with an Injury Severity Score >9 admitted to any of the 57 trauma centers of an inclusive Canadian trauma system from 2014 to 2018. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports and estimated resource use with activity-based costing. We developed risk-adjustment models by trauma center designation level (I/II and III/IV) for the whole sample, traumatic brain injuries, thoraco-abdominal injuries, orthopedic injuries, and patients ≥65 years old. Candidate variables were selected using bootstrap resampling. We performed benchmarking by comparing the adjusted mean cost in each center, obtained using shrinkage estimates, to the provincial mean. RESULTS: We included 38 713 patients. The models explained between 12% and 36% (optimism-corrected r2) of the variation in resource use. In the whole sample and in all subgroups, we identified centers with higher- or lower-than-expected resource use across level I/II and III/IV centers. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an algorithm to produce the indicator using data routinely collected in trauma registries to prompt targeted exploration of potential areas for improvement in resource use for injury admissions. The r2 of our models suggest that between 64% and 88% of the variation in resource use for injury care is dictated by factors other than patient baseline risk.

Incidence of shoulder pain in 40 years old and over and associated factors: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal complaints, and its prevalence and consequences increase with age. However, little is known about the incidence of shoulder pain among aging adults. We conducted this review to estimate the incidence of shoulder pain in ageing adults and its associated factors. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We conducted a systematic review of cohort studies in which the incidence of shoulder pain and associated factors were explored in adults aged 40 years and over. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were consulted. RESULTS: We retrieved 3332 studies and included six, of which five were prospective cohort studies and one was retrospective. For adults aged 45-64 years, the annual cumulative incidence was 2.4%. The incidence density was estimated at 17.3 per 1,000 person-years for adults in the 45-64 years age group, at 12.8 per 1000 person-years for those in the 65-74 years group and at 6.7 per 1000 person-years among those aged 75 years and over. Occupational factors, notably physical demands of work, were associated with the incidence of shoulder pain. Non-occupational factors were also linked to the occurrence of shoulder pain. CONCLUSION: Few studies have estimated the incidence of shoulder pain and associated factors among ageing adults. From this systematic review, we conclude that studies on the incidence of shoulder pain are scarce, and that both occupational and non-occupational factors could be associated with the onset of shoulder pain among adults 40 years and over. This very limited evidence calls for more studies on this topic. SIGNIFICANCE: Shoulder pain is one of the most frequent musculoskeletal complaints, and its prevalence and consequences increase with age. However, since the prevalence of a recurring condition is determined by its incidence and the number and duration of episodes, it is important to have valid incidence estimates and to conduct aetiological studies on incidence measures to untangle risk factors of the occurrence of shoulder pain from those affecting the duration and number of episodes . In this systematic review, we sought to estimate the incidence of shoulder pain in ageing adults along with its associated factors. This work could lead to better interventions to prevent shoulder pain in older individuals.

An evaluation of WHO emergency guidelines for Zika virus disease.

BACKGROUND: In the face of an unclear causal association between Zika virus in utero exposure and congenital abnormalities and urgent demand for guidance, the World Health Organization (WHO) had to produce timely and trustworthy guidelines during the 2016 Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). METHODS: This is a cross-sectional evaluation of WHO emergency guidelines produced during the Zika virus disease PHEIC from 1 February to 18 November 2016. We assessed adherence to WHO publication requirements and the reporting of guideline development processes associated with trustworthiness. In the absence of quality appraisal tools for guidelines developed under compressed timeframes, we applied the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. RESULTS: We included 21 guidelines (13 de novo and 8 updates). Six guidelines used a formal evidence review process. Most guidelines involved external experts in the development process and collected declarations of interest. Peer review was reported in six documents. Most emergency guidelines included updating plans. The highest scoring AGREE II domain was clarity of presentation (median score 78%); the lowest scoring domain was applicability (median score 18%). CONCLUSION: WHO developed moderate- to high-quality emergency guidelines in the challenging context of a PHEIC. We found improvement opportunities for WHO guideline development teams in the use of evidence to formulate recommendations, the collection of declarations of interest, reporting of conflicts of interest, and the use of existing WHO organizational quality assurance processes.

Patient-level resource use for injury admissions in Canada: A multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Variations in adjusted costs have been observed among trauma centres in the United States but patient outcomes were not better in centres with higher costs. Attempts to improve injury care efficiency are hampered by insufficient patient-level information on resource use and on the drivers of resource use intensity. OBJECTIVES: To estimate patient-level resource use for injury admissions, identify determinants of resource use intensity, and evaluate inter-hospital variations in resource use. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including ≥16-year-olds admitted to adult trauma centres in a mature, inclusive Canadian trauma system between 2014 and 2016. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports. We estimated resource use with activity-based costs, identified determinants of resource use intensity using a multilevel linear model and assessed the relative importance of each determinant with Cohen's f2. We evaluated inter-provider variations with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We included 32,411 patients. Median costs per admission were $4857 (Quartiles 1 and 3 2961-8448). The most important contributors to total resource use were the medical ward (57%), followed by the operating room (OR; 23%) and the intensive care unit (13%). The strongest determinant of resource use intensity was discharge destination (Cohen's f2 = 7%). The most resource intense patient group was spinal cord injuries with $11,193 (7115-17,606) per admission. While resource use increased with increasing age for the medical ward, it decreased with increasing age for the OR. Resource use was 18% higher in level I centres compared to level IV centres and we observed significant variations in resource use across centres (ICC = 5% [4-6]), particularly for the OR (28% [20-40]). CONCLUSIONS: Resource use for acute injury care in Quebec is not solely due to the clinical status of patients. We identified determinants of resource use that can be used to establish evidence-based resource allocations and improve injury care efficiency. The method we developed for estimating patient-level, in-hospital resource use for injury admissions and identifying related determinants could be reproduced using local trauma registry data and our unit costs or unit costs specific to each setting.

The use of mathematical modeling studies for evidence synthesis and guideline development: A glossary.

Mathematical modeling studies are increasingly recognised as an important tool for evidence synthesis and to inform clinical and public health decision-making, particularly when data from systematic reviews of primary studies do not adequately answer a research question. However, systematic reviewers and guideline developers may struggle with using the results of modeling studies, because, at least in part, of the lack of a common understanding of concepts and terminology between evidence synthesis experts and mathematical modellers. The use of a common terminology for modeling studies across different clinical and epidemiological research fields that span infectious and non-communicable diseases will help systematic reviewers and guideline developers with the understanding, characterisation, comparison, and use of mathematical modeling studies. This glossary explains key terms used in mathematical modeling studies that are particularly salient to evidence synthesis and knowledge translation in clinical medicine and public health.

Correction: An evaluation of emergency guidelines issued by the World Health Organization in response to four infectious disease outbreaks.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198125.].

An evaluation of emergency guidelines issued by the World Health Organization in response to four infectious disease outbreaks.

BACKGROUND: The production of high-quality guidelines in response to public health emergencies poses challenges for the World Health Organization (WHO). The urgent need for guidance and the paucity of structured scientific data on emerging diseases hinder the formulation of evidence-informed recommendations using standard methods and procedures. OBJECTIVES: In the context of the response to recent public health emergencies, this project aimed to describe the information products produced by WHO and assess the quality and trustworthiness of a subset of these products classified as guidelines. METHODS: We selected four recent infectious disease emergencies: outbreaks of avian influenza A-H1N1 virus (2009) and H7N9 virus (2013), Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) (2013), and Ebola virus disease (EVD) (2014 to 2016). We analyzed the development and publication processes and evaluated the quality of emergency guidelines using AGREE-II. RESULTS: We included 175 information products of which 87 were guidelines. These products demonstrated variable adherence to WHO publication requirements including the listing of external contributors, management of declarations of interest, and entry into WHO's public database of publications. For guidelines, the methods for development were incompletely reported; WHO's quality assurance process was rarely used; systematic or other evidence reviews were infrequently referenced; external peer review was not performed; and they scored poorly with AGREE II, particularly for rigour of development and editorial independence. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that WHO guidelines produced in the context of a public health emergency can be improved upon, helping to assure the trustworthiness and utility of WHO information products in future emergencies.

Common issues raised during the quality assurance process of WHO guidelines: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: In 2007, WHO established the Guidelines Review Committee (GRC) to ensure that WHO guidelines adhere to the highest international standards. The GRC reviews guideline proposals and final guidelines. The objectives of this study were to examine the rates of and reasons for conditional approval and non-approval of documents submitted for the first time to the GRC, and calculate the time intervals and numbers of submissions to achieve approval for documents conditionally approved or not approved at first submission. METHODS: All initial submissions to the GRC between 2014 and 2017 were examined. Data were extracted from the GRC's records of written comments and discussions. RESULTS: Of a total of 85 proposals and 88 final guidelines, 32 (37.6%) proposals and 37 (42.0%) final guidelines were conditionally approved, and 15 (17.6%) proposals and 28 (31.8%) final guidelines were not. For both conditionally approved and not approved proposals, the most frequent reasons were suboptimal composition or inadequate description of the guideline contributor groups (in all proposals), followed by inadequate formulation of key questions (in 90.6% of conditionally approved proposals and all not approved proposals). For both conditionally approved and not approved final guidelines, the most frequent reasons were problems with recommendations (in all final guidelines), followed by inappropriate methods for evidence retrieval or an inadequate description thereof (in all conditionally approved final guidelines and 75.0% of not approved final guidelines). The median time to achieve approval was 2 months for proposals and 1-2 months for final guidelines. The median number of submissions was 2 for proposals and 2-2.5 for final guidelines. CONCLUSION: The GRC implements a rigorous quality assurance process and identifies problems with a significant percentage of initial submissions. WHO needs to continuously evaluate its guideline development processes to inform effective quality improvement measures and optimise the quality of its guidelines.

Impact of Trauma System Structure on Injury Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of trauma systems in decreasing injury mortality and morbidity has been well demonstrated. However, little is known about which components contribute to their effectiveness. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of the impact of trauma system components on clinically important injury outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and BIOSIS/Web of Knowledge, gray literature and trauma association Web sites to identify studies evaluating the association between at least one trauma system component and injury outcome. We calculated pooled effect estimates using inverse-variance random-effects models. We evaluated quality of evidence using GRADE criteria. RESULTS: We screened 15,974 records, retaining 41 studies for qualitative synthesis and 19 for meta-analysis. Two recommended trauma system components were associated with reduced odds of mortality: inclusive design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [0.65-0.80]) and helicopter transport (OR = 0.70 [0.55-0.88]). Pre-Hospital Advanced Trauma Life Support was associated with a significant reduction in hospital days (mean difference [MD] = 5.7 [4.4-7.0]) but a nonsignificant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.78 [0.44-1.39]). Population density of surgeons was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in mortality (MD = 0.58 [-0.22 to 1.39]). Trauma system maturity was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (OR = 0.76 [0.68-0.85]). Quality of evidence was low or very low for mortality and healthcare utilization. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers low-quality evidence for the effectiveness of an inclusive design and trauma system maturity and very-low-quality evidence for helicopter transport in reducing injury mortality. Further research should evaluate other recommended components of trauma systems and non-fatal outcomes and explore the impact of system component interactions.

Zika Virus Infection as a Cause of Congenital Brain Abnormalities and Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) stated in March 2016 that there was scientific consensus that the mosquito-borne Zika virus was a cause of the neurological disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and of microcephaly and other congenital brain abnormalities based on rapid evidence assessments. Decisions about causality require systematic assessment to guide public health actions. The objectives of this study were to update and reassess the evidence for causality through a rapid and systematic review about links between Zika virus infection and (a) congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, in the foetuses and offspring of pregnant women and (b) GBS in any population, and to describe the process and outcomes of an expert assessment of the evidence about causality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The study had three linked components. First, in February 2016, we developed a causality framework that defined questions about the relationship between Zika virus infection and each of the two clinical outcomes in ten dimensions: temporality, biological plausibility, strength of association, alternative explanations, cessation, dose-response relationship, animal experiments, analogy, specificity, and consistency. Second, we did a systematic review (protocol number CRD42016036693). We searched multiple online sources up to May 30, 2016 to find studies that directly addressed either outcome and any causality dimension, used methods to expedite study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, and summarised evidence descriptively. Third, WHO convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts who assessed the review findings and reached consensus statements to update the WHO position on causality. We found 1,091 unique items up to May 30, 2016. For congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, we included 72 items; for eight of ten causality dimensions (all except dose-response relationship and specificity), we found that more than half the relevant studies supported a causal association with Zika virus infection. For GBS, we included 36 items, of which more than half the relevant studies supported a causal association in seven of ten dimensions (all except dose-response relationship, specificity, and animal experimental evidence). Articles identified nonsystematically from May 30 to July 29, 2016 strengthened the review findings. The expert panel concluded that (a) the most likely explanation of available evidence from outbreaks of Zika virus infection and clusters of microcephaly is that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of congenital brain abnormalities including microcephaly, and (b) the most likely explanation of available evidence from outbreaks of Zika virus infection and GBS is that Zika virus infection is a trigger of GBS. The expert panel recognised that Zika virus alone may not be sufficient to cause either congenital brain abnormalities or GBS but agreed that the evidence was sufficient to recommend increased public health measures. Weaknesses are the limited assessment of the role of dengue virus and other possible cofactors, the small number of comparative epidemiological studies, and the difficulty in keeping the review up to date with the pace of publication of new research. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and systematic reviews with frequent updating and open dissemination are now needed both for appraisal of the evidence about Zika virus infection and for the next public health threats that will emerge. This systematic review found sufficient evidence to say that Zika virus is a cause of congenital abnormalities and is a trigger of GBS.