Prehospital management of chest injuries in severely injured patients-a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to review and update the existing evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the management of chest injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries in the prehospital setting. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to May 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for the detection and management of chest injuries in severely injured patients in the prehospital setting. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality and diagnostic test accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength. RESULTS: Two new studies were identified, both investigating the accuracy of in-flight ultrasound in the detection of pneumothorax. Two new recommendations were developed, one recommendation was modified. One of the two new recommendations and the modified recommendation address the use of ultrasound for detecting traumatic pneumothorax. One new good (clinical) practice point (GPP) recommends the use of an appropriate vented dressing in the management of open pneumothorax. Eleven recommendations were confirmed as unchanged because no new high-level evidence was found to support a change. CONCLUSION: Some evidence suggests that ultrasound should be considered to identify pneumothorax in the prehospital setting. Otherwise, the recommendations from 2016 remained unchanged.

Does the second opinion directive in Germany reach the patient? A parallel-convergent mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A Second Opinion Directive (SOD) was introduced in Germany in December 2018 for elective surgeries such as hysterectomy, tonsillotomy, tonsillectomy, and shoulder arthroscopy. The aim of the SOD is to avoid surgeries which are not medically induced and to support patients in their decision-making process. A physician who indicates an SOD-relevant procedure must inform the patient about the SOD and its specifications. At this time, it is not clear whether physicians provide information about the SOD to patients and whether and how the SOD is implemented in daily practice. Furthermore, nothing is known about how patients react when they are told that they have the right to seek a second opinion according to the SOD. METHODS: To assess this, we undertook a parallel-convergent mixed-methods study with a qualitative and quantitative phase. Qualitative data were analysed by structured qualitative content analysis and survey data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: 26 interviews were conducted with patients for whom one of the above-mentioned surgeries was indicated. In parallel, a questionnaire survey with 102 patients was conducted. The results show that the SOD is not implemented in Germany for the selected indications because patients were not informed as intended. At the same time, when the right to obtain a second opinion was explained, it seemed to have a positive effect on the physician-patient relationship from patients` perspective. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible that there is a lack of information for physicians, which in turn leads to an information deficit for patients. Better information for physicians might be part of the solution, but a negative attitude towards the SOD might also result in the low education rate. Therefore, in addition, potential patients or even the general population should be better informed about the possibility of obtaining a second opinion.

Second opinion opportunity declined: patient typology and experiences regarding the decision-making process preceding elective surgeries in Germany.

BACKGROUND: To address the problem of overuse of elective surgery and to support patients in their decision-making process, a Second Opinion Directive was introduced in Germany, which enables patients with statutory health insurance to obtain a second opinion for certain surgical indications. The study aims to identify, based on the experiences of patients who have undergone elective surgery, the role of seeking a second opinion in reaching their decision. METHODS: Sixty-two patients who had undergone an elective surgery (hysterectomy, tonsillectomy, shoulder arthroscopy) were recruited using purposive sampling and interviewed during October to December 2020. The transcribed interviews were analysed using a framework analysis to create a typology from the patient's perspective. RESULTS: The time spent by patients in making the decision to undergo surgery varies between individuals, and is influenced by factors such as the type of physician-patient relationship, individual patient aspects, prior experiences in the health care system, as well as information needs. Within the framework of the analysis, we were able to identify three patterns of patient types based on the three different time-points or phases when decisions were typically made, with one type being divided into two subtypes: Type 1a: Quick decision making, Type 1b: Overwhelmed quick decision making, Type 2: Time to consider, Type 3: Struggling with the decision. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who followed a recommendation for elective surgery appreciate having the possibility to seek a second opinion. However, various factors influenced their opting for a second opinion during the decision-making process. Patients have differing information needs, such that a one-size-fits-all second opinion service may not fit adequately for all patients.

A photograph of the researcher on the invitation letter did not affect the participation rate of a postal survey: a randomized study within a trial (SWAT).

OBJECTIVE: Participant recruitment is one of the main challenges in research. It is suggested that including researcher photographs might increase participation rates, but empirical evidence is lacking. This study within a trial (SWAT) aims to assess whether invitation letters including researcher photographs increase the participation rate in the context of a survey on medical second opinions. METHODS: Through 25 local register offices in Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany), we identified a random sample of 9990 persons. We randomly assigned our sample to the intervention group (IG) receiving an invitation letter with researcher photographs and control group (CG) receiving an invitation letter without photographs in a 1:1 ratio. Our primary outcome was the participation rate. Furthermore, we compared participants to non-participants' characteristics. RESULTS: Of 9990 invitations, 9797 could be delivered (IG: 4890, CG: 4907). Of these, 1349 (13.8%) participated. There were 682/4890 (13.9%) participants in the IG and 662/4907 (13.5%) in the CG with an odds ratio of 1.030 (95% confidence interval: 0.918-1.156). Additional analyses on non-participant characteristics did not show any differences. CONCLUSION: We could not find any difference in the participation rates. Our study does not confirm the results of previous studies. The length of our questionnaire may have affected our results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Queens University Belfast - SWAT Store, SWAT 104.

Telemedical Second Opinions in Germany: A Customer Survey of an Online Portal.

Introduction: Second medical opinions (SOs) can strengthen patients' certainty in decision making. In Germany, both personally delivered and telemedical SOs (often based on documents only) are provided. Our aim was to analyze the experiences of people who obtained telemedical SOs. We also investigated different routes of SO delivery (personally/by phone/documents only). Materials and Methods: German residents who obtained a telemedical SO via an online portal between January 2016 and February 2019 (n = 1,247) were contacted by post between August and November 2019 up to three times. The results were analyzed descriptively. Results: The 368 participants (response rate 30%) were 54% male, 95% statutory health insured, and 61 years old (median; interquartile range 51-72). Approximately 75% were (rather) satisfied with obtaining the SO via the online portal. The most preferred route of SO delivery was a personally delivered SO, which 80% would (rather) consider, followed by 70% (rather) considering SOs based on documents only and 48% (rather) considering SOs by phone. The most often mentioned advantage of telemedical SOs was independence of time and place, while the most important disadvantage was the standardized process resulting in a lack of direct and personal contact between the patient and the physician. Discussion: Although our results show that SOs (based on documents only) support patients and that patient satisfaction was high, personally delivered SOs were still preferred. Future research on the use of SOs based on documents only (in which patient population and in what situations) is needed.

Attitude toward second opinions in Germany - a survey of the general population.

BACKGROUND: Second medical opinions (SOs) can assist patients in making informed treatment decisions and improve the understanding of their diagnosis. In Germany, there are different approaches to obtain a structured SO procedure: SO programs by health insurers and SOs according to the SO Directive. Through a direct survey of the population, we aimed to assess how structured SOs should be provided to fulfil patients' needs. METHODS: A stratified sample of 9990 adults (≥18 years) living in the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg (Germany) were initially contacted by post in April and sent a reminder in May 2020. The survey results were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Among 1349 participants (response rate 14%), 56% were female and the median age was 58 years (interquartile range (IQR) 44-69). Participants wanted to be informed directly and personally about the possibility of obtaining an SO (89%; 1201/1349). They preferred to be informed by their physician (93%; 1249/1349). A majority of participants would consider it important to obtain an SO for oncological indications (78%; 1049/1349). Only a subset of the participants would seek an SO via their health insurer or via an online portal (43%; 577/1349 and 16%; 221/1349). A personally delivered SO was the preferred route of SO delivery, as 97% (1305/1349) would (tend to) consider this way of obtaining an SO. Participants were asked to imagine having moderate knee pain for years, resulting in a treatment recommendation for knee joint replacement. They were requested to rate potential qualification criteria for a physician providing the SO. The criteria rated to be most important were experience with the recommended diagnosis/treatment (criterion (very) important for 93%; 1257/1349) and knowledge of the current state of research (criterion (very) important for 86%; 1158/1349). Participants were willing to travel 60 min (median; IQR 60-120) and wait 4 weeks (median; IQR 2-4) for their SO in the hypothetical case of knee pain. CONCLUSION: In general, SOs were viewed positively. We found that participants have clear preferences regarding SOs. We propose that these preferences should be taken into account in the future design and development of SO programs.

Factors predicting failure of internal fixations of fractures of the lower limbs: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed predictive factors of patients with fractures of the lower extremities caused by trauma. We examined which factors are associated with an increased risk of failure. Furthermore, the predictive factors were set into context with other long-term outcomes, concrete pain and physical functioning. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study at a single level I trauma center. We enrolled patients with traumatic fractures of the lower extremities treated with internal fixation from April 2017 to July 2018. We evaluated the following predictive factors: age, gender, diabetes, smoking status, obesity, open fractures and peripheral arterial diseases. The primary outcome was time to failure (nonunion, implant failure or reposition). Secondary outcomes were pain and physical functioning measured 6 months after initial surgery. For the analysis of the primary outcome, we used a stratified (according fracture location) Cox proportional hazard regression model. RESULTS: We included 204 patients. Overall, we observed failure in 33 patients (16.2 %). Most of the failures occurred within the first 3 months. Obesity and open fractures were associated with an increased risk of failure and decreased physical functioning. None of the predictors showed an association with pain. Age, female gender and smoking of more than ≥ 10 package years increased failure risk numerically but statistical uncertainty was high. CONCLUSIONS: We found that obesity and open fractures were strongly associated with an increased risk of failure. These predictors seem promising candidates to be included in a risk prediction model and can be considered as a good start for clinical decision making across different types of fractures at the lower limbs. However, large heterogeneity regarding the other analyzed predictors suggests that "simple" models might not be adequate for a precise personalized risk estimation and that computer-based models incorporating a variety of detailed information (e.g. pattern of injury, x-ray and clinical data) and their interrelation may be required to significantly increase prediction precision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03091114 .

A systematic review on the effectiveness of implementation strategies to postpone elective caesarean sections to ≥ 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean sections often have no urgent indication and are electively planned. Research showed that elective caesarean section should not be performed until 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation to ensure best neonatal and maternal health if there are no contraindications. This was recommended by various guidelines published in the last two decades. With this systematic review, we are looking for implementation strategies trying to implement these recommendations to reduce elective caesarean section before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL on 3rd of March 2021. We included studies that assessed implementation strategies aiming to postpone elective caesarean section to ≥ 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. There were no restrictions regarding the type of implementation strategy or reasons for elective caesarean section. Our primary outcome was the rate of elective caesarean sections before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. We used the ROBINS-I Tool for the assessment of risk of bias. We did a narrative analysis of the results. RESULTS: We included 10 studies, of which were 2 interrupted time series and 8 before-after studies, covering 205,954 elective caesarean births. All studies included various types of implementation strategies. All implementation strategies showed success in decreasing the rate of elective caesarean sections performed < 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation. Risk difference differed from - 7 (95% CI - 8; - 7) to - 45 (95% CI - 51; - 31). Three studies reported the rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission and showed little reduction. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows that all presented implementation strategies to reduce elective caesarean section before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation are effective. Reduction rates differ widely and it remains unclear which strategy is most successful. Strategies used locally in one hospital seem a little more effective. Included studies are either before-after studies (8) or interrupted time series (2) and the overall quality of the evidence is rather low. However, most of the studies identified specific barriers in the implementation process. For planning an implementation strategy to reduce elective caesarean section before 39 + (0-6) weeks of gestation, it is necessary to consider specific barriers and facilitators and take all obstetric personal into account. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017078231.

Mesh fixation techniques in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: The use of a mesh in primary ventral or incisional hernia repair lowers the recurrence rate  and is the accepted standard of care for larger defects. In laparoscopic primary ventral or incisional hernia repair the insertion of a mesh is indispensable. Different mesh fixation techniques have been used and refined over the years. The type of fixation technique is claimed to have a major impact on recurrence rates, chronic pain, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and complication rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact of different mesh fixation techniques for primary and incisional ventral hernia repair on hernia recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications. SEARCH METHODS: On 2 October 2020 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid MEDLINE(R)) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R)), Ovid Embase, and two trials registries. We also performed handsearches, and contacted experts from the European Hernia Society (EHS). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including adults with primary ventral or incisional hernia that compared different types of mesh fixation techniques (absorbable/nonabsorbable sutures, absorbable/nonabsorbable tacks, fibrin glue, and combinations of these techniques). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in standardised piloted tables, or if necessary, directly into Review Manager 5. We assessed risks of bias with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently selected the publications, and extracted data on results. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. For pooling we used an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis or the Peto method in the case of rare events. We prepared GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables. For laparoscopic repair we considered absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks, and nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures as key comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 trials with a total of 787 participants. The number of randomised participants ranged from 40 to 199 per comparison. Eight studies included participants with both primary and incisional ventral hernia. One study included only participants with umbilical hernia, and another only participants with incisional hernia. Hernia size varied between studies. We judged the risk of bias as moderate to high. Absorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable tacks Recurrence rates in the groups were similar (RR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 3.22; 2 studies, 101 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks and nonabsorbable tacks in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to nonabsorbable sutures At six months there was one recurrence in each group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.79; 1 study, 36 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between nonabsorbable tacks and nonabsorbable sutures in recurrence because the certainty of evidence was very low. Evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up and chronic pain is negligible. We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures No recurrence was observed at one year (very low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain was higher in the tacks group (VAS 0 - 10: MD -2.70, 95% CI -6.67 to 1.27; 1 study, 48 participants). It is uncertain whether there is a difference between absorbable tacks compared to absorbable sutures in early postoperative pain because the certainty of evidence was very low. The MD for late follow-up pain was -0.30 (95% CI -0.74 to 0.14; 1 study, 48 participants). We found no study that assessed HRQOL. Combination of different fixation types (tacks and sutures) or materials (absorbable and nonabsorbable) There were mostly negligible or only small differences between combinations (e.g. tacks plus sutures) compared to a single technique (e.g. sutures only), as well as combinations compared to other combinations (e.g. absorbable sutures combined with nonabsorbable sutures compared to absorbable tacks combined with nonabsorbable tacks) in all outcomes. It is uncertain whether there is an advantage for combining different fixation types or materials for recurrence, chronic pain, HRQOL and complications, because the evidence certainty was very low or low, or we found no study on important outcomes. Nonabsorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant The two studies showed different directions of effects: one showed higher rates for nonabsorbable tacks, and the other showed higher rates for fibrin sealant. Low-certainty evidence suggests that the difference between groups in early postoperative, late follow-up, chronic pain and HRQOL is negligible. Absorbable tacks compared to fibrin sealant One recurrence in the tacks group and none in the fibrin sealant group were noted after one year (low certainty of evidence). Early postoperative pain might be slightly lower using tacks (VAS 0 - 100; MD -12.40, 95% CI -27.60 to, 2.80;1 study, 50 participants; low-certainty evidence). The pattern of pain and HRQOL course over time (up to 1 year) was similar in the groups (low certainty of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently none of the techniques can be considered superior to any other, because the certainty of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.

Analysis of second opinion programs provided by German statutory and private health insurance - a survey of statutory and private health insurers.

BACKGROUND: Second medical opinions can give patients confidence when choosing among treatment options and help them understand their diagnosis. Health insurers in several countries, including Germany, offer formal second opinion programs (SecOPs). We systematically collected and analyzed information on German health insurers' approach to SecOPs, how the SecOPs are structured, and to what extent they are evaluated. METHODS: In April 2019, we sent a questionnaire by post to all German statutory (n = 109) and private health insurers (n = 52). In September 2019, we contacted the nonresponders by email. The results were analyzed descriptively. They are presented overall and grouped by type of insurance (statutory/private health insurer). RESULTS: Thirty one of One hundred sixty one health insurers (response rate 19%) agreed to participate. The participating insurers covered approximately 40% of the statutory and 34% of the private health insured people. A total of 44 SecOPs were identified with a median of 1 SecOP (interquartile range (IQR) 1-2) offered by a health insurer. SecOPs were in place mainly for orthopedic (21/28 insurers with SecOPs; 75%) and oncologic indications (20/28; 71%). Indications were chosen principally based on their potential impact on a patient (22/28; 79%). The key qualification criterion for second opinion providers was their expertise (30/44 SecOPs; 68%). Second opinions were usually provided based on submitted documents only (21/44; 48%) or on direct contact between a patient and a doctor (20/44; 45%). They were delivered after a median of 9 days (IQR 5-15). A median of 31 (IQR 7-85) insured persons per year used SecOPs. Only 12 of 44 SecOPs were confirmed to have conducted a formal evaluation process (27%) or, if not, plan such a process in the future (10/22; 45%). CONCLUSION: Health insurers' SecOPs focus on orthopedic and oncologic indications and are based on submitted documents or on direct patient-physician contact. The formal evaluation of SecOPs needs to be expanded and the results should be published. This can allow the evaluation of the impact of SecOPs on insured persons' health status and satisfaction, as well as on the number of interventions performed. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the low participation rate.

Second opinion programmes in Germany: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Second opinion programmes aim to support the patients' decision-making process and to avoid treatments that are unnecessary from a medical perspective. The German second opinion directive, introduced in December 2018, constitutes a new legal framework in statutory health insurance for seeking second opinions for elective procedures and so far includes tonsillectomy, tonsillotomy, hysterectomy and shoulder arthroscopy. The directive mandates physicians who recommend one of the above-mentioned surgeries to inform their patients of their legal right to visit a certified second opinion provider. Since second opinion programmes are a fairly recent phenomenon in Germany, no comprehensive data are yet available on the degree of implementation, users, potential barriers and their effectiveness. We aim to examine the characteristics and the use of second opinion programmes as well as the needs and wishes from the perspective of (potential) users in Germany, with focus on the decision-making process, the patient-physician relationship and the motivation to seek a second opinion, as well as the role of health literacy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Six substudies will include the following stakeholders: (1 and 2) patients with one of the four surgery-indications covered by the directive, (3) patients who electively sought an online-based second opinion, (4) patients with oncological diseases, (5) the general population and (6) medical specialists. A mixed-methods approach will be used, including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. The data will be evaluated using quantitative descriptive analysis and qualitative content analysis. The integration of the results will take place in the form of a triangulation protocol. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Brandenburg Medical School. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

Second Opinions before Surgery Have the Potential to Reduce Costs - An Exploratory Analysis. / Zweitmeinungen vor operativen Eingriffen haben das Potenzial, Kosten zu senken ­ eine explorative Analyse.

AIM: In this study cost data of patient's first and second opinion of a German second opinion program of patients with orthopedic indications are raised and compared. METHODS: Anonymized patient data were used from a second opinion program gathered in the period from 2013 to 2015. Costs of the first and second opinion were raised using DRG, the EBM catalog, the remuneration agreement on physical therapy and the price of drugs. In order to increase transferability, initial therapy recommendation and second opinion were compared in a cost analysis to determine a theoretical savings potential. RESULTS: A total of 170 consecutive patients with orthopedic indication and first and second opinion were analyzed in this study. Only one out of three initial therapy recommendations was confirmed by the second opinion. In the second opinion, physiotherapy and pain therapy were often suggested for indications which received a surgery referral by the initial therapy recommendation. In scenario 1 (average resource use), the costs of the first therapy recommendation in median was 5020.96 € (IQR = 961.71 - 7342.66), the second opinion was 322.07 € (IQR = 146.39 - 1341.32). In median, the operation costs of the initial therapy recommendation were equal to 156.12 physiotherapeutic sessions and 26.02 N3 packs Ibuprofen 800. CONCLUSION: Therapy costs for the initial therapy recommendation are clearly exceeding the therapy costs of the second opinion. This assumes a potential to reduce therapy costs with the use of a second opinion. This study lays the foundation to carry out further conclusive analyses concerning this matter.

Elective removal vs. retaining of hardware after osteosynthesis in asymptomatic patients-a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Osteosynthesis is the internal fixation of fractures or osteotomy by mechanical devices (also called hardware). After bone healing, there are two options: one is to remove the hardware, the other is to leave it in place. The removal of the hardware in patients without medical indication (elective) is controversially discussed. We performed a scoping review to identify evidence on the elective removal of hardware in asymptomatic patients compared to retaining of the hardware to check feasibility of performing a health technology assessment. In addition, we wanted to find out which type of evidence is available. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, EconLit, and CINAHL (November 2019). We included studies comparing asymptomatic patients with an internal fixation in the lower or upper extremities whose internal fixation was electively (without medical indication) removed or retained. We did not restrict inclusion to any effectiveness/safety outcome and considered any comparative study design as eligible. Study selection and data extraction was performed by two reviewers. RESULTS: We identified 13476 titles/abstracts. Of these, we obtained 115 full-text publications which were assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria. We included 13 studies (1 RCT, 4 cohort studies, 8 before-after studies) and identified two ongoing RCTs. Nine assessed the removal of the internal fixation in the lower extremities (six of these syndesmotic screws in ankle fractures only) and two in the upper extremities. One study analysed the effectiveness of hardware removal in children in all types of extremity fractures. Outcomes reported included various scales measuring functionality, pain and clinical assessments (e.g. range of motion) and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13 studies that evaluated the effectiveness/safety of hardware removal in the extremities. The follow up times were short, the patient groups small and the ways of measurement differed. In general, clinical heterogeneity was high. Evidence on selected topics, e.g. syndesmotic screw removal is available nevertheless not sufficient to allow a meaningful assessment of effectiveness.

A systematic review and time-response meta-analysis of the optimal timing of elective caesarean sections for best maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The rate of caesarean sections (CS) has increased in the last decades to about 30% of births in high income countries. Many CSs are electively planned without an urgent medical reason for mother or child. An early CS though may harm the newborn. Our aim was to evaluate the gestational time point after the 37 + 0 week of gestation (WG) (after prematurity = term) of performing an elective CS with the lowest morbidity for mother and child by assessing the time course from 37 + 0 to 42+ 6 WG. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL in November 2018. We included studies that compared different time points of elective CS at term no matter the reason for elective CS. Our primary outcomes were the rate of admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), neonatal death and maternal death in early versus late term elective CS. Various binary and dose response random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies including 982,749 women. Except one randomised controlled trial, all studies were cohort studies. We performed a linear time-response meta-analysis on the primary outcome NICU admission on 14 studies resulting in a decrease of the relative risk (RR) to 0.63 (95% CI 0.56, 0.71) from 37 + 0 to 39 + 6 WG. RR for neonatal death showed a decrease to 39 + (0-6) WG (RR 0.59 95% CI 0.43 to 0.83) and increase from then on (RR 2.09 95% CI 1.18 to 3.70) assuming a U-shape course and using a cubic spline model for meta-analysis of four studies. We only identified one study analyzing maternal death resulting in RR of 0.38 (95% CI 0.04 to 3.40) for 37 + 0 + 38 + 6 WG versus ≥39 + 0 WG. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review showed that elective CS (primary and repeated) before the 39 + 0 WG lead to more NICU admissions and neonatal deaths, although death is rare and increases again after 39 + 6 WG. We did not find enough evidence on maternal outcomes. There is a need for more research, considering maternal outcomes to provide a balanced decision between neonatal and maternal health. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017078231).

Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the inter-rater and intercenter reliability, usability, and utility of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a prospective evaluation using 30 systematic reviews of randomized trials, undertaken at three international centers. RESULTS: Reviewers completed AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS in median (interquartile range) 15.7 (11.3), 19.7 (12.1), and 28.7 (17.4) minutes and reached consensus in 2.6 (3.2), 4.6 (5.3), and 10.9 (10.8) minutes, respectively. Across all centers, inter-rater reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 8/11 AMSTAR, 9/16 AMSTAR 2, and 12/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability was substantial to almost perfect for 6/11 AMSTAR, 12/16 AMSTAR 2, and 7/24 ROBIS items. Intercenter reliability for confidence in the results of the review or overall risk of bias was moderate (Gwet's first-order agreement coefficient (AC1) 0.58, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.30 to 0.85) to substantial (AC1 0.74, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85) for AMSTAR 2 and poor (AC1 -0.21, 95% CI: -0.55 to 0.13) to moderate (AC1 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.83) for ROBIS. It is not clear whether using the appraisals of any tool as an inclusion criterion would alter an overview's findings. CONCLUSIONS: Improved guidance may be needed to facilitate the consistent interpretation and application of the newer tools (especially ROBIS).

Results of a patient-oriented second opinion program in Germany shows a high discrepancy between initial therapy recommendation and second opinion.

BACKGROUND: As of 2015, second opinions are legally implemented in Germany. However, empirical results from German second opinion programs are lacking. The aim of this study was to examine several aspects within a population of a German second opinion program. METHODS: Study population consisted of patients who sought a second opinion in the period from August 2011 to December 2016. Multivariate logistic regression and ANOVA were used to examine differences in patient characteristics, differentiated by agreement of initial therapy recommendation and second opinion. Follow-up points for patient satisfaction and HRQoL were defined at 1, 3 and 6 months after obtaining the second opinion. RESULTS: Total number of patients who sought a second opinion was 1414. Most common indications concerned the knee (37.3%), spine (27.3%), hip (11.5%) and shoulder (10.1%). The independent specialists did not confirm the initial therapy recommendations in two out of three cases. The type of indication influenced the agreement between initial therapy recommendation and the second opinion significantly (p = 0.035). The second opinion and the offered service was highly valued by the patients (89%). CONCLUSIONS: The second opinion offers patients the possibility to confirm a medical indication independently and support patients in their decision making process. Reasons for the large discrepancy between initial therapy recommendation and second opinion should be addressed in future research.

Nocebo effects of a simplified package leaflet compared to unstandardised oral information and a standard package leaflet: a pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The term "nocebo effect" describes the phenomenon that the mere knowledge and anticipation of possible negative consequences of an intervention can increase the probability of experiencing these consequences. Our objective was to assess whether different information presentations on adverse events (AEs) in package information leaflets (PILs) could influence the nocebo effect. METHODS: We included patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery in this pilot randomised controlled trial (pRCT). Patients were assigned by random, computerised and centralised allocation to one of three groups: Simplified-PIL, No-PIL or Standard-PIL on ibuprofen. The Simplified-PIL was written in plain language, and AEs were reported with a focus on avoiding biased risk perception. Only the outcome assessment was blinded. RESULTS: We included 35, 33 and 34 patients in the Simplified-PIL, No-PIL and Standard-PIL groups, respectively. All patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Six patients in the Simplified-PIL, four in the No-PIL and eight in the Standard-PIL group reported an AE. This corresponds to relative risks of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27-1.90) for the Simplified-PIL and 0.50 (95% CI 0.14-1.46) for the No-PIL compared with the Standard-PIL group. The Simplified-PIL increased knowledge, reduced anxiety and improved adherence, although statistical uncertainty was high for all of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This pRCT provides the first hints on the way information on AEs is reported in PILs can affect the nocebo effect. This pRCT shows that a definitive RCT is feasible. If the results are confirmed in a definitive large RCT, a revision of the current practice for designing PILs should be considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03428035. Registered 2 February 2018.

Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied.

INTRODUCTION: The number of systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (SR-HEs) is increasing. We aimed at providing a detailed overview of the characteristics and applied methods in recently published SR-HEs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (03/2017) for SR-HEs published since 2015 using validated search filters. We included studies that performed a systematic review of full economic evaluations and searched at least one electronic database. We extracted data in a standardized, beforehand piloted form that was deduced from the items of the PRISMA and CHEERS checklists. Data were extracted by one reviewer, and a 10% random sample was verified by a second. We prepared descriptive statistical measures to describe the SR-HEs. RESULTS: We included 202 SR-HEs. We identified similarities especially in the methods for information retrieval. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of quality and transferability were frequently not reported or performed without taking measures to reduce errors (eg, independent study selection). A wide range of different tools was applied for critical appraisal. Moreover, the reporting of included economic evaluations and the synthesis of their results showed strong variations. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we identified few common features in the applied methods for SR-HEs. The information retrieval processes are largely standardized, but many studies did not use validated search filters. For the other systematic review steps, the methodological approaches varied. In particular, important challenges seem to be the methodological quality and transferability assessment as well as presentation and (quantitative) synthesis of results. Efforts are needed for increasing standardization, quality of applied methods, and reporting of SR-HEs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: A REVIEW OF CHARACTERISTICS AND APPLIED METHODS.

OBJECTIVES: When making decisions in health care, it is essential to consider economic evidence about an intervention. The objective of this study was to analyze the methods applied for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (SR-HEs) in HTA and to identify common challenges. METHODS: We manually searched the Web pages of HTA organizations and included HTA-reports published since 2015. Prerequisites for inclusion were the conduct of an SR-HE in at least one electronic database and the use of the English, German, French, or Spanish language. Methodological features were extracted in standardized tables. We prepared descriptive statistical (e.g., median, range) measures to describe the applied methods. Data were synthesized in a structured narrative way. RESULTS: Eighty-three reports were included in the analysis. We identified inexplicable heterogeneity, particularly concerning literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of quality, and applicability. Furthermore, process steps were often missing or reported in a nontransparent way. The use of a standardized data extraction form was indicated in one-third of reports (32 percent). Fifty-four percent of authors systematically appraised included studies. In 10 percent of reports, the applicability of included studies was assessed. Involvement of two reviewers was rarely reported for the study selection (43 percent), data extraction (28 percent), and quality assessment (39 percent). CONCLUSIONS: The methods applied for SR-HEs in HTA and their reporting quality are very heterogeneous. Efforts toward a detailed, standardized guidance for the preparation of SR-HEs definitely seem necessary. A general harmonization and improvement of the applied methodology would increase the value of SR-HE for decision makers.