Are birth outcomes in low risk birth cohorts related to hospital birth volumes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is convincing evidence that birth in hospitals with high birth volumes increases the chance of healthy survival in high-risk infants. However, it is unclear whether this is true also for low risk infants. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze effects of hospital's birth volume on mortality, mode of delivery, readmissions, complications and subsequent developmental delays in all births or predefined low risk birth cohorts. The search strategy included EMBASE and Medline supplemented by citing and cited literature of included studies and expert panel highlighting additional literature, published between January/2000 and February/2020. We included studies which were published in English or German language reporting effects of birth volumes on mortality in term or all births in countries with neonatal mortality < 5/1000. We undertook a double-independent title-abstract- and full-text screening and extraction of study characteristics, critical appraisal and outcomes in a qualitative evidence synthesis. RESULTS: 13 retrospective studies with mostly acceptable quality were included. Heterogeneous volume-thresholds, risk adjustments, outcomes and populations hindered a meta-analysis. Qualitatively, four of six studies reported significantly higher perinatal mortality in lower birth volume hospitals. Volume-outcome effects on neonatal mortality (n = 7), stillbirths (n = 3), maternal mortality (n = 1), caesarean sections (n = 2), maternal (n = 1) and neonatal complications (n = 1) were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Analyzed studies indicate higher rates of perinatal mortality for low risk birth in hospitals with low birth volumes. Due to heterogeneity of studies, data synthesis was complicated and a meta-analysis was not possible. Therefore international core outcome sets should be defined and implemented in perinatal registries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42018095289.

Impact of Complex Quality-Interventions on Patient Outcome: A Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Quality of care and the increasing strategies to its promotion, especially in inpatient settings, led to the question which quality-interventions work best and which do not. The aim was to summarize and critically appraise the evidence on the effects of structure- and/or process-related quality-interventions on patient outcome in predominantly controlled and inpatient settings. A systematic overview of systematic reviews after electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and PsycINFO, supplemented by hand search and expert survey, was conducted. From a total of 1559 identified records, 37 reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 26 reviews assessed process-related quality-interventions, 6 structure-related quality-interventions, and 5 combined structure- and process-related quality-interventions. In all, 19 reviews reported pooled effect estimates (meta-analysis). Based on the evidence of this systematic overview, stroke units and pathways can be recommended. Although patient-relevant improvements for interprofessional approaches and discharge planning have been reported, pooled effect estimated evidence are currently missing for these and other quality-interventions.

Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) require systemic immunomodulating treatment to achieve adequate disease control. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (until June 2012). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating systemic immunomodulating treatments for moderate-to-severe AD were included. Selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and generation of treatment recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Efficacy outcomes were clinical signs, symptoms, quality of life, and the course of AD. Safety data were compared by calculating the weekly incidence rates (as percentages) for adverse events. RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs with 12 different systemic treatments and totaling 1653 patients were included. Fourteen trials consistently indicate that cyclosporin A efficaciously improves clinical signs of AD. Cyclosporin A is recommended as first-line treatment for short-term use. A second-line treatment option is azathioprine, but efficacy is lower, and evidence is weaker. Methotrexate can be considered a third-line treatment option. Recommendations are impossible for mycophenolate, montelukast, intravenous immunoglobulins, and systemic glucocorticosteroids because of limited evidence. A meta-analysis was not performed because of a lack of standardization in outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Although 12 different interventions for moderate-to-severe AD have been studied in 34 RCTs, strong recommendations are only possible for the short-term use of cyclosporin A. Methodological limitations in the majority of trials prevent evidence-based conclusions. Large head-to-head trials evaluating long-term treatments are required.