Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 4: International guidelines show variability in their approaches.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to describe and compare current practices in developing guidelines about the use of healthcare-related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDS). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We sampled 37 public health and clinical practice guidelines about HCTDS from various sources without language restrictions. RESULTS: Detailed descriptions of the systems used to assess the quality of evidence and develop recommendations were challenging to find within guidelines. We observed much variability among and within organizations with respect to how they develop recommendations about HCTDS. Twenty-four percent of the guidelines did not consider health benefits and harms but based decisions solely on test accuracy. We did not identify guidelines that described the main potential care pathways involving tests for a healthcare problem. In addition, we did not identify guidelines that systematically assessed, described, and referenced the evidence that linked test accuracy and patient-important outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variability among the processes used and factors considered in developing recommendations about the use of tests. This variability may be the cause for the disagreement we observed in recommendations about testing for the same condition.

Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 2: a review of methodological and practical challenges.

OBJECTIVES: In this first of a series of five articles, we provide an overview of how and why healthcare-related tests and diagnostic strategies are currently applied. We also describe how our findings can be integrated with existing frameworks for making decisions that guide the use of healthcare-related tests and diagnostic strategies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, references of identified articles, chapters in relevant textbooks, and identified articles citing classic literature on this topic. RESULTS: We provide updated frameworks for the potential roles and applications of tests with suggested definitions and practical examples. We also discuss study designs that are commonly used to assess tests' performance and the effects of tests on people's health. These designs include diagnostic randomized controlled trials and retrospective validation. We describe the utility of these and other currently suggested designs, which questions they can answer and which ones they cannot. In addition, we summarize the challenges unique to decision-making resulting from the use of tests. CONCLUSION: This overview highlights current challenges in the application of tests in decision-making in healthcare, provides clarifications, and informs the proposed solutions.

Decision making about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic test strategies. Paper 3: a systematic review shows limitations in most tools designed to assess quality and develop recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify and describe critical appraisal tools designed for assessing the quality of evidence (QoE) and/or strength of recommendations (SoRs) related to health care-related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDSs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic review to identify tools applied in guidelines, methodological articles, and systematic reviews to assess HCTDS. RESULTS: We screened 5,534 titles and abstracts, 1,004 full-text articles, and abstracted data from 330 references. We identified 29 tools and 14 modifications of existing tools for assessing QoE and SoR. Twenty-three out of 29 tools acknowledge the importance of assessing the QoE and SoR separately, but in 8, the SoR is based solely on QoE. When making decisions about the use of tests, patient values and preferences and impact on resource utilization were considered in 6 and 8 tools, respectively. There is also confusion about the terminology that describes the various factors that influence the QoE and SoR. CONCLUSION: Although at least one approach includes all relevant criteria for assessing QoE and determining SoR, more detailed guidance about how to operationalize these assessments and make related judgments will be beneficial. There is a need for a better description of the framework for using evidence to make decisions and develop recommendations about HCTDS.

[Health for refugees - the Bremen model]. / Gesundheit für Flüchtlinge - das Bremer Modell.

The Bremen model recognizes that refugee health care has to go beyond merely checking for the prevalence of contagious diseases. Elementary health care offered in the reception centre and transitory facilities is based on voluntary acceptance by the refugees. At the same time, legal requirements for the medical reception of refugees are observed. In addition, doctors performing the initial medical examination are enabled to cover acute care on the spot. During the preliminary phase of immigration refugees are allowed to see a doctor in their facility repeatedly. After a certain time, they are provided with a health card permitting limited access to regular care outside of their facility. The current rise of refugee numbers affects the situation of Bremen health care for adult as well as juvenile refugees. In spite of the increase, health care standards are maintained by means of the health card. From 2011 to 2014, "Factors influencing health status and contact with health services" averaged 29.6 % in the health check data. Diseases of the respiratory system (18.1 %) and "symptoms, signs and abnormal findings not elsewhere classified" (16.9 %) ranked second and third, respectively. Diseases of the digestive system (6.1 %) of the musculoskeletal system (6 %) and of the skin and subcutaneous tissue (3.6 %) followed. Infectious diseases such as HIV infections, hepatitis or tuberculosis were seldom.

Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables.

OBJECTIVE: To develop guidance on what information to include and how to present it in tables summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews of test accuracy following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. METHODS: To design and refine the evidence tables, we used an iterative process based on the analysis of data from four rounds of discussions, feedback and user testing. During the final round, we conducted one-on-one user testing with target end users. We presented a number of alternative formats of evidence tables to participants and obtained information about users' understanding and preferences. RESULTS: More than 150 users participated in initial discussions and provided their formal and informal feedback. 20 users completed one-on-one user testing interviews. Almost all participants preferred summarizing the results of systematic reviews of test accuracy in tabular format rather than plain text. Users generally preferred less complex tables but found presenting sensitivity and specificity estimates only as too simplistic. Users found the presentation of test accuracy for several values of prevalence initially confusing but modifying table layout and adding sample clinical scenarios for each prevalence reduced this confusion. Providing information about clinical consequences of testing result was viewed as not feasible for authors of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: We present the current formats for tables presenting test accuracy following the GRADE approach. These tables can be developed using GRADEpro guidelines development tool (www.guidelinedevelopment.org or www.gradepro.org) and are being further developed into electronic interactive tables that will suit the needs of different end users. The formatting of these tables, and how they influence result interpretation and decision-making will be further evaluated in a randomized trial.

When Choosing Wisely meets clinical practice guidelines.

The American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely campaign in 2012 and until today convinced more than 50 US specialist societies to develop lists of interventions that may not improve people's health but are potentially harmful. We suggest combining these new efforts with the already existing efforts in clinical practice guideline development. Existing clinical practice guidelines facilitate a more participatory and evidence-based approach to the development of top 5 lists. In return, adding top 5 lists (for overuse and underuse) to existing clinical practice guidelines nicely addresses a neglected dimension to clinical practice guideline development, namely explicit information on which Do or Don't do recommendations are frequently disregarded in practice.

Comparison of high-resolution X-ray and micro-CT for experimental evaluation of intracranial stent prototypes: quality evaluation beyond CE mark.

INTRODUCTION: As digital mammography and micro-computed tomography (CT) have been used for evaluation of stents deployed in experimental animal models, we compared the two methods regarding their sensitivity to detect abnormalities in three prototypes of intracranial stents. METHODS: Three different prototypes of intracranial stents (n = 84) were implanted in various animal models. Explanted stents were examined using digital mammography and micro-CT. The images were compared with respect to maintenance of material and form and the stents were compared to one another. Histological analysis was performed as well. RESULTS: In the open-cell stents, expansion of the stent cells was detected in the majority of cases (57.1 %) using micro-CT and less frequently using mammography (42.3 %). The closed-cell stent revealed kink stenoses in mammography as well as in micro-CT (3/7, 42.9 %). Detailed reconstructions of micro-CT images showed high-grade kink stenoses of the flow-diverter stent in two extremely curved vessels. Strut breaks were observed more frequently using micro-CT (6/84, 7.1 %) than by mammography (4/84, 4.8 %). Histology confirmed all changes of stent architecture. CONCLUSION: Significant changes of stent architecture can be observed and assessed even in the two-dimensional mammographic images. The use of micro-CT is recommended to detect subtle changes like single strut breaks and for three-dimensional information.

Guideline group composition and group processes: article 3 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report.

BACKGROUND: Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the third of a series of 14 articles that were prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other diseases on considerations for group compositions and group processes in guideline development, and how this can be effectively integrated in the context of respiratory disease guidelines on a national and international level. METHODS: We updated a review of the literature addressing group composition and group process, focusing on the following questions: 1. How to compose a functioning and representative guideline group; Who should be included in a guideline panel?; How to select organizations, groups, and individuals; What expertise is needed?; Consultation with non-included groups. 2. How to assure a functioning group process; How to make the process constructive; Balancing participation and finding agreement; Administrative support; What constitutes sufficient resources? Our conclusions are based on available evidence from published literature, experience from guideline developers, and workshop discussions. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Formal studies addressing optimal processes in developing guidelines are limited, and experience from guideline organizations supplement the formal studies. When resources are available, guideline development groups should aim for multidisciplinary groups, including patients. Prerequisites for a multidisciplinary group include: a strong chair experienced in group facilitation with broad acceptance in the group, training the group in guideline methodology, and professional technical support. Formal consensus developing methods have proved effective in reaching agreement on the final recommendations.

A safety review and meta-analyses of bevacizumab and ranibizumab: off-label versus goldstandard.

BACKGROUND: We set out a systemic review to evaluate whether off-label bevacizumab is as safe as licensed ranibizumab, and whether bevacizumab can be justifiably offered to patients as a treatment for age-related macular degeneration with robust evidence of no differential risk. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched with no limitations of language and year of publication. We included RCTs with a minimum follow-up of one year which investigated bevacizumab or ranibizumab in direct comparison or against any other control group (indirect comparison). Direct comparison (3 trials, 1333 patients): The one year data show a significantly higher rate of ocular adverse effects (AE) with bevacizumab compared to ranibizumab (RR = 2.8; 95% CI 1.2-6.5). The proportion of patients with serious infections and gastrointestinal disorders was also higher with bevacizumab than with ranibizumab (RR = 1.3; 95% CI 1.0-1.7). Arterial thromboembolic events were equally distributed among the groups. Indirect comparison: Ranibizumab versus any control (5 trials, 4054 patients): The two year results of three landmark trials showed that while absolute rates of serious ocular AE were low (≤ 2.1%), relative harm was significantly raised (RR = 3.1; 95% CI 1.1-8.9). A significant increase in nonocular haemorrhage was also observed with ranibizumab (RR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7). Bevacizumab versus any control (3 trials, 244 patients): We were unable to judge the safety profile of bevacizumab due to the poor quality of AE monitoring and reporting in the trials. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from head-to-head trials raises concern about an increased risk of ocular and multiple systemic AE with bevacizumab. Therefore, clinicians and patients should continue to carefully weight up the benefits and harms when choosing between the two treatment options. We also emphasize the need for studies that are powered not just for efficacy, but for defined safety outcomes based on the signals detected in this systematic review.

Accuracy of diagnostic antibody tests for coeliac disease in children: summary of an evidence report.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarise the evidence from 2004 to September 2009 on the performance of laboratory-based serological and point of care (POC) tests for diagnosing coeliac disease (CD) in children using histology as reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies reporting on children for tests based on IgA and IgG anti-gliadin (AGA), endomysial (EmA), anti-transglutaminase-2 (TG2), and anti-deamidated gliadin peptides (DGP) antibodies or POC tests. For inclusion, histological analysis of duodenal biopsies and sensitivity and specificity for index tests had to be reported. Data were pooled and summary measures calculated for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios ("LR+", "LR-"), and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR). In case of elevated statistical heterogeneity, studies reaching 90% sensitivity or specificity were reported. RESULTS: A total of 2510 articles were reviewed; 16 entered meta-analysis, reporting on 3110 patients (1876 with CD, 1234 without CD). For IgA-EmA, sensitivity was ≥90% in 7/11 studies and pooled specificity 98.2%. For IgA-anti-TG2, 11/15 studies yielded sensitivities ≥90% and 13/15 specificities ≥90%. For IgA-DGP, sensitivity ranged between 80.7% and 95.1% (specificity 86.3%-93.1%); for IgG-DGP between 80.1% and 98.6% (specificity 86.0-96.9%). IgA-EmA had the highest pooled DOR (554) and LR+ (31.8) for a laboratory test, followed by IgA-anti-TG2, IgG-DGP, IgA-DGP and IgA-AGA. POC tests showed a pooled sensitivity of 96.4% for IgA-TG2 (specificity 97.7%). CONCLUSIONS: IgA-EmA and IgA-anti-TG2 tests appear highly accurate to diagnose CD. IgG-anti-DGP tests may help in excluding CD. IgA-AGA and IgA-DGP tests show inferior accuracy. POC tests may achieve high accuracy in the hands of experienced readers, but IgA-anti-TG2/EmA were superior.

Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) versus ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a safety review.

AIM: To conduct a systematic review in order to compare adverse effects (AE) and the reporting of harm in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs evaluating intravitreal ranibizumab and bevacizumab in age-related macular degeneration. METHODS: Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched with no limitations of language and year of publication. Studies which compared bevacizumab or ranibizumab as monotherapy with any other control group were included. Case series were included if they met predefined quality standards. RESULTS: The 2 year results of phase III trials evaluating ranibizumab show that the rates of serious ocular AE were low (≤2.1%) but indicate major safety concerns (RR 3.13, 95% CI 1.10 to 8.92). A possible signal with regard to thromboembolic events (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.77) and a significant increase in non-ocular haemorrhage (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.55) were also noted. In contrast to ranibizumab trials, the RCTs evaluating bevacizumab are of limited value. The main shortcomings are small sample sizes and an apparent lack of rigorous monitoring for AE. A critical assessment of the large number of published case series evaluating bevacizumab also shows that no reliable conclusions on safety can be drawn using this study design. Therefore, any perception that intravitreal bevacizumab injections are not associated with major ocular or systemic AE are not supported by reliable data. CONCLUSION: The bevacizumab studies show too many methodological limitations to rule out any major safety concerns. Higher evidence from ranibizumab trials suggests signals for an increased ocular and systemic vascular and haemorrhagic risk which warrants further investigation.

Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of reboxetine versus placebo or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the acute treatment of depression, and to measure the impact of potential publication bias in trials of reboxetine. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis including unpublished data. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, and Cochrane Library), clinical trial registries, trial results databases, and regulatory authority websites up until February 2009, as well as unpublished data from the manufacturer of reboxetine (Pfizer, Berlin). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Double blind, randomised, controlled trials of acute treatment (six weeks or more) with reboxetine versus placebo or SSRIs in adults with major depression. OUTCOME MEASURES: Remission and response rates (benefit outcomes), as well as rates of patients with at least one adverse event and withdrawals owing to adverse events (harm outcomes). DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: The procedures for data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were always conducted by one person and checked by another. If feasible, data were pooled by meta-analyses (random effects model). Publication bias was measured by comparing results of published and unpublished trials. RESULTS: We analysed 13 acute treatment trials that were placebo controlled, SSRI controlled, or both, which included 4098 patients. Data on 74% (3033/4098) of these patients were unpublished. In the reboxetine versus placebo comparison, no significant differences in remission rates were shown (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.51; P=0.216). Substantial heterogeneity (I(2)=67.3%) was shown in the meta-analysis of the eight trials that investigated response rates for reboxetine versus placebo. A sensitivity analysis that excluded a small inpatient trial showed no significant difference in response rates between patients receiving reboxetine and those receiving placebo (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.56; P=0.071; I(2)=42.1%). Reboxetine was inferior to SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, and citalopram) for remission rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; P=0.015) and response rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01). Reboxetine was inferior to placebo for both harm outcomes (P<0.001 for both), and to fluoxetine for withdrawals owing to adverse events (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.05; P=0.031). Published data overestimated the benefit of reboxetine versus placebo by up to 115% and reboxetine versus SSRIs by up to 23%, and also underestimated harm. CONCLUSIONS: Reboxetine is, overall, an ineffective and potentially harmful antidepressant. Published evidence is affected by publication bias, underlining the urgent need for mandatory publication of trial data.

[Fraudulent studies, unpublished data and their effect on the development of guidelines and evidence-based recommendations]. / Gefälschte Studien und nicht publizierte Daten: Auswirkung auf die Erarbeitung von Leitlinien und evidenzbasierten Empfehlungen.

Publication bias and scientific fraud are major threats to valid guidelines, especially guideline recommendations. Both topics have so far not been investigated systematically. It is assumed that guideline authors underestimate the potential influences on the validity of their recommendations. On the basis of questions and the example of depression guidelines the potential influence of publication bias will be outlined and discussed. Formal consensus processes which are used to phrase and grade recommendations might protect guideline recommendations against the influence of publication bias and might thereby imply one major difference to systematic reviews. Based on the examples of Werner Bezwoda and Scott S. Reuben, who fabricated studies in breast cancer and analgesia, it can be estimated that scientific fraud has no or only minimal effect on the recommendations given in clinical guidelines. Either the fraudulent work is in line with other (true) studies, which consequently leads only to an overestimation of the quantity of evidence in the guideline. Or the faked study is the only piece of evidence available, which guideline authors would then regard as an insufficient basis for a clinical recommendation. Although publication bias and scientific fraud had no influence on the example guidelines, guideline authors should be aware of this possibility and control this problem by systematically reviewing the evidence, critically appraising primary studies, and formulating prudent recommendations.

Intravitreal bevacizumab (Avastin) vs. ranibizumab (Lucentis) for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether the existing evidence justifies the intravitreal use of bevacizumab in comparison to ranibizumab in age-related macular degeneration. RECENT FINDINGS: Compared with photodynamic therapy, bevacizumab shows a relative improvement in visual acuity that is of similar size as in the comparison of ranibizumab with photodynamic therapy (relative improvement from 30 to 35%). However, this finding is based on one randomized controlled trial including less than 50 patients treated with bevacizumab. Also, nothing is known about long-term (>12 months) improvements in visual acuity and optimal treatment intervals for bevacizumab.Regarding safety, the published literature indicates that ocular and systemic adverse effects are less frequent under bevacizumab than ranibizumab treatment. But the validity of this finding is strongly limited by inadequate reporting, an unsystematic evaluation of adverse effects and short follow-up times in studies evaluating bevacizumab. SUMMARY: Given the lack of controlled data, the widespread off-label use of bevacizumab is not justified in clinical practice. On the other hand, a major challenge in the management of patients who require repeated antivascular endothelial growth factor injections is the high cost of ranibizumab. This dilemma underlines the need for head-to-head studies comparing both vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies, or, at least, well conducted randomized controlled trials evaluating intravitreal bevacizumab.

[Randomised controlled trials (RCTs)]. / Randomisierte klinische Studien (RCT).

Randomisation is regarded as an essential principle ensuring the internal validity of clinical trials. This is why randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lead every evidence hierarchy of therapeutic interventions. At the same time, there are controversies about the role of RCTs in health research. The article addresses the principle of randomisation and deals with some of the more prominent arguments against RCT.