Follow-up strategies for women treated for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up examinations are commonly performed after primary treatment for women with breast cancer. They are used to detect recurrences at an early (asymptomatic) stage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up for distant metastases on mortality, morbidity and quality of life in women treated for stage I, II or III breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this 2014 review update, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (4 July 2014), MEDLINE (4 July 2014), Embase (4 July 2014), CENTRAL (2014, Issue 3), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (4 July 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov (4 July 2014). References from retrieved articles were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of different policies of follow-up after primary treatment were reviewed for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility for inclusion in the review and risk of bias. Data were pooled in an individual patient data meta-analysis for the two RCTs testing the effectiveness of different follow-up schemes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by age, tumour size and lymph node status. MAIN RESULTS: Since 2000, one new trial has been published; the updated review now includes five RCTs involving 4023 women with breast cancer (clinical stage I, II or III).Two trials involving 2563 women compared follow-up based on clinical visits and mammography with a more intensive scheme including radiological and laboratory tests. After pooling the data, no significant differences in overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15, two studies, 2563 participants, high-quality evidence), or disease-free survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00, two studies, 2563 participants, low-quality evidence) emerged. No differences in overall survival and disease-free survival emerged in subgroup analyses according to patient age, tumour size and lymph node status before primary treatment. In 1999, 10-year follow-up data became available for one trial of these trials, and no significant differences in overall survival were found. No difference was noted in quality of life measures (one study, 639 participants, high-quality evidence).The new included trial, together with a previously included trial involving 1264 women compared follow-up performed by a hospital-based specialist versus follow-up performed by general practitioners. No significant differences were noted in overall survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.78, one study, 968 participants, moderate-quality evidence), time to detection of recurrence (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.47, two studies, 1264 participants, moderate-quality evidence), and quality of life (one study, 356 participants, high-quality evidence). Patient satisfaction was greater among patients treated by general practitioners. One RCT involving 196 women compared regularly scheduled follow-up visits versus less frequent visits restricted to the time of mammography. No significant differences emerged in interim use of telephone and frequency of general practitioners's consultations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review of RCTs conducted almost 20 years ago suggests that follow-up programs based on regular physical examinations and yearly mammography alone are as effective as more intensive approaches based on regular performance of laboratory and instrumental tests in terms of timeliness of recurrence detection, overall survival and quality of life.In two RCTs, follow-up care performed by trained and not trained general practitioners working in an organised practice setting had comparable effectiveness to that delivered by hospital-based specialists in terms of overall survival, recurrence detection, and quality of life.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear. METHODS: GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines. DISCUSSION: Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.

GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence.

OBJECTIVES: In this article, we describe how to include considerations about resource utilization when making recommendations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. RESULTS: GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgments regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made. CONCLUSIONS: With our framework, decision makers will have access to concise summaries of recommendations, including ratings of the quality of economic evidence, and better understand the implications for clinical decision making.

Efficacy and safety of venous angioplasty of the extracranial veins for multiple sclerosis. Brave dreams study (brain venous drainage exploited against multiple sclerosis): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system with a disabling progressive course. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) has recently been described as a vascular condition characterized by restricted venous outflow from the brain, mainly due to blockages of the internal jugular and azygos veins. Despite a wide variability among studies, it has been found to be associated with MS. Data from a few small case series suggest possible improvement of the clinical course and quality of life by performing percutaneous balloon angioplasty (PTA) of the stenotic veins. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a multicenter, randomized, parallel group, blinded, sham-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of PTA. Participants with relapsing remitting MS or secondary progressive MS and a sonographic diagnosis of CCSVI will be enrolled after providing their informed consent. Each participant will be centrally randomized to receive catheter venography and PTA or catheter venography and sham PTA. Two primary end points with respect to efficacy at 12 months are (1) a combined end point obtained through the integration of five functional indicators, walking, balance, manual dexterity, bladder control, and visual acuity, objectively measured by instruments; and (2) number of new brain lesions measured by T2-weighted MRI sequences. Secondary end points include annual relapse rate, change in Expanded Disability Status Scale score, proportion of patients with zero, one or two, or more than two relapses; fatigue; anxiety and depression; general cognitive state; memory/attention/calculus; impact of bladder incontinence; and adverse events. Six hundred seventy-nine patients will be recruited. The follow-up is scheduled at 12 months. Patients, treating neurologists, trained outcome assessors, and the statistician in charge of data analysis will be masked to the assigned treatment. DISCUSSION: The study will provide an answer regarding the efficacy of PTA on patients' functional disability in balance, motor, sensory, visual and bladder function, cognitive status, and emotional status, which are meaningful clinical outcomes, beyond investigating the effects on inflammation. In fact, an important part of patients' expectations, sustained and amplified by anecdotal data, has to do precisely with these functional aspects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01371760.

Timing matters in hip fracture surgery: patients operated within 48 hours have better outcomes. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of over 190,000 patients.

BACKGROUND: To assess the relationship between surgical delay and mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. Systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies published from 1948 to 2011. Medline (from 1948), Embase (from 1974) and CINAHL (from 1982), and the Cochrane Library. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for each study were extracted and pooled with a random effects model. Heterogeneity, publication bias, bayesian analysis, and meta-regression analyses were done. Criteria for inclusion were retro- and prospective elderly population studies, patients with operated hip fractures, indication of timing of surgery and survival status. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: There were 35 independent studies, with 191,873 participants and 34,448 deaths. The majority considered a cut-off between 24 and 48 hours. Early hip surgery was associated with a lower risk of death (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; P<0.000) and pressure sores (0.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.60; P<0.000). Meta-analysis of the adjusted prospective studies gave similar results. The bayesian probability predicted that about 20% of future studies might find that early surgery is not beneficial for decreasing mortality. None of the confounders (e.g. age, sex, data source, baseline risk, cut-off points, study location, quality and year) explained the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Surgical delay is associated with a significant increase in the risk of death and pressure sores. Conservative timing strategies should be avoided. Orthopaedic surgery services should ensure the majority of patients are operated within one or two days.

Multiple systematic reviews: methods for assessing discordances of results.

BACKGROUND: The process of systematically reviewing research evidence is useful for collecting, assessing and summarizing results from multiple studies planned to answer the same clinical question. The term "systematic" implies that the process, besides being organized and complete, is transparent and fully reported to allow other independent researchers to replicate the results, and therefore come to the same conclusions. Hundreds of new systematic reviews are indexed every year. The growing number increases the likelihood of finding multiple and discordant results. OBJECTIVES: To clarify the impact of multiple and discordant systematic reviews, we designed a program aimed at finding out: (a) how often different systematic reviews are done on the same subject; (b) how often different systematic reviews on the same topic give different results or conclusions; (c) which methods or interpretation characteristics can explain the differences in results or conclusions. METHODS: This paper outlines the method used to explore the frequency and the causes of discordance among multiple systematic reviews on the same topic. These methods were then applied to a few medical fields as case studies. CONCLUSION: This aim is particularly relevant for both clinicians and policy makers. Judgments about evidence and recommendation in health care are complex, and often rely on discordant results, especially when there are no empirical results to help serve as a guideline.

Patient empowerment as a component of health system reforms: rights, benefits and vested interests.

Different strategies have been developed across countries to foster citizens' and patients' involvement, from health policies to patients' active participation in decisions regarding their health. The spectrum varies from systems where patients lead the reform of health care services, to others where a paternalistic approach still limits patients' autonomy in decision-making. This paper describes: (1) different interventions for involving patients; (2) experiences to promote consumer evidence-based advocacy; and (3) barriers to consumer involvement in health system reforms, including vested interests in patients' associations. Citizens' involvement in health systems can vary substantially, but is gaining increasing weight.

Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of international point of care information summaries to update evidence relevant to medical practice. DESIGN: Prospective cohort bibliometric analysis. SETTING: Top five point of care information summaries (Clinical Evidence, EBMGuidelines, eMedicine, Dynamed, UpToDate) ranked for coverage of medical conditions, editorial quality, and evidence based methodology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: From June 2009 to May 2010 we measured the incidence of research findings relating to potentially eligible newsworthy evidence. As samples, we chose systematic reviews rated as relevant by international research networks (such as, Evidence-Based Medicine, ACP Journal Club, and the Cochrane Collaboration). Every month we assessed whether each sampled review was cited in at least one chapter of the five summaries. The cumulative updating rate was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results From April to December 2009, 128 reviews were retrieved; 53% (68) from the literature surveillance journals and 47% (60) from the Cochrane Library. At nine months, Dynamed had cited 87% of the sampled reviews, while the other summaries had cited less than 50%. The updating speed of Dynamed clearly led the others. For instance, the hazard ratios for citations in EBM Guidelines and Clinical Evidence versus the top performer were 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.29) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.05). Conclusions Point of care information summaries include evidence relevant to practice at different speeds. A qualitative analysis of updating mechanisms is needed to determine whether greater speed corresponds to more appropriate incorporation of new information.

Conceptual frameworks and empirical approaches used to assess the impact of health research: an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: How to assess the impact of research is of growing interest to funders, policy makers and researchers mainly to understand the value of investments and to increase accountability. Broadly speaking the term "research impact" refers to the contribution of research activities to achieve desired societal outcomes. The aim of this overview is to identify the most common approaches to research impact assessment, categories of impact and their respective indicators. METHODS: We systematically searched the relevant literature (PubMed, The Cochrane Library (1990-2009)) and funding agency websites. We included systematic reviews, theoretical and methodological papers, and empirical case-studies on how to evaluate research impact. We qualitatively summarised the included reports, as well the conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: We identified twenty-two reports belonging to four systematic reviews and 14 primary studies. These publications reported several theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches (bibliometrics, econometrics, ad hoc case studies). The "payback model" emerged as the most frequently used. Five broad categories of impact were identified: a) advancing knowledge, b) capacity building, c) informing decision-making, d) health benefits, e) broad socio-economic benefits. For each proposed category of impact we summarized a set of indicators whose pros and cons are presented and briefly discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This overview is a comprehensive, yet descriptive, contribution to summarize the conceptual framework and taxonomy of an heterogeneous and evolving area of research. A shared and comprehensive conceptual framework does not seem to be available yet and its single components (epidemiologic, economic, and social) are often valued differently in different models.

Revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis: la responsabilidad de los autores, revisores, editores y patrocinadores / Reporting systematic reviews and meta - analyses: Asking authors,peer reviewers, editors and funders to do better

No disponible

No disponible

Press coverage of hormone replacement therapy and menopause.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the information reported by Italian press articles about hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and menopause, in terms of completeness, clarity of language and transparency. STUDY DESIGN: In the framework of the Consensus Conference Informing women about hormone replacement therapy, 225 articles published from 2000 to 2007 in Italian lay press were evaluated. Health magazines, weekly news magazines, newspapers, women's magazines and medical practitioners' journals were selected. A form covering graphic layout, completeness of information, clarity of language and transparency was applied to each article by a reviewer. The form was tested in a pilot phase. RESULTS: HRT was recommended to treat menopausal symptoms in more than half of articles (56%) and was described as a preventive measure in almost half (48%). Risks related to HRT were under-reported (58% of the articles). Information on conflicts of interest was lacking (88%). Opinions of experts were the main source of information cited in the articles (66%). CONCLUSIONS: The information reported by the articles is lacking in several aspects. Many women are likely to receive unbalanced information from the press. Qualified sources of information delivered on the scientific knowledge available are needed, reporting advantages and disadvantages of HRT, pharmacological and non-pharmacological alternative treatments and their effectiveness. Scientific journalism needs to grow through training. The role of researchers and clinicians is discussed.

A review of online evidence-based practice point-of-care information summary providers.

BACKGROUND: Busy clinicians need easy access to evidence-based information to inform their clinical practice. Publishers and organizations have designed specific tools to meet doctors' needs at the point of care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe online point-of-care summaries and evaluate their breadth, content development, and editorial policy against their claims of being "evidence-based." METHODS: We searched Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and information conference proceedings from January to December 2008. We included English Web-based point-of-care summaries designed to deliver predigested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, periodically updated, evidence-based information to clinicians. Two investigators independently extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of summaries. We assessed and ranked point-of-care products according to: (1) coverage (volume) of medical conditions, (2) editorial quality, and (3) evidence-based methodology. We explored how these factors were associated. RESULTS: We retrieved 30 eligible summaries. Of these products, 18 met our inclusion criteria and were qualitatively described, and 16 provided sufficient data for quantitative evaluation. The median volume of medical conditions covered was 80.6% (interquartile range, 68.9%-84.2%) and varied for the different products. Similarly, differences emerged for editorial policy (median 8.0, interquartile range 5.8-10.3) and evidence-based methodology scores (median 10.0, interquartile range 1.0-12.8) on a 15-point scale. None of these dimensions turned out to be significantly associated with the other dimensions (editorial quality and volume, Spearman rank correlation r = -0.001, P = .99; evidence-based methodology and volume, r = -0.19, P = .48; editorial and evidence-based methodology, r = 0.43, P =.09). CONCLUSIONS: Publishers are moving to develop point-of-care summary products. Some of these have better profiles than others, and there is room for improved reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these products.