Nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence in women: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence (UI) in women. METHODS: This guideline is based on published English-language literature on nonsurgical management of UI in women from 1990 through December 2013 that was identified using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Scirus, and Google Scholar. The outcomes evaluated for this guideline include continence, improvement in UI, quality of life, adverse effects, and discontinuation due to adverse effects. It grades the evidence and recommendations by using ACP's guideline grading system. The target audience is all clinicians, and the target patient population is all women with UI. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends first-line treatment with pelvic floor muscle training in women with stress UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends bladder training in women with urgency UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends pelvic floor muscle training with bladder training in women with mixed UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP recommends against treatment with systemic pharmacologic therapy for stress UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: ACP recommends pharmacologic treatment in women with urgency UI if bladder training was unsuccessful. Clinicians should base the choice of pharmacologic agents on tolerability, adverse effect profile, ease of use, and cost of medication. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: ACP recommends weight loss and exercise for obese women with UI. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).(AU)

Diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adults: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea in adults. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature on this topic that was identified by using MEDLINE (1966 through May 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The clinical outcomes evaluated for this guideline included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal cardiovascular disease, stroke, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, postsurgical outcomes, and quality of life. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios were also assessed as outcomes of diagnostic tests. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends a sleep study for patients with unexplained daytime sleepiness. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends polysomnography for diagnostic testing in patients suspected of obstructive sleep apnea. ACP recommends portable sleep monitors in patients without serious comorbidities as an alternative to polysomnography when polysomnography is not available for diagnostic testing. (Grade: weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).(AU)

Screening, monitoring, and treatment of stage 1 to 3 chronic kidney disease: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the screening, monitoring, and treatment of adults with stage 1 to 3 chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This guideline is based on a systematic evidence review evaluating the published literature on this topic from 1985 through November 2011 that was identified by using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Searches were limited to English-language publications. The clinical outcomes evaluated for this guideline included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic heart failure, composite vascular outcomes, composite renal outcomes, end-stage renal disease, quality of life, physical function, and activities of daily living. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations by using ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends against screening for chronic kidney disease in asymptomatic adults without risk factors for chronic kidney disease. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against testing for proteinuria in adults with or without diabetes who are currently taking an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin II-receptor blocker. (Grade: weak recommendation, low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP recommends that clinicians select pharmacologic therapy that includes either an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (moderate-quality evidence) or an angiotensin II-receptor blocker (high-quality evidence) in patients with hypertension and stage 1 to 3 chronic kidney disease. (Grade: strong recommendation). RECOMMENDATION 4: ACP recommends that clinicians choose statin therapy to manage elevated low-density lipoprotein in patients with stage 1 to 3 chronic kidney disease. (Grade: strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).(AU)

Treatment of anemia in patients with heart disease: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians

"DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this guideline to present the evidence and provide clinical recommendations on the treatment of anemia and iron deficiency in adult patients with heart disease. METHODS: This guideline is based on published literature in the English language on anemia and iron deficiency from 1947 to July 2012 that was identified using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. Literature was reassessed in April 2013, and additional studies were included. Outcomes evaluated for this guideline included mortality; hospitalization; exercise tolerance; quality of life; and cardiovascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure exacerbation, arrhythmia, or cardiac death) and harms, including hypertension, venous thromboembolic events, and ischemic cerebrovascular events. The target audience for this guideline includes all clinicians, and the target patient population is anemic or iron-deficient adult patients with heart disease. This guideline grades the evidence and recommendations using the ACP's clinical practice guidelines grading system. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends using a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy (trigger hemoglobin threshold of 7 to 8 g/dL compared with higher hemoglobin levels) in hospitalized patients with coronary heart disease. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence) RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against the use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in patients with mild to moderate anemia and congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence)."

Making health care safer II: an updated critical analysis of the evidence for patient safety practices.

OBJECTIVES: To review important patient safety practices for evidence of effectiveness, implementation, and adoption. DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple computerized databases, gray literature, and the judgments of a 20-member panel of patient safety stakeholders. REVIEW METHODS: The judgments of the stakeholders were used to prioritize patient safety practices for review, and to select which practices received in-depth reviews and which received brief reviews. In-depth reviews consisted of a formal literature search, usually of multiple databases, and included gray literature, where applicable. In-depth reviews assessed practices on the following domains: • How important is the problem? • What is the patient safety practice? • Why should this practice work? • What are the beneficial effects of the practice? • What are the harms of the practice? • How has the practice been implemented, and in what contexts? • Are there any data about costs? • Are there data about the effect of context on effectiveness? We assessed individual studies for risk of bias using tools appropriate to specific study designs. We assessed the strength of evidence of effectiveness using a system developed for this project. Brief reviews had focused literature searches for focused questions. All practices were then summarized on the following domains: scope of the problem, strength of evidence for effectiveness, evidence on potential for harmful unintended consequences, estimate of costs, how much is known about implementation and how difficult the practice is to implement. Stakeholder judgment was then used to identify practices that were "strongly encouraged" for adoption, and those practices that were "encouraged" for adoption. RESULTS: From an initial list of over 100 patient safety practices, the stakeholders identified 41 practices as a priority for this review: 18 in-depth reviews and 23 brief reviews. Of these, 20 practices had their strength of evidence of effectiveness rated as at least "moderate," and 25 practices had at least "moderate" evidence of how to implement them. Ten practices were classified by the stakeholders as having sufficient evidence of effectiveness and implementation and should be "strongly encouraged" for adoption, and an additional 12 practices were classified as those that should be "encouraged" for adoption. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supporting the effectiveness of many patient safety practices has improved substantially over the past decade. Evidence about implementation and context has also improved, but continues to lag behind evidence of effectiveness. Twenty-two patient safety practices are sufficiently well understood, and health care providers can consider adopting them now.

Is social support associated with greater weight loss after bariatric surgery?: a systematic review.

Social support may be associated with increased weight loss after bariatric surgery. The objective of this article is to determine impact of post-operative support groups and other forms of social support on weight loss after bariatric surgery. MEDLINE search (1988-2009) was completed using MeSH terms including bariatric procedures and a spectrum of patient factors with potential relationship to weight loss outcomes. Of the 934 screened studies, 10 reported on social support and weight loss outcomes. Five studies reported on support groups and five studies reported on other forms of social support (such as perceived family support or number of confidants) and degree of post-operative weight loss (total n = 735 patients). All studies found a positive association between post-operative support groups and weight loss. One study found a positive association between marital status (being single) and weight loss, while three studies found a non-significant positive trend and one study was inconclusive. Support group attendance after bariatric surgery is associated with greater post-operative weight loss. Further research is necessary to determine the impact of other forms of social support. These factors should be addressed in prospective studies of weight loss following bariatric surgery, as they may represent ways to improve post-operative outcomes.

Identifying quality improvement intervention evaluations: is consensus achievable?

BACKGROUND: The diversity of quality improvement interventions (QIIs) has impeded the use of evidence review to advance quality improvement activities. An agreed-upon framework for identifying QII articles would facilitate evidence review and consensus around best practices. AIM: To adapt and test evidence review methods for identifying empirical QII evaluations that would be suitable for assessing QII effectiveness, impact or success. DESIGN: Literature search with measurement of multilevel inter-rater agreement and review of disagreement. METHODS: Ten journals (2005-2007) were searched electronically and the output was screened based on title and abstract. Three pairs of reviewers then independently rated 22 articles, randomly selected from the screened list. Kappa statistics and percentage agreement were assessed. 12 stakeholders in quality improvement, including QII experts and journal editors, rated and discussed publications about which reviewers disagreed. RESULTS: The level of agreement among reviewers for identifying empirical evaluations of QII development, implementation or results was 73% (with a paradoxically low kappa of 0.041). Discussion by raters and stakeholders regarding how to improve agreement focused on three controversial article selection issues: no data on patient health, provider behaviour or process of care outcomes; no evidence for adaptation of an intervention to a local context; and a design using only observational methods, as correlational analyses, with no comparison group. CONCLUSION: The level of reviewer agreement was only moderate. Reliable identification of relevant articles is an initial step in assessing published evidence. Advancement in quality improvement will depend on the theory- and consensus-based development and testing of a generalizable framework for identifying QII evaluations.

Finding order in heterogeneity: types of quality-improvement intervention publications.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in quality improvement agree on the need for augmenting and synthesising the scientific literature supporting it. The diversity of perspectives, approaches, and contexts critical to advancing quality improvement science, however, creates challenges. The paper explores the heterogeneity in clinical quality improvement intervention (QII) publications. METHODS: A preliminary classification framework was developed for QII articles, aiming for categories homogeneous enough to support coherent scientific discussion on QII reporting standards and facilitate systematic review. QII experts were asked to identify articles important to QII science. The framework was tested and revised by applying it to the article set. The final framework screened articles into (1) empirical literature on development and testing of QIIs; (2) QII stories, theories, and frameworks; (3) QII literature syntheses and meta-analyses; or (4) development and testing of QII-related tools. To achieve homogeneity, category (1) required division into (1a) development of QIIs; 1(b) history, documentation, or description of QIIs; or (1c) success, effectiveness or impact of QIIs. RESULTS: By discussing unique issues and established standards relevant to each category, QII stakeholders can advance QII practice and science, including the scope and conduct of systematic literature reviews.

Developing quality indicators for general practice care for vulnerable elders; transfer from US to The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of the quality of healthcare is a first step for quality improvement. To measure quality of healthcare, a set of quality indicators is needed. We describe the adaptation of a set of systematically developed US quality indicators for healthcare for vulnerable elders in The Netherlands. We also compare the US and the Dutch set to see if quality indicators can be transferred between countries, as has been done in two studies in the UK, with mixed results. METHOD: 108 US quality indicators on GP care for vulnerable elders, covering eight conditions, were assessed by a panel of nine clinical experts in The Netherlands. A modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. The panel members received US literature reviews, extended with more recent and Dutch literature, summarising the evidence for each quality indicator. RESULTS: 72 indicators (67% of US set) were (nearly) identical in the Dutch and US sets. For some conditions, this percentage was much lower. For undernutrition, only half of the US indicators were included in the Dutch set. For depression, many indicators were discarded or changed in a significant way, with the result that only five of the original 17 indicators (29%) are the same in the Dutch and the US set. CONCLUSIONS: Quality indicators can be transferred between countries, but with caution, because in two of the three studies on transferring indicators between the US and Europe, 33-44% of the indicators were discarded. For some conditions in the current study, this percentage is much higher. For undernutrition, there is hardly any evidence, and differences between the indicator sets can be attributed to differences in expert opinion between the countries. For depression, it seems that different evidence is considered important in the US and in The Netherlands, of which the Dutch body of knowledge is not known in the US.

Developing quality indicators for older adults: transfer from the USA to the UK is feasible.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of the quality of health care is essential for quality improvement, and patients are an underused source of data about quality of care. We describe the adaptation of a set of USA quality indicators for use in patient interview surveys in England, to measure the extent to which older patients receive a broad range of effective health care interventions in both primary and secondary care. METHOD: One hundred and nineteen quality indicators covering 16 clinical areas, based on a set of indicators for the care of vulnerable elderly patients in the USA, were reviewed by a panel of 10 clinical experts in England. A modified version of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used and panel members were supplied with literature reviews summarising the evidence base for each quality indicator. The indicators were sent for comment before the panel meeting to UK charitable organisations for older people. RESULTS: The panel rated 102 of the 119 indicators (86%) as valid for use in England; 17 (14%) were rejected as invalid. All 58 indicators about treatment or continuity and follow up were rated as valid compared with just over half (13 of 24) of the indicators about screening. CONCLUSIONS: These 102 indicators are suitable for use in patient interview surveys, including the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). The systematic measurement of quality of care at the population level and identification of gaps in quality is essential for quality improvement. There is potential for transfer of quality indicators between countries, at least for the health care of older people.

Will changes in primary care improve health outcomes? Modelling the impact of financial incentives introduced to improve quality of care in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the total health gain from improving the quality of care among patients with cardiovascular disease in line with the quality indicator targets in the new contract for general practitioners (GPs) in the UK. DESIGN: Statistical modelling, applying population impact measures to estimate cardiovascular health gains from achieving treatment targets in the GP contract, taking into account current levels of treatment and control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of events prevented in the population over 5 years applied to a national general practice population of 10,000. RESULTS: The greatest health gain in those aged 45-84 years would come from reaching cholesterol reduction targets. This could prevent 15 events in people with coronary heart disease, seven events in those with a history of stroke, and seven events in those with diabetes. Achieving blood pressure control targets in hypertensive patients without the above conditions could prevent 15 cardiovascular events, with further benefits from reducing blood pressure in patients with high blood pressure and coronary heart disease, stroke, or diabetes. Achieving other targets would have smaller impacts because high levels of care are already being achieved or because of the low prevalence of conditions or associated event risk. CONCLUSION: It is possible to quantify the health gain to a practice population of achieving quality targets such as those set in the new GP contract. The amount of health gain is sensitive to current quality of care, prevalence of conditions, and risk factors, and to the size of change anticipated. Nevertheless, it appears that significant health gains could result from achieving the proposed quality targets.

Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Low-back pain is a costly illness for which spinal manipulative therapy is commonly recommended. Previous systematic reviews and practice guidelines have reached discordant results on the effectiveness of this therapy for low-back pain. OBJECTIVES: To resolve the discrepancies related to the use of spinal manipulative therapy and to update previous estimates of effectiveness, by comparing spinal manipulative therapy with other therapies and then incorporating data from recent high-quality randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) into the analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were electronically searched from their respective beginning to January 2000, using the Back Group search strategy; references from previous systematic reviews were also screened. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, controlled trials (RCT) that evaluated spinal manipulative therapy for patients with low-back pain, with at least one day of follow-up, and at least one clinically-relevant outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors, who served as the reviewers for all stages of the meta-analysis, independently extracted data from unmasked articles. Comparison treatments were classified into the following seven categories: sham, conventional general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, back school, or a collection of therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful (traction, corset, bed rest, home care, topical gel, no treatment, diathermy, and minimal massage). MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine RCTs were identified. Meta-regression models were developed for acute or chronic pain and short-term and long-term pain and function. For patients with acute low-back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was superior only to sham therapy (10-mm difference [95% CI, 2 to 17 mm] on a 100-mm visual analogue scale) or therapies judged to be ineffective or even harmful. Spinal manipulative therapy had no statistically or clinically significant advantage over general practitioner care, analgesics, physical therapy, exercises, or back school. Results for patients with chronic low-back pain were similar. Radiation of pain, study quality, profession of manipulator, and use of manipulation alone or in combination with other therapies did not affect these results. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that spinal manipulative therapy is superior to other standard treatments for patients with acute or chronic low-back pain.

Is the methodological quality of guidelines declining in the US? Comparison of the quality of US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) guidelines with those published subsequently.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether North American guidelines published subsequent to and in the same topic areas as those developed by the US Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) meet the same methodological criteria. STUDY DESIGN: A guideline appraisal instrument containing 30 criteria was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the AHCPR guidelines, "updates" of the AHCPR guidelines authored by others, and guidelines that referenced or were adapted from the AHCPR guidelines. The frequency with which the criteria appeared in each guideline was compared and an analysis was performed to determine guidelines with two key features of the ACHPR guidelines-multidisciplinary guideline development panels and systematic reviews of the literature. Data were extracted from the guidelines by one investigator and then checked for accuracy by the other. RESULTS: Fifty two guidelines identified by broad based searches were evaluated. 50% of the criteria were present in every AHCPR guideline. The AHCPR guidelines scored 80% or more on 24 of the 30 criteria compared with 14 for the "updates" and 11 for those that referenced/adapted the AHCPR guidelines. All of the 17 AHCPR guidelines had both multidisciplinary development panels and systematic reviews of the literature compared with five from the other two categories (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: North American guidelines developed subsequent to and in the same topic areas as the AHCPR guidelines are of substantially worse methodological quality and ignore key features important to guideline development. This finding contrasts with previously published conclusions that guideline methodological quality is improving over time.