A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake.

BACKGROUND: Reviews of qualitative studies allow for deeper understanding of concepts and findings beyond the single qualitative studies. Concerns on study reporting quality led to the publication of the COREQ-guidelines for qualitative studies in 2007, followed by the ENTREQ-guidelines for qualitative reviews in 2012. The aim of this meta-review is to: 1) investigate the uptake of the COREQ- and ENTREQ- checklists in qualitative reviews; and 2) compare the quality of reporting of the primary qualitative studies included within these reviews prior- and post COREQ-publication. METHODS: Reviews were searched on 02-Sept-2020 and categorized as (1) COREQ- or (2) ENTREQ-using, (3) using both, or (4) non-COREQ/ENTREQ. Proportions of usage were calculated over time. COREQ-scores of the primary studies included in these reviews were compared prior- and post COREQ-publication using T-test with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: 1.695 qualitative reviews were included (222 COREQ, 369 ENTREQ, 62 both COREQ/ENTREQ and 1.042 non-COREQ/ENTREQ), spanning 12 years (2007-2019) demonstrating an exponential publication rate. The uptake of the ENTREQ in reviews is higher than the COREQ (respectively 28% and 17%), and increases over time. COREQ-scores could be extracted from 139 reviews (including 2.775 appraisals). Reporting quality improved following the COREQ-publication with 13 of the 32 signalling questions showing improvement; the average total score increased from 15.15 to 17.74 (p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The number of qualitative reviews increased exponentially, but the uptake of the COREQ and ENTREQ was modest overall. Primary qualitative studies show a positive trend in reporting quality, which may have been facilitated by the publication of the COREQ.

Effects of hospital preference for endovascular repair on postoperative mortality after elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: analysis of the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit.

BACKGROUND: Increased use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and reduced open surgical repair (OSR), has decreased postoperative mortality after elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The choice between EVAR or OSR depends on aneurysm anatomy, and the experience and preference of the vascular surgeon, and therefore differs between hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate the current mortality risk difference (RD) between EVAR and OSR, and the effect of hospital preference for EVAR on overall mortality. METHODS: Primary elective infrarenal or juxtarenal aneurysm repairs registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (2013-2017) were analysed. First, mortality in hospitals with a higher preference for EVAR (high-EVAR group) was compared with that in hospitals with a lower EVAR preference (low-EVAR group), divided by the median percentage of EVAR. Second, the mortality RD between EVAR and OSR was determined by unadjusted and adjusted linear regression and propensity-score (PS) analysis and then by instrumental-variable (IV) analysis, adjusting for unobserved confounders; percentage EVAR by hospital was used as the IV. RESULTS: A total of 11 997 patients were included. The median hospital rate of EVAR was 76.6 per cent. The overall mortality RD between high- and low-EVAR hospitals was 0.1 (95 per cent -0.5 to 0.4) per cent. The OSR mortality rate was significantly higher among high-EVAR hospitals than low-EVAR hospitals: 7.3 versus 4.0 per cent (RD 3.3 (1.4 to 5.3) per cent). The EVAR mortality rate was also higher in high-EVAR hospitals: 0.9 versus 0.7 per cent (RD 0.2 (-0.0 to 0.6) per cent). The RD following unadjusted, adjusted, and PS analysis was 4.2 (3.7 to 4.8), 4.4 (3.8 to 5.0), and 4.7 (4.1 to 5.3) per cent in favour of EVAR over OSR. However, the RD after IV analysis was not significant: 1.3 (-0.9 to 3.6) per cent. CONCLUSION: Even though EVAR has a lower mortality rate than OSR, the overall effect is offset by the high mortality rate after OSR in hospitals with a strong focus on EVAR.

Time interval between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal or junctional cancer: A nationwide study.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal time between end of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and oesophagectomy is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the association between this interval and pathologic complete response rate (pCR), morbidity and 30-day/in-hospital mortality. METHODS: Patients with oesophageal cancer treated with nCRT and surgery between 2011 and 2016 were selected from a national database: the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). The interval between end of nCRT and surgery was divided into six periods: 0-5 weeks (n = 157;A), 6-7 weeks (n = 878;B), 8-9 weeks (n = 972;C), 10-12 weeks (n = 720;D), 13-14 weeks (n = 195;E) and 15 or more weeks (n = 180;F). The association between these interval groups and outcomes was investigated using univariable and multivariable analysis with group C (8-9 weeks) as reference. RESULTS: In total, 3102 patients were included. The pCR rate for the groups A to F was 31%, 28%, 26%, 31%, 40% and 37%, respectively. A longer interval was associated with a higher probability of pCR (≥10 weeks for adenocarcinoma: odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.35 [1.00-1.83], 1.95 [1.24-3.07], 1.64 [0.99-2.71] and ≥13 weeks for squamous cell carcinoma: 2.86 [1.23-6.65], 2.67 [1.29-5.55]. Patients operated ≥10 weeks after nCRT had the same probability for intraoperative/postoperative complications. Patients from groups D and F had a higher 30-day/in-hospital mortality (1.80 [1.08-3.00], 3.19 [1.66-6.14]). CONCLUSION: An interval of ≥10 weeks for adenocarcinoma and ≥13 weeks for squamous cell carcinoma between nCRT and oesophagectomy was associated with a higher probability of having a pCR. Longer intervals were not associated with intraoperative/postoperative complications. The 30-day/in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with extended intervals (10-12 and ≥15 weeks); however, this might have been due to residual confounding.

[Surgery for colorectal cancer since the introduction of the Netherlands national screening programmeInvestigations into changes in number of resections and waiting times for surgery]. / Darmkankerchirurgie sinds het bevolkingsonderzoek.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the Netherlands national colorectal cancer screening programme on the number of surgical resections for colorectal carcinoma and on waiting times for surgery. DESIGN: Descriptive study. METHOD: Data were extracted from the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patients with primary colorectal cancer surgery between 2011-2015 were included. The volume and median waiting times for the years 2011-2015 are described. Waiting times from first tumor positive biopsy until the operation (biopsy-operation) and first preoperative visit to the surgeon until the operation (visit-operation) are analyzed with a univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis. Separate analysis was done for visit-operation for academic and non-academic hospitals and for screening compared to non-screening patients. RESULTS: In 2014 there was an increase of 1469 (15%) patients compared to 2013. In 2015 this increase consisted of 1168 (11%) patients compared to 2014. In 2014 and 2015, 1359 (12%) and 3111 (26%) patients were referred to the surgeon through screening, respectively. The median waiting time of biopsy-operation significantly decreased (ß: 0.94, 95%BI) over the years 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2013. In non-academic hospitals, the waiting time visit-operation also decreased significantly (ß: 0.89, 95%BI 0.87-0.90) over the years 2014-2015 compared to 2011-2013. No difference was found in waiting times between patients referred to the surgeon through screening compared to non-screening. CONCLUSION: There is a clear increase in volume since the introduction of the colorectal cancer screening programme without an increase in waiting time until surgery.