Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews on Interventions for Rehabilitation in People with Ischemic Heart Disease: A Mapping Synthesis.

Objectives: This overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) reports on current evidence and its certainty of the effectiveness of interventions for the rehabilitation of people with ischemic heart disease (IHD), included in the World Health Organization Rehabilitation Programme Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation. Methods: We included all the CSRs relevant to people with IHD. We used a mapping synthesis to group outcomes and comparisons of included CSRs, indicating the effectiveness of interventions for rehabilitation and the certainty of evidence. Results: The evidence map included a total of 13 CSRs. The effect of the interventions varied across comparisons, and the certainty of evidence was inconsistent, ranging from high to very low. We found the best evidence for exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in the reduction of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and all-cause hospital admission up to 12 months follow-up. Also, combined interventions (work-directed interventions, physical conditioning interventions, and psychological interventions) reduce the days needed for returning to work. Conclusions: The current effect and certainty of evidence for several comparisons investigated support the role of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in the management of people with IHD, specifically reducing the risk of fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction and hospitalisation. However, our findings highlight the lack of high-certainty evidence about hard endpoints, particularly total mortality. Future research should prioritise these primary endpoints to enhance the credibility of cardiac rehabilitation.

[Review of Reviews (Umbrella Reviews): Step-by-Step Guide]. / Revisão das Revisões (Revisões Umbrella): Guia Passo a Passo.

In recent years, as a result of the dramatic increase in the number of systematic reviews, a new type of systematic review, the 'systematic reviews of systematic reviews', also known as umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews or synthesis of review, was developed. The aim of this article is to provide recommendations on how this type of systematic review should be conducted and reported to ensure its quality and usefulness. These reviews are designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into an accessible and usable document and are one of the highest levels of evidence synthesis.

Nos últimos anos, em consequência do aumento dramático do número de revisões sistemáticas, surgiu um novo tipo de revisões sistemáticas, as revi- sões sistemáticas das revisões sistemáticas, também conhecidas como umbrella reviews, reviews of reviews, meta-reviews, ou synthesis of review. O objetivo deste artigo é fornecer recomendações sobre como este tipo de revisão sistemática deve ser conduzido e relatado para garantir a sua qualidade e utilidade. Estas revisões são concebidas para compilar evidências de múltiplas revisões sistemáticas de intervenções num documento acessível e utilizável e constituem um dos níveis mais elevados de síntese de evidência.

Validation of an interprofessional education search strategy in PubMed to optimize IPE literature searching.

Objective: With exponential growth in the publication of interprofessional education (IPE) research studies, it has become more difficult to find relevant literature and stay abreast of the latest research. To address this gap, we developed, evaluated, and validated search strategies for IPE studies in PubMed, to improve future access to and synthesis of IPE research. These search strategies, or search hedges, provide comprehensive, validated sets of search terms for IPE publications. Methods: The search strategies were created for PubMed using relative recall methodology. The research methods followed the guidance of previous search hedge and search filter validation studies in creating a gold standard set of relevant references using systematic reviews, having expert searchers identify and test search terms, and using relative recall calculations to validate the searches' performance against the gold standard set. Results: The three recommended search hedges for IPE studies presented had recall of 71.5%, 82.7%, and 95.1%; the first more focused for efficient literature searching, the last with high recall for comprehensive literature searching, and the remaining hedge as a middle ground between the other two options. Conclusion: These validated search hedges can be used in PubMed to expedite finding relevant scholarships, staying up to date with IPE research, and conducting literature reviews and evidence syntheses.

Guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this scoping review were to provide an overview of existing guidelines for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), review them for comprehensiveness and clarity and provide recommendations for their use based on the goals of the instrument developers. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo and Google Scholar up to 2 June 2023 to identify guidelines for the development and validation of PROMs. Screening of records and reports as well as data extraction were performed by two reviewers. To assess the comprehensiveness of the included guidelines, a mapping synthesis was performed and steps to develop and validate a measurement instrument outlined in the included guidelines were mapped to an a priori framework including 20 steps, which was based on the guideline by de Vet et al. RESULTS: A total of 40 guidelines were included. Statistical advice (at least partially) was provided in 98% of the guidelines (39/40) and 88% (35/40) of the guidelines included examples for steps required to develop and validate PROMs. However, 78% (31/40) of the guidelines were not comprehensive and two essential steps in PROM development ('consideration and elaboration of the measurement model' and 'responsiveness') were not included in 80% and 72% of the guidelines, respectively. Three guidelines included all 20 steps and six included almost all steps (≥90% of steps) for developing and validating a PROM. DISCUSSION: Most guidelines on PROM development and validation do not appear to be comprehensive, and some crucial steps are missing in most guidelines. Nevertheless, for some purposes of PROMs, many guidelines provide helpful advice and support. CONCLUSION: At least 15 guidelines may be recommended, including three comprehensive guidelines that can be recommended for the development and validation of PROMs for most purposes (eg, to discriminate between subjects with a particular condition and subjects without that condition, to evaluate the effects of treatments (between a pre and post time-points) or to evaluate a status quo).

Outcomes of subsequent pregnancy in women with peripartum cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The primary concern for women who have experienced peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM) is the safety of a subsequent pregnancy (SSP). To maximie decision-making, facilitate effective patient counselling, and ultimately improve maternal and fetal outcomes as a whole, it is critical to comprehend the outcomes of SSP in women who have previously experienced PPCM. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of SSP in women with PPCM. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were used to identify relevant studies prior to 17 October 2023. A total of 662 studies were reviewed. Following the abstract and full-text screenings, 18 observational studies were included, out of which 2 were deemed suitable for inclusion in this meta-analysis. The quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: This study has a total of 487 SSPs. Although recovered left ventricular (LV) function before entering SSP has the potential to be a beneficial prognostic factor, recovered LV function still has a substantial risk of relapse. The mortality rate of PPCM in an SSP ranged from 0% to 55.5%. Persistent LV dysfunction was significantly associated with an increased mortality rate (OR 13.17; 95% CI 1.54 to 112.28; p=0.02) and lower LV ejection fraction (MD -12.88; 95% CI -21.67 to -4.09; p=0.004). Diastolic and right ventricular functions remained unchanged before SSP and at follow-up. The majority of the SSP was observed alongside hypertension, while pre-eclampsia emerged as the predominant hypertensive complication in most studies. CONCLUSION: SSP increases the risk of relapse and mortality in women with a previous history of PPCM. Persistent LV dysfunction prior to the SSP has a higher mortality risk compared with recovered LV function. SSP was also associated with the worsening of LV echocardiography parameters.

Clinical pharmacy key performance indicators for hospital inpatient setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Key performance indicators (KPIs) are quantifiable measures used to monitor the quality of health services. Implementation guidelines for clinical pharmacy services (CPS) do not specify KPIs. AIM: To assess the quality of the studies that have developed KPIs for CPS in inpatient hospital settings. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted by searching in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, supplemented with citation analyses and grey literature searches, to retrieve studies addressing the development of KPIs in CPS for hospital inpatients. Exclusions comprised drug- or disease-specific studies and those not written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument assessed methodological quality. Domain scores and an overall score were calculated using an equal-weight principle. KPIs were classified into structure, process, and outcome categories. The protocol is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KS2G3 . RESULTS: We included thirteen studies that collectively developed 225 KPIs. Merely five studies scored over 50% on the AIRE instrument, with domains #3 (scientific evidence) and #4 (formulation and usage) displaying low scores. Among the KPIs, 8.4% were classified as structure, 85.8% as process, and 5.8% as outcome indicators. The overall methodological quality did not exhibit a clear association with a major focus on outcomes. None of the studies provided benchmarking reference values. CONCLUSION: The KPIs formulated for evaluating CPS in hospital settings primarily comprised process measures, predominantly suggested by pharmacists, with inadequate evidence support, lacked piloting or validation, and consequently, were devoid of benchmarking reference values.

Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.

This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead of a full systematic review (SR). While both review types aim to comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within a shorter time frame of typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods to expedite the process. The decision to opt for an RR depends on the urgency of the research question, resource availability and the impact on decision outcomes. The paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies and identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances when RRs may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely for ease, quick publication or only cost-saving motives.When deciding on an RR, it is crucial to consider both conceptual and practical factors. These factors encompass the urgency of needing timely evidence, the consequences of waiting for a full SR, the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence, and the risk of not using synthesised evidence in decision-making, among other considerations. Key factors to weigh also include having a clearly defined need, a manageable scope and access to the necessary expertise. Overall, this paper aims to guide informed judgements about whether to choose an RR over an SR based on the specific research question and context. Researchers and decision-makers are encouraged to carefully weigh potential trade-offs when opting for RRs.

Integrating large language models in systematic reviews: a framework and case study using ROBINS-I for risk of bias assessment.

Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate and expedite systematic reviews, although the approach to integrate LLMs in the review process is unclear. This study evaluates GPT-4 agreement with human reviewers in assessing the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and proposes a framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews. The case study demonstrated that raw per cent agreement was the highest for the ROBINS-I domain of 'Classification of Intervention'. Kendall agreement coefficient was highest for the domains of 'Participant Selection', 'Missing Data' and 'Measurement of Outcomes', suggesting moderate agreement in these domains. Raw agreement about the overall risk of bias across domains was 61% (Kendall coefficient=0.35). The proposed framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews consists of four domains: rationale for LLM use, protocol (task definition, model selection, prompt engineering, data entry methods, human role and success metrics), execution (iterative revisions to the protocol) and reporting. We identify five basic task types relevant to systematic reviews: selection, extraction, judgement, analysis and narration. Considering the agreement level with a human reviewer in the case study, pairing artificial intelligence with an independent human reviewer remains required.

The confidence in the results of physiotherapy systematic reviews in the musculoskeletal field is not increasing over time: a meta-epidemiological study using AMSTAR 2 tool.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the confidence in the results of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of physiotherapy for musculoskeletal conditions in the past 10 years and to analyze trends and factors associated. METHODS: This is a metaepidemiological study on systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched for SRs of RCT on physiotherapy interventions for musculoskeletal disorders from December 2012 to December 2022. Two researchers independently screened the records based on the inclusion criteria; a random sample of 100 studies was selected, and each journal, author, and study variable was extracted. The methodological quality of SRs was independently assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool. Any disagreement was solved by consensus. RESULTS: The confidence in SRs results was critically low in 90% of the studies, and it did not increase over time. Cochrane reviews are predominantly represented in the higher AMSTAR 2 confidence levels, with a statistically significant difference compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The last author's H-index is the only predictor of higher confidence among the variables analyzed (OR 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06). CONCLUSION: The confidence in SRs results is unacceptably low. Given the relevance of musculoskeletal disorders and the impact of evidence synthesis on the clinical decision-making process, there is an urgent need to improve the quality of secondary research by adopting more rigorous methods.

Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.

This paper forms part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and addresses rapid qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs), which use modified systematic, transparent and reproducible methodsu to accelerate the synthesis of qualitative evidence when faced with resource constraints. This guidance covers the review process as it relates to synthesis of qualitative research. 'Rapid' or 'resource-constrained' QES require use of templates and targeted knowledge user involvement. Clear definition of perspectives and decisions on indirect evidence, sampling and use of existing QES help in targeting eligibility criteria. Involvement of an information specialist, especially in prioritising databases, targeting grey literature and planning supplemental searches, can prove invaluable. Use of templates and frameworks in study selection and data extraction can be accompanied by quality assurance procedures targeting areas of likely weakness. Current Cochrane guidance informs selection of tools for quality assessment and of synthesis method. Thematic and framework synthesis facilitate efficient synthesis of large numbers of studies or plentiful data. Finally, judicious use of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for assessing the Confidence of Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research assessments and of software as appropriate help to achieve a timely and useful review product.

Designing tailored maintenance strategies for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines using the Portfolio Maintenance by Test-Treatment (POMBYTT) framework.

BACKGROUND: Organizations face diverse contexts and requirements when updating and maintaining their portfolio, or pool, of systematic reviews or clinical practice guidelines they need to manage. We aimed to develop a comprehensive, theoretical framework that might enable the design and tailoring of maintenance strategies for portfolios containing systematic reviews and guidelines. METHODS: We employed a conceptual approach combined with a literature review. Components of the diagnostic test-treatment pathway used in clinical healthcare were transferred to develop a framework specifically for systematic review and guideline portfolio maintenance strategies. RESULTS: We developed the Portfolio Maintenance by Test-Treatment (POMBYTT) framework comprising diagnosis, staging, management, and monitoring components. To illustrate the framework's components and their elements, we provided examples from both a clinical healthcare test-treatment pathway and a clinical practice guideline maintenance scenario. Additionally, our literature review provided possible examples for the elements in the framework, such as detection variables, detection tests, and detection thresholds. We furthermore provide three example strategies using the framework, of which one was based on living recommendations strategies. CONCLUSIONS: The developed framework might support the design of maintenance strategies that could contain multiple options besides updating to manage a portfolio (e.g. withdrawing and archiving), even in the absence of the target condition. By making different choices for variables, tests, test protocols, indications, management options, and monitoring, organizations might tailor their maintenance strategy to suit specific contexts and needs. The framework's elements could potentially aid in the design by being explicit about the operational aspects of maintenance strategies. This might also be helpful for end-users and other stakeholders of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

What is the most dangerous sexual position that caused the penile fracture? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Penile fracture (PF) affects 1,14 to 10,48 men in every 100.000 men in East Asia, and the primary aetiology is sexual intercourse, but the knowledge regarding the most dangerous sexual position is not well explained. This study compares three sexual positions: man on top position (MTP), woman on top position (WTP), and doggy style position (DSP), leading to PF potential. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of sexual position-related PF in Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane, and PMC Europe was performed. Criteria inclusion was the full text of relevant articles which describ the number of sexual positions. It was analyzed by odds ratio, random model effect, and the OR and 95%CI were calculated. RESULTS: 12 relevant papers involving 490 patients comprised 169 MTP, 120 WTP, 158 DSP, and 43 no intercourse cases. Meta-analysis of all sexual positions was a MTP P= 0,04, WTP P=0,49, and DSP P=0,0005. CONCLUSION: The man-dominant positions (MTP and DSP) were significantly potential for PF, which speculated that when a man is dominant and very excited, intercourse may become highly vigorous and impact trauma. This study found that man's dominant position consists of DSP and the MTP significantly lead to PF.

What is the most dangerous sexual position that caused the penile fracture? A systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose: Penile fracture (PF) affects 1,14 to 10,48 men in every 100.000 men in East Asia, and the primary aetiology is sexual intercourse, but the knowledge regarding the most dangerous sexual position is not well explained. This study compares three sexual positions: man on top position (MTP), woman on top position (WTP), and doggy style position (DSP), leading to PF potential. Materials and methods: A search of sexual position-related PF in Google Scholar, PubMed, Cochrane, and PMC Europe was performed. Criteria inclusion was the full text of relevant articles which describ the number of sexual positions. It was analyzed by odds ratio, random model effect, and the OR and 95%CI were calculated. Results: Twelve relevant papers involving 490 patients comprised 169 MTP, 120 WTP, 158 DSP, and 43 no intercourse cases. Meta-analysis of all sexual positions was a MTP P= 0,04, WTP P=0,49, and DSP P=0,0005. Conclusions: The man-dominant positions (MTP and DSP) were significantly potential for PF, which speculated that when a man is dominant and very excited, intercourse may become highly vigorous and impact trauma. This study found that man's dominant position consists of DSP and the MTP significantly lead to PF.

Reducing the residue of retractions in evidence synthesis: ways to minimise inappropriate citation and use of retracted data.

The incorporation of publications that have been retracted is a risk in reliable evidence synthesis. Retraction is an important mechanism for correcting the literature and protecting its integrity. Within the medical literature, the continued citation of retracted publications occurs for a variety of reasons. Recent evidence suggests that systematic reviews and meta-analyses often unwittingly cite retracted publications which, at least in some cases, may significantly impact quantitative effect estimates in meta-analyses. There is strong evidence that authors of systematic reviews and meta-analyses may be unaware of the retracted status of publications and treat them as if they are not retracted. These problems are difficult to address for several reasons: identifying retracted publications is important but logistically challenging; publications may be retracted while a review is in preparation or in press and problems with a publication may also be discovered after the evidence synthesis is published. We propose a set of concrete actions that stakeholders (eg, scientists, peer-reviewers, journal editors) might take in the near-term, and that research funders, citation management systems, and databases and search engines might take in the longer term to limit the impact of retracted primary studies on evidence syntheses.

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Interpretation and use of a decision support tool for multiple treatment options: a combined randomised controlled trial and survey of medical students.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate medical students' ability to interpret evidence, as well as their self-assessed understandability, perceived usefulness and preferences for design alternatives in an interactive decision support tool, displaying GRADE evidence summaries for multiple treatment options (Making Alternative Treatment CHoices Intuitive and Trustworthy, MATCH-IT). DESIGN: A combined randomised controlled trial and survey. Participants were presented with a clinical scenario and randomised to one of two versions of the MATCH-IT tool (A/B), instructed to explore the evidence and decide on a recommendation. Participants answered a questionnaire assessing interpretation, treatment recommendation self-assessed understandability and perceived usefulness before exposure to the other MATCH-IT version and asked questions on design preferences. SETTING: Online lecture in an evidence-based medicine (EBM) introductory course. PARTICIPANTS: 149 third-year medical students. 52% (n=77) had 6 months of clinical training and 48% (n=72) had preclinical training only. INTERVENTIONS: The MATCH-IT tool version A uses colour coding to categorise interventions by magnitude and direction of effects and displays all outcomes in a table on entry. Version B has no colour coding, and the user must decide which outcomes to display in the table. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Interpretation of evidence, treatment recommendation, perceived usefulness and understandability, preference for format and design alternatives. RESULTS: 82.5% (n=123) of medical students correctly answered ≥4 out of 5 multiple choice questions assessing interpretation of data. 75.8% (n=114) of students made a treatment recommendation in accordance with an expert panel for the same clinical scenario. 87.2% (n=130) found the tool understandable while 91.9% perceived the tool as useful in addressing the clinical scenario. CONCLUSION: Medical students with no prior training in EBM can interpret and use the MATCH-IT tool. Certain design alternatives were preferred but had no bearing on interpretation of evidence or understandability of the tool.