The need for standardized reporting of research findings in the field of quality of care

Interventions for improving critical care in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the typology, impact, quality of evidence, barriers, and facilitators to implementation of Quality Improvement (QI) interventions for adult critical care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched on 1st September 2022. The studies were included if they described the implementation of QI interventions for adult critical care in LMICs, available as full text, in English and published after 2000. The risks of bias were assessed using the ROB 2.0/ROBINS-I tools. Intervention strategies were categorised according to a Knowledge Translation framework. Interventions' effectiveness were synthesised by vote counting and assessed with a binomial test. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were narratively synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

78 studies were included. Risk of bias was high. The most common intervention strategies were Education, Audit & Feedback (A&F) and Protocols/Guidelines/Bundles/Checklists (PGBC). Two multifaceted strategies improved both process and outcome measures: Education and A&F (p = 0.008); and PGBC with Education and A&F (p = 0.001, p < 0.001). Facilitators to implementation were stakeholder engagement, organisational readiness for implementation, and adaptability of interventions. Barriers were lack of resources and incompatibility with clinical workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for QI in critical care in LMICs is sparse and at high risk of bias but suggests that multifaceted interventions are most effective. Co-designing interventions with and engaging stakeholders, communicating relative advantages, employing local champions and adapting to feedback can improve implementation. Hybrid study designs, process evaluations and adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the evidence base.

Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can significantly affect quality of life (QoL). These QoL outcomes are often patient-reported, and their inclusion in clinical trials supplements efficacy outcomes to provide the patients' perspective. This study aimed to assess existing literature for completeness of PRO reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PUD.

METHODS

This was a meta-epidemiological, cross-sectional study which assessed completeness of reporting among RCTs addressing management of PUD. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs with a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. These RCTs were assessed for completion of reporting according to the PRO adaptation of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. RCTs were also assessed for Risk of Bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

Masked, duplicate screening of 829 results from our search yielded a final sample of 35 RCTs. The average completeness of reporting was 32.9% according to the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Twenty-one (of 35; 60%) of the RCTs were assessed as having 'high' risk of bias and nine (of 35; 25.71%) were assessed as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. Bivariate regression found completeness of reporting to be positively associated with increased PRO follow-up duration, larger sample size, and studies which report conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

RCTs examining the treatment and prevention of PUD with PROs as an outcome measure have deficient reporting and 'high' risk of bias according to the CONSORT-PRO and Cochrane RoB guidelines.