Usefulness of Cochrane Reviews in Clinical Guideline Development-A Survey of 585 Recommendations

Representation of published core outcome sets in practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in specific areas of health or health care. A COS is developed through a consensus process to ensure health care outcomes to be measured are relevant to decision-makers, including patients and health-care professionals. Use of COS in guideline development is likely to increase the relevance of the guideline to those decision-makers. Previous work has looked at the uptake of COS in trials, systematic reviews, health technology assessments and regulatory guidance but to date there has been no evaluation of the use of COS in practice guideline development. The objective of this study was to investigate the representation of core outcomes in a set of international practice guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched for clinical guidelines relevant to ten high-quality COS (with focus on the United Kingdom, Germany, China, India, Canada, Denmark, United States and World Health Organisation). We matched scope between COS and guideline in terms of condition, population and outcome. We calculated the proportion of guidelines mentioning or referencing COS and the proportion of COS domains specifically, or generally, matching to outcomes specified in each guideline populations, interventions, comparators and outcome (PICO) statement.

RESULTS

We found 38 guidelines that contained 170 PICO statements matching the scope of the ten COS and of sufficient quality to allow data extraction. None of the guidelines reviewed explicitly mentioned or referenced the relevant COS. The median (range) of the proportion of core outcomes covered either specifically or generally by the guideline PICO was 30% (0%-100%).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence that COS are being used routinely to inform the guideline development process, and concordance between outcomes in published guidelines and those in COS is limited. Further work is warranted to explore barriers and facilitators in the use of COS when developing clinical guidelines.

Cochrane systematic reviews in dentistry: an Altmetric and network analysis

Introduction Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) play an important role in evidence-based decision-making. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the social impact of CSRs in dentistry and the inclusivity and diversity of researchers contributing to one of the largest databases in health care research.Methodology The Altmetric and bibliometric data for CSRs in dentistry were obtained through Altmetric Explorer and the Dimensions database and were analysed to determine the trends. Furthermore, the correlation between the number of citations and the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) was identified using Spearman's correlation co-efficient.Results Mendeley was found to be the most active Altmetric resource, followed by Twitter. The tweets were more popular among the members of the public (65.5%) and had a diverse geographic spread. The co-authorship network analysis revealed an overall dense network of researchers. In the co-citation network analysis, the Journal of Community Dentistry had the greatest influence. Moreover, a weaker correlation was noticed between the citation counts and AAS (rs=0.325; p <0.01).Conclusion CSRs had a modest social impact in terms of AAS; however, the social network of contributing researchers was diverse and the researchers affiliated with the University of Manchester, UK were found to have the strongest link.

Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favoured.

DESIGN

Systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review).

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews attempt to compare surgical to drug interventions.

DATA EXTRACTION

We extracted whether the review found any randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for eligible comparisons. Individual trial results were extracted directly from the systematic review.

SYNTHESIS

The outcomes of each meta-analysis were resynthesised into random-effects meta-analyses. Egger's test and excess significance were assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% CIs, the surgical intervention was favoured in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favoured in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority in our reanalysis (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favour of surgery and 2 (9%) were in favour of drugs. There was no evidence of excess significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Though the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomised evidence is rare. More randomised trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are needed.

Telehealth and Health Equity in Older Adults With Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Enhancing access to care using telehealth is a priority for improving outcomes among older adults with heart failure, increasing quality of care, and decreasing costs. Telehealth has the potential to increase access to care for patients who live in underresourced geographic regions, have physical disabilities or poor access to transportation, and may not otherwise have access to cardiologists with expertise in heart failure. During the COVID-19 pandemic, access to telehealth expanded, and yet barriers to access, including broadband inequality, low digital literacy, and structural barriers, prevented many of the disadvantaged patients from getting equitable access. Using a health equity lens, this scientific statement reviews the literature on telehealth for older adults with heart failure; provides an overview of structural, organizational, and personal barriers to telehealth; and presents novel interventions that pair telemedicine with in-person services to mitigate existing barriers and structural inequities.

Availability of evidence and comparative effectiveness for surgical versus drug interventions: an overview of systematic reviews

Objectives

To examine the prevalence of comparisons of surgery to drug regimens, the strength of evidence of such comparisons, and whether surgery or the drug intervention was favored.

Design

Systematic review of systematic reviews (umbrella review).

Data sources

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

Eligibility criteria and synthesis of results

Using the search term "surg*" in CDSR, we retrieved systematic reviews of surgical interventions. Abstracts were subsequently screened to find systematic reviews that aimed to compare surgical to drug interventions; and then, among them, those that included any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for such comparisons. Trial results data were extracted manually and synthesized into random-effects meta-analyses.

Results

Overall, 188 systematic reviews intended to compare surgery versus drugs. Only 41 included data from at least one RCT (total, 165 RCTs with data) and covered a total of 103 different outcomes of various comparisons of surgery versus drugs. A GRADE assessment was performed by the Cochrane reviewers for 87 (83%) outcomes in the reviews, indicating the strength of evidence was high in 4 outcomes (4%), moderate in 22 (21%), low in 27 (26%) and very low in 33 (32%). Based on 95% confidence intervals, the surgical intervention was favored in 38/103 (37%), and the drugs were favored in 13/103 (13%) outcomes. Of the outcomes with high GRADE rating, only one showed conclusive superiority (sphincterotomy was better than medical therapy for anal fissure). Of the 22 outcomes with moderate GRADE rating, 6 (27%) were inconclusive, 14 (64%) were in favor of surgery, and 2 (9%) were in favor of drugs.

Conclusions

Though the relative merits of surgical versus drug interventions are important to know for many diseases, high strength randomized evidence is rare. More randomized trials comparing surgery to drug interventions are needed.

Protocol registration

https://osf.io/p9x3j.

Assessment of health equity consideration in Cochrane systematic reviews and primary studies on urolithiasis

Background and Aims

Health injustice is defined as "unnecessary, preventable, unjustified and unfair health differences." One of the most important scientific sources on the prevention and management of urolithiasis are Cochrane reviews in this field. Given that the first step in eliminating health injustice is to identify the causes, the aim of the present study was to evaluate equity considerations in Cochrane reviews and the included primary studies on urinary stones.

Methods

Cochrane reviews on kidney stones and ureteral stones were searched through the Cochrane Library. The included clinical trials in each of the reviews published after 2000 were also collected. Two different researchers reviewed all the included Cochrane reviews and primary studies. The researchers reviewed each PROGRESS criteria independently (P: place of residence, R: race/ethnicity/culture, O: occupation, G: gender, R: religion, E: education, S: socioeconomic status, S: social capital and networks). The geographical location of the included studies was categorized as low-income, middle-income and high-income countries, based on the World Bank income criteria. Each PROGRESS dimension was reported for both the Cochrane reviews and the primary studies.

Results

In total, 12 Cochrane reviews and 140 primary studies were included in this study. None of the included Cochrane reviews had specifically mentioned the PROGRESS framework in the Method section whereas gender distribution and place of residence were reported in two and one reviews, respectively. In 134 primary studies at least one item of PROGRESS was reported. The most frequent item was gender distribution, followed by place of residence.

Conclusion

According to the results of this study, the authors of Cochrane systematic reviews on urolithiasis, and researchers who have conducted such trials, have rarely considered health equity dimensions when designing and performing their studies. Therefore, researchers worldwide should be motivated to study populations from low-income countries with low socioeconomic status in addition to different cultures, ethnicities, and so forth. Furthermore, RCT reporting guidelines such as CONSORT should include health equity dimensions and the editors and reviewers of scientific journals should encourage researchers to further emphasize on health equity in their studies.

Review finds core outcome set uptake in new studies and systematic reviews needs improvement

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence about the uptake of core outcome sets (COS). A COS is an agreed standardized set of outcomes that should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all clinical trials in a specific area of health or health care.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article provides an analysis of what is known about the uptake of COS in research. Similarities between COS and outcomes recommended by stakeholders in the evidence ecosystem is reviewed, and actions taken by them to facilitate COS uptake described.

RESULTS

COS uptake is low in most research areas. Common facilitators relate to trialist awareness and understanding. Common barriers were not including in the development process all specialties who might use the COS, and the lack of recommendations for how to measure the outcomes. Increasingly, COS developers are considering strategies for promoting uptake earlier in the process, including actions beyond traditional dissemination approaches. Overlap between COS and outcomes in regulatory documents and health technology assessments is good. An increasing number and variety of organisations are recommending COS be considered.

CONCLUSION

We suggest actions for various stakeholders for improving COS uptake. Research is needed to assess the impact of these actions to identify effective evidence-based strategies.