Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “REVIEW”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 811 records · Page 45Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Life review: implementation, theory, research, and therapy.

A selective literature review of publications on life review generated ideas on implementation, theory, research, and therapy. The review begins by differentiating life review from reminiscence, and summarizing ways to conduct a life review. A dozen theories that have been influenced by the life review technique are presented, with a focus placed on Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development. Erikson's theory has not only been influenced by the life review, it has had a major impact on life review research. Three research topics are discussed: Erikson's ego integrity versus despair in old age, demographical differences in the practice of life reviews, and the impact of conducting life reviews on staff in institutional settings. Most practitioners of life reviews are institutional staff, university students, and family members, many of whom have had limited prior training. The prospect of a certified life review training program is discussed.

Humans↗
PubMed2001

Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This review investigates the effectiveness of 'home treatment' for mental health problems in terms of hospitalisation and cost-effectiveness. For the purposes of this review, 'home treatment' is defined as a service that enables the patient to be treated outside hospital as far as possible and remain in their usual place of residence. METHODS - SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE SEARCH: 'Home treatment' excluded studies focused on day, residential and foster care. The review was based on Cochrane methodology, but non-randomised studies were included if they compared two services; these were only analysed if they provided evidence of the groups' baseline clinical comparability. METHODS - REVIEW OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: Economic evaluations among the studies found were reviewed against established criteria. METHODS - IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICE COMPONENTS: A three-round Delphi exercise ascertained the degree of consensus among expert psychiatrists concerning the important components of community-based services that enable them to treat patients outside hospital. The identified components were used to construct the follow-up questionnaire. METHODS - FOLLOW-UP OF AUTHORS: As a supplement to the information available in the papers, authors of all the studies were followed up for data on service components, sustainability of programmes and service utilisation. METHODS - DATA ANALYSIS: The outcome measure was mean days in hospital per patient per month over the follow-up period. (1) Comparative analysis - compared experimental to control services. It analysed all studies with available data, divided into 'inpatient-control' and 'community-control' studies, and tested for associations between service components and difference in hospital days. (2) Experimental services analysis - analysed only experimental service data and tested for associations between service components and hospital days. RESULTS - SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE SEARCH: A total of 91 studies were found, conducted over a 30-year period. The majority (87) focused on people with psychotic disorders. RESULTS - REVIEW OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: Only 22 studies included economic evaluations. They provided little conclusive evidence about cost-effectiveness because of problems with the heterogeneity of services, sample size, outcome measures and quality of analysis. RESULTS - DELPHI EXERCISE: In all, 16 items were rated as 'essential', falling into six categories: home environment; skill-mix; psychiatrist involvement; service management; caseload size; and health/social care integration. There was consensus that caseloads under 25 and flexible working hours over 7 days were important, but little support for caseloads under 15 or for 24-hour services, and consensus that home visiting was essential, but not on teams being 'explicitly dedicated' to home treatment. RESULTS - RESPONSE TO FOLLOW-UP: A total of 60% of authors responded, supplying data on service components and hospital days in most cases. Other service utilisation data were far less readily available. RESULTS - SERVICE CHARACTERISATION AND CLASSIFICATION: The services were homogeneous in terms of 'home treatment function' but fairly heterogeneous in terms of other components. There was some evidence for a group of services that were multidisciplinary, had psychiatrists as integrated team members, had smaller caseloads, visited patients at home regularly and took responsibility for both health and social care. This was not a cohesive group, however. RESULTS - SUSTAINABILITY OF SERVICES: The sustainability of home treatment services was modest: less than half the services whose authors responded were still identifiable. Services were more likely to be operational if the study had found them to reduce hospitalisation significantly. RESULTS - META-ANALYSIS: Meta-analysis with heterogeneous studies is problematic. The evidence base for the effectiveness of services identifiable as 'home treatment' was not strong. Within the 'inpatient-control' study group, the mean reduction in hospitalisation was 5 days per patient per month (for 1-year studies only). No statistical significance could be measured for this result. For 'community-control' studies, the reduction in hospitalisation was negligible. Moreover, the heterogeneity of control services, the wide range of outcome measures and the limited availability of data might have confounded the analysis. Regularly visiting at home and dual responsibility for health and social care were associated with reduced hospitalisation. Evidence for other components was inconclusive. Few conclusions could be drawn from the analysis of service utilisation data. RESULTS - LOCATION: Studies were predominately from the USA and UK, more of them being from the USA. North American studies found a reduction in hospitalisation of 1 day per patient per month more than European studies. North American and European services differed on some service components, but this was unlikely to account for this finding, particularly as no difference was found in their experimental service results. CONCLUSIONS - STATE OF RESEARCH: There is a clear need for further studies, particularly in the UK. The benefit of home treatment over admission in terms of days in hospital was clear, but over other community-based alternatives was inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS - NON-RANDOMISED STUDIES: Difficulties in systematically searching for non-randomised studies may have contributed to the smaller number of such studies found (35, compared with 56 randomised controlled trials). This imbalance was compounded by a relatively poor response rate from non-randomised controlled trial authors. Including them in the analysis had little effect. CONCLUSIONS - LIMITATIONS OF THIS REVIEW: A broad area was reviewed in order to avoid the problem of analysing by service label. While reviews of narrower areas may risk implying a homogeneity of the services that is unwarranted, the current strategy has the drawback that the studies cover a range of heterogeneous services. The poor definition of control services, however, is ubiquitous in this field, however reviewed areas are defined. Inclusion of mean data for which no standard deviations were available was problematic in that it prevented measuring the significance of the main findings. The lack of availability of this data, however, is an important finding, demonstrating the difficulty in seeking certainty in this area. Only days in hospital and cost-effectiveness were analysed here. The range and lack of uniformity of measures used in this field made meta-analysis of other outcomes impossible. It should be noted, however, that the findings pertain to these aspects alone. The Delphi exercise reported here was limited in being conducted only with psychiatrists, rather than a multidisciplinary panel. Its findings were used as a framework for the follow-up and analysis. Their possible bias should be borne in mind when considering them as findings in themselves. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICIANS: The evidence base for home treatment compared with other community-based services is not strong, although it does show that home treatment reduces days spent in hospital compared with inpatient treatment. There is evidence that visiting patients at home regularly and taking responsibility for both health and social care each reduce days in hospital. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSUMERS: Services that visit patients at home regularly and those that take responsibility for both health and social care are likely to reduce time spent in hospital. Psychiatrists surveyed in this review also considered support for carers to be essential. The evidence from this review, however, was that few services currently have protocols for meeting carers' needs. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND COMMISSIONERS: A centrally coordinated research strategy, with attention to study design, is recommended. Studies should include economic evaluations that report health and social service utilisation. Service components should be collected and reported for both experimental and control services. Studies should be designed with adequate power and longer durations of follow-up and use comparable outcome measures to facilitate meta-analysis. Research protocols should be adhered to throughout the studies. It may be advisable that independent researchers conduct studies in future. It is no longer recommended that home treatment be tested against inpatient care, or that small, localised studies replicate existing, more highly powered studies.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer with an annual incidence of 21.6 per 100,000 in England and Wales. Due to the often asymptomatic nature of the early stages of the disease, most cases are not detected until the advanced stages. Consequently, the prognosis after diagnosis is poor and the 5-year survival rate in the UK is only about 30%. Current recommendations suggest that first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer should involve paclitaxel and platinum (Pt)-based therapy (cisplatin/ carboplatin), however, most patients develop resistant or refractory disease and require second-line therapy. Patients may respond to re-challenge with Pt-agents if the treatment-free interval is > 6 months, but an alternative is often required. Topotecan is one of six drugs currently licensed in the UK for second-line therapy, and recent reviews suggest that it has modest efficacy in the treatment of advanced disease and performs favourably against paclitaxel. However, these reviews are based on a limited number of reports mainly consisting of non-randomised Phase I and II studies. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oral and intravenous topotecan (Hycamtin, SmithKline Beecham, UK) for the treatment of all stages of ovarian cancer. METHODS SEARCH STRATEGY: Sixteen electronic databases from inception to September 2000 and Internet resources were searched, in addition to the bibliographies of retrieved articles and submissions from pharmaceutical companies. METHODS INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Two reviewers independently screened all titles/abstracts and included/excluded studies based on full copies of manuscripts. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and full economic evaluations comparing topotecan to non-topotecan regimens were included. All stages of therapy and disease were considered, and the outcomes included were survival, response, symptom relief, quality of life, adverse effects and costs. METHODS: DATA EXTRACTION STRATEGY: Data were extracted into an Access database by one reviewer and checked by a second. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS: QUALITY ASSESSMENT STRATEGY: Two reviewers, using specified criteria, independently assessed the quality of the clinical effectiveness studies and the economic evaluations. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS: ANALYSIS STRATEGY: Due to the limited number of studies included in the review and the fact that they compared topotecan with different comparators, the out-come data could not be pooled statistically. Clinical effectiveness data are discussed separately under the different outcome subheadings. For time-to-event data, hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals are presented where available, and for the remaining outcomes, relative risks are reported or calculated where sufficient data were available. Relative risk data are also presented in the form of Forest plots without pooled estimates. Economic data are presented in the form of a summary and critique of the evidence, and a grading (A-I) assigned to each study indicating the direction and magnitude of the cost-effectiveness data. RESULTS INCLUDED STUDIES: A total of 568 titles/abstracts were identified and screened for relevance. Full copies of 72 papers were assessed and seven published manuscripts reporting details of two studies of clinical effectiveness and one economic evaluation were included. Further details of the two clinical effectiveness studies and two new economic evaluations were identified from confidential company submissions. Overall, two international multicentre RCTs of effectiveness comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (trial 039) and topotecan with caelyx (trial 30-49) were included in the review. The three economic evaluations included in the review comprised one cost-minimisation analysis (CMA) comparing topotecan with caelyx, one cost-consequences analysis (CCA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel, etoposide and altretamine and one cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing topotecan with paclitaxel. RESULTS: QUALITY OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS DATA: Both clinical effectiveness studies (trial 30-49 and 039) were of reasonable quality, although it was unclear whether either performed valid intention-to-treat analyses. In addition, trial 30-49 failed to state whether the outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. RESULTS --QUALITY OF ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS: The CCA (comparing topotecan with three comparators) was of poor quality and of little relevance to the UK NHS. The CMA and CEA were of reasonable quality overall and relevant to the UK NHS. However, both, in particular the CEA, suffered from methodological problems, and thus their findings should be interpreted with caution. RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on limited data. Only two trials with a total of 709 participants were identified. In general, with a few minor exceptions, there were no statistically significant differences between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in survival, response rate, median time to response, median duration of response and quality of life. Significant differences that were reported were mainly identified in subgroup analyses (Pt-sensitive disease and disease without ascites) of questionable validity and their relevance to a general advanced ovarian cancer patient population undergoing second-line chemotherapy is unclear. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. Topotecan was associated with increased incidences of haematological toxicities (including neutropenia, leukopenia, anaemia and thrombocytopenia), alopecia, nausea and vomiting. Caelyx-treated patients suffered from significantly increased incidences of Palmar-Plantar erythrodysesthesia, stomatitis, mucous membrane disorders and skin rashes. Paclitaxel was associated with significant increases in alopecia, arthralgia, myalgia, neuropathy, paraesthesiae, skeletal pain and flushing. RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS: The assessment of cost-effectiveness was also based on limited data, with three evaluations identified, one of which was not relevant. The two remaining studies, comparing topotecan with paclitaxel (CEA) and topotecan with caelyx (CMA), both used effectiveness data from multicentre RCTs and based their costs on 1999/2000 UK sources. The evaluations were conducted from a UK NHS perspective and findings presented in GB pounds/Euros. Topotecan for the second-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer was shown to be more cost-effective than paclitaxel (32,513 GB pounds versus 46,186 GB pounds per person in terms of any response (complete or partial), incremental cost-effectiveness = 3065 GB pounds) in all respects except cost per time without toxicity or symptoms, but less cost-effective than caelyx (14,023 GB pounds versus 9979 GB pounds per person regardless of whether the patient responded). However, direct comparisons of the cost findings between the two studies is difficult because they used different designs, different time horizons for the cost analyses and the findings were presented as costs per person for only patients who responded in one study (topotecan versus paclitaxel) and costs per person regardless of whether they responded in the other study (topotecan versus caelyx). CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates that there is little evidence in the form of RCTs on which to base an assessment of the effectiveness of topotecan as second-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer. The evidence suggests there were no statistically significant differences overall between topotecan and paclitaxel, or topotecan and caelyx in clinical outcomes. However, statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse effects. The clinical significance of the findings is not discussed. Overall, the effects of topotecan could at best be described as modest, but the alternative agents offer no real advantages except fewer side-effects and possibly improved cost-effectiveness. Both of the clinical effectiveness studies on which this evidence is based had methodological flaws, the most serious being the lack of a blinded assessor in the topotecan versus caelyx trial, which is important for unbiased assessment of response outcomes. The economic evaluations also suffered from a number of potential problems. CONCLUSIONS: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: Further good quality RCTs and CEAs are required comparing topotecan with other licensed and potentially useful (soon to be licensed) second-line treatments for ovarian cancer. At present, it is difficult to make any decisions about topotecan and other drugs for second-line therapy without good quality direct comparisons. In view of the ongoing studies identified, an update of the current review should be considered in approximately 18 months (Summer 2002) or possibly sooner if the recently commissioned National Institute for Clinical Excellence review of caelyx for ovarian cancer identifies additional data relevant to topotecan.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed2006

The planning and implementation of a faculty peer review teaching project.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the planning and implementation of a pilot peer review system, assess factors related to acceptance by faculty and administration, and suggest ways to increase the number of faculty members reviewed and serving as reviewers. DESIGN: A faculty-driven process was used to create a model for peer review. Faculty members completed a survey instrument with open-ended responses for indicating reasons for participation or nonparticipation, components of the evaluation process that they would like to see changed, and what they found most helpful or insightful about the process of peer review. ASSESSMENT: Faculty acceptance of and satisfaction with the peer review process is attributed to the development and implementation process being faculty driven and to peer reviews not being required for promotion and tenure decisions. Faculty members who were reviewed stated that the process was helpful and insightful and would lead to better teaching and learning. CONCLUSION: A successful faculty peer-review process was created and implemented within 6 weeks. All of the faculty members who chose to be peer reviewed or serve as reviewers reported satisfaction in gaining insights into their teaching, learning innovative approaches to their teaching, and gaining confidence in their teaching pedagogy. Techniques for achieving 100% participation in the peer review process should be addressed in the future.

Faculty↗
PubMed1997

How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making.

Systematic reviews can be a very useful decision-making tool because they objectively summarize large amounts of information, identify gaps in medical research, and identify beneficial or harmful interventions. Consumers can use systematic reviews to help them make health care decisions. Policymakers can use systematic reviews to help them make decisions about what types of health care to provide. Despite the potential value of systematic reviews, little evidence of their direct impact on the decisions made by consumers and policymakers is available. We discuss strategies for optimizing the use of systematic reviews by increasing the awareness and identification of reviews, learning to critically evaluate the findings of reviews, and overcoming barriers to the incorporation of reviews into the decision-making process. In addition, the participation of consumers and policymakers in the design, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews can help to produce reviews that are relevant and understandable to target audiences. Because decisions that involve health care policies and issues are complex processes in which information (such as that provided by systematic reviews) plays only a part, strategies for increasing the use of systematic reviews should be evaluated for their usefulness in the decision-making process.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2006

Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: To provide valid assessments of answers to prognostic questions, systematic reviews must appraise the quality of the available evidence. However, no standard quality assessment method is currently available. PURPOSE: To appraise how authors assess the quality of individual studies in systematic reviews about prognosis and to propose recommendations for these quality assessments. DATA SOURCES: English-language publications listed in MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2005 and review of cited references. STUDY SELECTION: 163 systematic reviews about prognosis that included assessments of the quality of studies. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 882 distinct quality items were extracted from the assessments that were reported in the various reviews. Using an iterative process, 2 independent reviewers grouped the items into 25 domains. The authors then specifically identified domains necessary to assess potential biases of studies and evaluated how often those domains had been addressed in each review. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen of the domains addressed 6 sources of bias related to study participation, study attrition, measurement of prognostic factors, measurement of and controlling for confounding variables, measurement of outcomes, and analysis approaches. Reviews assessed a median of 2 of the 6 potential biases; only 2 (1%) included criteria aimed at appraising all potential sources of bias. Few reviews adequately assessed the impact of confounding (12%), although more than half (59%) appraised the methods used to measure the prognostic factors of interest. LIMITATIONS: Reviews may have been missed by the search or misclassified because of incomplete reporting. Validity and reliability testing of the authors' recommendations are required. CONCLUSIONS: Quality appraisal, a necessary step in systematic reviews, is incomplete in most reviews of prognosis studies. Adequate quality assessment should include judgments about 6 areas of potential study biases. Authors should incorporate these quality assessments into their synthesis of evidence about prognosis.

Bias↗
PubMed1991

The impact of judicial review of patients' refusal to accept antipsychotic medications at the Minnesota Security Hospital.

In 1988, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that premedication judicial review was required to force antipsychotic medications on incompetent committed patients in Minnesota. Before this decision all patients refusing antipsychotic medications at state hospitals were reviewed by an internal multidisciplinary peer review organization called the Treatment Review Panel (TRP). The author examined the impact of judicial review of medications at the Minnesota Security Hospital. Thirty-one patients reviewed by the Treatment Review Panel (TRP) between July 1986 and December 1987 were compared with 37 patients reviewed by the TRP and the court between January 1988 and December 1989. There was nearly unanimous agreement between the TRP and the court in approving antipsychotic medications for patients. However, for patients awaiting judicial review for medication, an average delay of 80 days was encountered, and there was a significant increase in the number of emergencies occurring on the treatment unit before the initiation of treatment. Complications of the long delay in approving medications included the diversion of limited mental health money to cover the costs of judicial review, diversion of physicians from direct patient care to provide testimony, inconsistent judicial medication and monitoring decisions, and compromise of medical judgment to meet judicial requirements. The study concluded that there was no advantage of judicial review over the previous Treatment Review Panel function.

Adult↗
PubMed1990

The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial.

Peer reviewers are blinded sometimes to authors' and institutions' names, but the effects of blinding on review quality are not known. We, therefore, conducted a randomized trial of blinded peer review. Each of 127 consecutive manuscripts of original research that were submitted to the Journal of General Internal Medicine were sent to two external reviewers, one of whom was randomly selected to receive a manuscript with the authors' and institutions' names removed. Reviewers were asked, but not required, to sign their reviews. Blinding was successful for 73% of reviewers. Quality of reviews was higher for the blinded manuscripts (3.5 vs 3.1 on a 5-point scale). Forty-three percent of reviewers signed their reviews, and blinding did not affect the proportion who signed. There was no association between signing and quality. Our study shows that, in our setting, blinding improves the quality of reviews and that research on the effects of peer review is possible.

Double-Blind Method↗
PubMed1998

Peer review in the Croatian Medical Journal from 1992 to 1996.

We analyzed the peer review process in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) from 1992 to 1996 by a retrospective analysis of review forms for 319 manuscripts. The forms asked about manuscript's structure (7 questions), its scientific value (7-item scale), clarity and length, and final recommendation (5-item scale). An international manuscript had at least one author affiliated with a non-Croatian institution. The overall rejection rate of manuscripts was 23.5%. National and international manuscripts had similar rejection rates except for original research manuscripts in clinical sciences (34.7% vs. 18.9%, p=0.046). Out-door peer review was asked for 77.4% of the manuscripts; other manuscripts were commissioned and passed an in-house review. Over the years, the number of international reviewers increased, and that of national reviewers decreased. National reviewers more often did not fill in the review form, and international reviewers more often asked for a major revision. The agreement between reviewers ranged from 34.1% (scientific value) to 90.7% (reference citations). Kappa for inter-rater agreement was poor to fair, without difference between national and international manuscripts. International manuscripts had shorter median review time (from receipt to decision) and publishing time (from acceptance to publication) than national manuscripts: 58 vs. 112 days (p<0.001), and 116 vs. 140 days (p<0.009), respectively. Our analysis shows that peer review can be introduced and sustained in a small journal from the scientific periphery. It can be fair both to national and international manuscripts, although work with the authors of national manuscripts may be needed to improve the quality of data presentation.

Croatia↗
PubMed2006

Retinal nerve fiber layer analysis in the diagnosis of glaucoma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The detection of optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer damage and change is the cornerstone of glaucoma management. Assessment of the retinal nerve fiber layer for localized and diffuse damage has been traditionally based on clinical examination, with documentation of change primarily qualitative. With the latest improvements in optical imaging instruments, objective and quantitative measurements of the retinal nerve fiber layer are now possible. This review summarizes the results from recent cross-sectional studies evaluating the discriminating ability of automated retinal nerve fiber layer measurements to detect glaucoma, and from longitudinal studies assessing the ability to predict and monitor glaucomatous changes. RECENT FINDINGS: Numerous cross-sectional studies have documented good diagnostic accuracy of a scanning laser polarimeter (GDx VCC), the optical coherence tomograph (Stratus), and the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph retinal nerve fiber layer measurements for differentiating between healthy and glaucoma eyes. There are only limited data available on the ability of these retinal nerve fiber layer measurements to document change over time. SUMMARY: It is essential that the clinician understand the specific strengths and weaknesses of each technique so that only good quality retinal nerve fiber layer information will be used in conjunction with careful clinical examination and visual function testing for glaucoma management decisions. Longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the ability of these instruments to document retinal nerve fiber layer change over time.

Diagnostic Imaging↗
PubMed2005

Cochrane systematic reviews in acupuncture: methodological diversity in database searching.

BACKGROUND: Since the early 1970s, the efficacy of acupuncture for treating clinical conditions has been evaluated in several hundred randomized trials. Results from these trials have been synthesized in systematic reviews. A well-designed systematic review provides the highest level of evidence for establishing the efficacy of a clinical intervention. OBJECTIVES: The present study assesses the source of original literature contributing to Cochrane reviews on acupuncture. Databases searched to retrieve original studies are evaluated. The distribution of controlled trials in acupuncture across different topic areas and journals, the ability of the reviews to provide conclusive results, and the proportion of original studies indexed with MEDLINE are evaluated. METHODS: Systematic reviews on acupuncture were extracted from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The key search term used was "acupuncture." When more than one systematic review was retrieved on the same topic, the most recent review was included. Indexing of individual clinical trials with MEDLINE was searched using the Single Citation Matcher in PubMed. RESULTS: A total of 94 papers were retrieved from the Cochrane database, of which 10 were included in the analysis. The most common subject areas were related to chronic pain. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in the number of databases searched (median 5, range 3-12). A total of 69% (74/108) papers were indexed with PubMed. Only 13% (14/108) of the papers were published in the primary acupuncture journals. Conclusive statements about the efficacy of acupuncture were made in only 2 of the 10 systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable methodological diversity exists in the comprehensiveness of database searches for Cochrane systematic reviews on acupuncture. This diversity makes the reviews prone to bias and adds another layer of complexity in interpreting the acupuncture literature.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2004

Use of systematic reviews in the development of new provincial public health policies in Ontario.

OBJECTIVES: The study determined whether the results of recently completed systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions were used in the development of new provincial policies for public health practice. METHODS: This telephone survey included all members from five review groups who updated the Ontario Mandatory Health Programs and Services guidelines for Public Health in 2000. Independent variables included characteristics of the systematic reviews, organization, and the individual. Outcomes included the use of the reviews in developing new policies and the extent to which the reviews led to new recommendations for practice. Descriptive summaries as well as multiple linear regression were conducted. RESULTS: Eighty-five percent of decision-makers agreed to participate in the study. Ninety-six percent of respondents reported that the systematic reviews played a part in developing the new guidelines, while 47 percent indicated that the reviews contributed a great deal to the development of new recommendations for practice. The multiple linear regression model explained 42 percent of the variation in use of the reviews for developing new recommendations for practice. Significant predictor variables included the importance of the reviews in comparison to other sources of information and relevance of the reviews to the policy decisions. CONCLUSION: Public health decision-makers in Ontario have very positive perceptions of the usefulness of systematic reviews in policy development. Therefore, ongoing efforts to promote the usefulness and relevance of systematic reviews to public health decision-makers should remain a priority for health services researchers.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed2004

The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry.

DATA SOURCES: Sources of reviews were the Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) and completed systematic reviews registered by the Cochrane Oral Health Group in the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: All systematic reviews that examined the effectiveness of interventions for oral, dental and craniofacial disorders and diseases were eligible for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A quality assessment checklist was completed for each study. RESULTS: A total of 115 studies were identified, of which 65 were relevant to the review. The area most frequently evaluated within the reviews was pain relief or prevention (20 out of 65, ie, 31%) followed by caries, and oral medicine. The quality assessment of the systematic reviews identified highlighted key areas where improvements could be made. One major weakness was that the search strategies employed in reviews were not always adequate: only 12 reviews (19%) demonstrated an attempt to identify all relevant studies. Other areas of weakness include the screening and quality assessment of primary studies, the pooling of data and examination of heterogeneity, and the interpretation of findings. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved. If future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that reviews address clinically-relevant, focused questions, and follow a transparent, well-designed protocol.

Comment↗
PubMed1999

Two models for radiological reviewing of interval cancers.

OBJECTIVES: To compare two different review methods of examining how many of our interval cancers could be regarded as missed cases (overlooked and misinterpreted owing to observer's error). SETTING: A mass screening programme in Stockholm 1989-91, performed at five independent screening units. 107,846 women attended for screening (70.6% of those invited), and 207 women with interval breast cancers were identified. Interval cancers from two of the units, 104 cases, are reviewed in this study. METHODS: Screening examinations preceding the interval cancer diagnoses were reviewed both mixed with other screening images in a ratio 1:8 and non-mixed. Both internal reviewers (from the two units responsible for the screening mammograms) and external reviewers (from the other units) took part in the study. RESULTS: The proportion regarded as missed cases varied between 7% and 34%, depending on what review method was used, and on the number of reviewers included to identify a case as missed. Mixed reviewing reduced the number identified as missed cases by 50% compared with non-mixed reviewing. Whether the reviewer was internal or external made no difference to the results. CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the rate of missed cases from different studies may be misleading unless the same review method is used. No difference in detection rate could be shown whether the radiologist reviewed images from his/her own screening unit or not. Most of our interval cancers were not regarded as missed cases by either of the two methods.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2004

Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Balanced decisions about health care interventions require reliable evidence on harms as well as benefits. Most systematic reviews focus on efficacy and randomised trials, for which the methodology is well established. Methods to systematically review harmful effects are less well developed and there are few sources of guidance for researchers. We present our own recent experience of conducting systematic reviews of harmful effects and make suggestions for future practice and further research. METHODS: We described and compared the methods used in three systematic reviews. Our evaluation focused on the review question, study designs and quality assessment. RESULTS: One review question focused on providing information on specific harmful effects to furnish an economic model, the other two addressed much broader questions. All three reviews included randomised and observational data, although each defined the inclusion criteria differently. Standard methods were used to assess study quality. Various practical problems were encountered in applying the study design inclusion criteria and assessing quality, mainly because of poor study design, inadequate reporting and the limitations of existing tools. All three reviews generated a large volume of work that did not yield much useful information for health care decision makers. The key areas for improvement we identified were focusing the review question and developing methods for quality assessment of studies of harmful effects. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of harmful effects are more likely to yield information pertinent to clinical decision-making if they address a focused question. This will enable clear decisions to be made about the type of research to include in the review. The methodology for assessing the quality of harmful effects data in systematic reviews requires further development.

Anticonvulsants↗
PubMed2006

Can electronic search engines optimize screening of search results in systematic reviews: an empirical study.

BACKGROUND: Most electronic search efforts directed at identifying primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews rely on the optimal Boolean search features of search interfaces such as DIALOG and Ovid. Our objective is to test the ability of an Ultraseek search engine to rank MEDLINE records of the included studies of Cochrane reviews within the top half of all the records retrieved by the Boolean MEDLINE search used by the reviewers. METHODS: Collections were created using the MEDLINE bibliographic records of included and excluded studies listed in the review and all records retrieved by the MEDLINE search. Records were converted to individual HTML files. Collections of records were indexed and searched through a statistical search engine, Ultraseek, using review-specific search terms. Our data sources, systematic reviews published in the Cochrane library, were included if they reported using at least one phase of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy (HSSS), provided citations for both included and excluded studies and conducted a meta-analysis using a binary outcome measure. Reviews were selected if they yielded between 1000-6000 records when the MEDLINE search strategy was replicated. RESULTS: Nine Cochrane reviews were included. Included studies within the Cochrane reviews were found within the first 500 retrieved studies more often than would be expected by chance. Across all reviews, recall of included studies into the top 500 was 0.70. There was no statistically significant difference in ranking when comparing included studies with just the subset of excluded studies listed as excluded in the published review. CONCLUSION: The relevance ranking provided by the search engine was better than expected by chance and shows promise for the preliminary evaluation of large results from Boolean searches. A statistical search engine does not appear to be able to make fine discriminations concerning the relevance of bibliographic records that have been pre-screened by systematic reviewers.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2006

Trauma rapid review process: efficient out-patient fracture management.

INTRODUCTION: Our hospital operates a consultant-led, rapid review process of X-rays and case notes of all musculoskeletal injury patients on a daily basis. This compares with other centres where patients are reviewed in out-patient fracture clinics soon after injury. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this consultant-led, rapid review process compared to standard consultant fracture clinics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective study of the rapid review process over 4 weeks of all musculoskeletal injury patients was conducted. The total number of patients referred per day, time taken to review these patients X-rays and case notes, number of recalls and reason for recall were documented. This was compared to consultant-led fracture clinics, which included time taken to review patients. RESULTS: A total of 797 patients were processed through the rapid review over 4 weeks: 53 (6%) patients were recalled, 32 (4%) for a change of management and 21 (2.6%) because of lack of information. The mean number of patients referred per day was 28 taking a mean of 28 min; thus the mean time to review one patient was 1.0 min. The mean number of patients recalled per day was two. The mean time taken to review a patient in a standard fracture clinic was 11 min. Therefore, the total time that would have taken to review 28 patients in a standard fracture clinic would be 308 min. CONCLUSIONS: A consultant-led, rapid review process of all patients with musculoskeletal injury is a very efficient process. The rapid review process saves clinic time and resources, minimises delays in clinical decision-making and saves the patient an unnecessary visit to the outpatient department.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2002

Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned.

CONTEXT: Publication of research protocols minimizes bias by explicitly stating a priori hypotheses and methods without prior knowledge of results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparative study to assess the extent to which the content of published Cochrane reviews had changed compared with their previously published protocols and to assess any potential impact these changes may have had in introducing bias to the study. We identified previously published protocols for new Cochrane reviews appearing in The Cochrane Library; 2000, issue 3. The texts of published protocols and completed reviews were compared. Two raters independently identified changes to the different sections of the protocol and classified the changes as none, minor, or major. RESULTS: Of the 66 new Cochrane reviews, we identified a previously published protocol for 47 reviews. Of these, 43 reviews had at least 1 section that had undergone a major change compared with the most recently published protocol. The greatest variation between protocols and reviews was in the methods section, in which 68% of reviews (n = 32) had undergone a major change. Changes made in other sections that may have resulted in the introduction of bias included narrowing of objectives, addition of comparisons or new outcome measures, broadening of criteria for the types of study design included, and narrowing of types of participants included. CONCLUSIONS: Research protocols, even if published, are likely to remain, at least to some extent, iterative documents. We found that a large number of changes were made to Cochrane reviews, some of which could be prone to influence by prior knowledge of results. Even if many of the changes between protocol and review improve the overall study, the reasons for making these should be clearly identified and documented within the final review.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗