OBJECTIVES To update a prior systematic review on the effects of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FA) on maternal and child health and to assess the evidence for their effects on, and associations with, additional outcomes. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences (CAB) Abstracts from 2000 to August 2015; eligible studies from the original report; and relevant systematic reviews. REVIEW METHODS We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any defined dose of n-3 FA (or combination) compared to placebo, any other n-3 FA, or alternative dose with an outcome of interest conducted in pregnant or breastfeeding women or neonates (preterm or term). We also included prospective observational studies that analyzed the association between baseline n-3 FA intake or biomarker level and followup outcomes. Postnatal interventions began within a week of birth for term infants and within a week of beginning enteral or oral feeding for preterm infants. Standard methods were used for data abstraction and analysis, according to the Evidence-based Practice Center Methods Guide. RESULTS We identified 4,275 potentially relevant titles from our searches, of which 95 RCTs and 48 observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was a concern with both RCTs and observational studies. Outcomes for which evidence was sufficient to draw a conclusion are summarized here with the Strength of Evidence (SoE). (Outcomes for which the evidence was insufficient to draw a conclusion are summarized in Appendix G of the report.). Maternal Exposures and Outcomes: Gestational length and risk for preterm birth: Prenatal algal docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or DHA-enriched fish oil supplementation had a small positive effect on length of gestation (moderate SoE), but no effect on risk for preterm birth (low SoE). Prenatal EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) plus DHA-containing fish oil supplementation has no effect on length of gestation (low SoE). Supplementation with DHA, or EPA plus DHA-, or DHA-enriched fish oil does not decreaserisk for preterm birth (low SoE). Birth weight and risk for low birth weight: Changes in maternal n-3 FA biomarkers were significantly associated with birth weight. Prenatal algal DHA or DHA-enriched fish oil supplementation had a positive effect on birth weight among healthy term infants (moderate SoE), but prenatal DHA supplementation had no effect on risk for low birth weight (low SoE). Prenatal EPA plus DHA or alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) supplementation had no effect on birth weight (low SoE). Risk for peripartum depression: Maternal n-3 FA biomarkers had no association with risk for peripartum depression. Maternal DHA, EPA, or DHA-enriched fish oil supplementation had no effect on risk for peripartum depression (low SoE). Risk for gestational hypertension/preeclampsia: Prenatal DHA supplementation among high-risk pregnant women had no effect on the risk for gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (moderate SoE). Prenatal supplementation of any n-3 FA in normal-risk women also had no significant effect on risk for gestational hypertension or preeclampsia (low SoE). Fetal, Infant, and Child Exposures and Outcomes: Postnatal growth patterns: Maternal fish oil or DHA plus EPA supplementation had no effect on postnatal growth patterns (attainment of weight, length, and head circumference) when administered prenatally (moderate SoE) or both pre- and postnatally (low SoE). Fortification of infant formulas with DHA plus arachidonic acid (AA, an n-6 FA) had no effect on growth patterns of preterm or term infants (low SoE). Visual acuity: Prenatal supplementation with DHA had no effect on development of visual acuity (low SoE). Supplementing or fortifying preterm infant formula with any n-3 FA had no significant effect on visual acuity assessed by visual evoked potentials (VEP) at 4 or 6 months corrected age (low SoE). Data conflicted on the effectiveness of supplementing infant formula for term infants with n-3 FA depending on when and how visual acuity was assessed (i.e. by VEP or by behavioral methods) and the type of essential FA provided (low SoE). Neurological development: Prenatal or postnatal n-3 FA supplementation had no consistent effect on neurological development (low SoE). Cognitive development: Prenatal DHA supplementation with AA or EPA had no effect on cognitive development (moderate SoE). Supplementing breastfeeding women with DHA plus EPA also had no effect on cognitive development in infants and children (low SoE). Supplementing or fortifying preterm infants' formula with DHA plus AA had a positive effect on infant cognition at some short-term followup times (moderate SoE). Supplementing or fortifying infant formula for term infants with any n-3 FA had no effect on cognitive development (low SoE). Evidence is insufficient to support any effect of n-3 FA infant supplementation on long-term cognitive outcomes. Autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and learning disorders: Maternal or infant n-3 FA supplementation had no effect on risk for autism spectrum disorders or ADHD (low SoE). No studies on other learning disorders were identified. Atopic dermatitis (AD), allergies, and respiratory disorders: Pre- and postnatal (maternal and infant) n-3 FA supplementation had no consistent effect on the risk for AD/eczema, allergies, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses (moderate SoE). Biomarkers and intakes had no consistent association with the risk for AD, allergies, and respiratory disorders (low SoE). Adverse events: Prenatal and infant supplementation with n-3 FA or fortification of foods with n-3 FA did not result in any serious or nonserious adverse events (moderate SoE); with the exception of an increased risk for mild gastrointestinal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Most studies in this report examined the effects of fish oil (or other combinations of DHA and EPA) supplements on pregnant or breastfeeding women or the effects of infant formula fortified with DHA plus AA. As with the original report, with the exception of small increases in birth weight and length of gestation,n-3 FA supplementation or fortification has no consistent evidence of effects on peripartum maternal or infant health outcomes. No effects of n-3 FA were seen on gestational hypertension, peripartum depression, or postnatal growth. Apparent effects of n-3 FA supplementation were inconsistent across assessment methods and followup times for outcomes related to infant visual acuity, cognitive development and prevention of allergy and asthma. Future RCTs need to assess standardized preparations of n-3 and n-6 FA, using a select group of clinically important outcomes, on populations with baseline n-3 FA intakes typical of those of most western populations.
BACKGROUND:The effect and association of omega-3 fatty acids (n-3 FA) intake and biomarker levels with cardiovascular (CV) clinical and intermediate outcomes remains controversial. We update prior Evidence Reports of n-3 FA and clinical and intermediate CV disease (CVD) outcomes.OBJECTIVES:Evaluate the effect of n-3 FA on clinical and selected intermediate CV outcomes and the association of n-3 FA intake and biomarkers with CV outcomes. The n-3 FA under review include eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), docosapentaenoic acid (DPA), stearidonic acid (SDA), and alphalinolenic acid (ALA).DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CAB Abstracts from 2000 or 2002 to June 8, 2015, and eligible studies from the original reports and relevant existing systematic reviews.REVIEW METHODS:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any n-3 FA intake compared to no, lower, or other n-3 FA intake with an outcome of interest conducted in healthy adults, those at risk for CVD, or those with CVD. We also included prospective observational studies of the association between baseline n-3 FA intake or biomarker level and followup outcomes. We required 1 year or more of followup for clinical outcomes and 4 weeks for intermediate outcomes (blood pressure [BP] and lipids).RESULTS:From 11,440 citations (from electronic literature searches and existing systematic reviews), 829 abstracts met basic eligibility criteria; 61 RCTs and 37 longitudinal observational studies (in 147 articles) were included. Most RCTs and observational studies had few risk-of-bias concerns.Total n-3 FA: There is low strength of evidence (SoE) of no association between total n-3 FA intake and stroke death or myocardial infarction. There is insufficient evidence for other outcomes.Marine oils, total: There is moderate to high SoE that higher marine oil intake lowers triglycerides (Tg), raises high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), and lowers the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL-c but raises low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c); also that higher marine oil intake does not affect major adverse CV events, all-cause death, total stroke, sudden cardiac death, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or BP. There is low SoE of associations between higher marine oil intake and decreased risk of CVD death, coronary heart disease (CHD), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and congestive heart failure (CHF). There is low SoE of no association with CHD death or hemorrhagic stroke. There is insufficient evidence for other outcomes.Marine oil FA individually: There is low SoE of no associations between EPA or DHA intake (separately) and CHD, and between EPA or DPA and atrial fibrillation. There is low SoE of no association between EPA biomarkers and atrial fibrillation, but moderate SoE of no effect of purified DHA supplementation on BP or LDL-c. There is insufficient evidence for other specific marine oil FA and outcomes.ALA: There is moderate SoE of no effect of ALA intake on BP, LDL-c, HDL-c, or Tg. There is low SoE of no association between ALA intake or biomarker level and CHD, CHD death, atrial fibrillation, and CHF. There is insufficient evidence for other outcomes.Other n-3 FA analyses: There is insufficient evidence comparing n-3 FA with each other or for SDA.Subgroup analyses: Nineteen of 22 studies found no interaction of sex on any effect of n-3 FA. Likewise, 19 of 20 studies found no differential effect by statin co-use. Within 16 studies evaluating diabetes subgroups, 2 found statistically significant beneficial effects of n-3 FA in those with diabetes but not in those without diabetes, but no test of interaction was reported.CONCLUSIONS:The 61 RCTs mostly compared marine oil supplements with placebo on CVD outcomes in populations at risk for CVD or with CVD, while the 37 observational studies mostly examined associations between various individual n-3 FA and long-term CVD events in generally healthy populations. Compared with the prior report on n-3 FA and CVD, there is more robust RCT evidence on ALA and on clinical CV outcomes; also, by design there are newly added data on associations between n-3 FA biomarkers and CV outcomes. However, conclusions regarding the effect of n-3 FA intake on CV outcomes or associations with outcomes remain substantially unchanged. Marine oils statistically significantly raise HDL-c and LDL-c by similar amounts (≤2 mg/dL), while lowering Tg in a dose-dependent manner, particularly in individuals with elevated Tg; they have no significant effect on BP. ALA has no significant effect on intermediate outcomes. Limited data were available from RCTs on the effect of n-3 FA on clinical CVD outcomes. Observational studies suggest that higher marine oil intake (including from dietary fish) is associated with lower risk of several CVD outcomes. No clear differences in effects or associations were evident based on population, demographic features, or cointerventions. Future RCTs would be needed to establish adequate evidence of the effect of n-3 FA on CVD outcomes or to clarify differential effects in different groups of people. However, future trials are unlikely to alter conclusions about the effects of n-3 FA supplementation on intermediate cardiovascular outcomes (BP, LDL-c, HDL-c, or Tg).
OBJECTIVES:Linking national, State, and community data systems, such as those used for medical service billing, to existing data from suicide prevention efforts could facilitate the assessment of longer term outcomes. Our objective was to identify and describe data systems that can be linked to data from studies of youth suicide prevention interventions and to identify analytic approaches to advance youth suicide prevention research.DATA SOURCES:We conducted a systematic review to identify studies of suicide prevention interventions and three types of searches to identify data systems providing suicide-related outcomes: (1) a literature search, (2) an environmental scan of gray literature, and (3) a targeted search, through contact with relevant individuals, in six States, two cities, and one tribal community.REVIEW METHODS:Two independent reviewers screened all results. Studies and data systems had to be based in the United States; include individuals between 0 and 25 years of age; and include suicide, suicide attempt, or suicide ideation as an outcome.RESULTS:Of the 47 studies (described in 59 articles) of suicide prevention interventions identified in our systematic review, only 6 studied outcomes by linking to external data systems and only 12 explored treatment heterogeneity through the effects of moderators such as gender or race/ethnicity. We identified 153 unique and potentially linkable external data systems, 66 of which we classified as "fairly accessible" with data dictionaries available.CONCLUSIONS:There is potential for linking existing data systems with suicide prevention efforts to assess the broader and extended impact of suicide prevention interventions. However, sparse availability of data dictionaries and lack of adherence to standard data elements limit the potential utility of linking prevention efforts with data systems.
OBJECTIVES This review sought to systematically review the available literature on health information exchange (HIE), the electronic sharing of clinical information across the boundaries of health care organizations. HIE has been promoted as an important application of technology in medicine that can improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, quality, and safety of health care delivery. However, HIE also requires considerable investment by sponsors, which have included governments as well as health care organizations. This review aims to synthesize the currently available research addressing HIE effectiveness, use, usability, barriers and facilitators to actual use, implementation, and sustainability, and to present this information as a foundation on which future implementation, expansion, and research can be based. DATA SOURCES A research librarian designed and conducted searches of electronic databases, including MEDLINE® (1990 to February 2015), PsycINFO® (1990 to February 2015), CINAHL® (1990 through February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 2015), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through January 2015), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (through the first quarter of 2015), and the National Health Sciences Economic Evaluation Database (through the first quarter of 2015). The searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists and the table of contents of journals not indexed in the databases we searched. REVIEW METHODS Two investigators reviewed abstracts and the selected full-text articles for inclusion based on predefined criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus, with a third investigator making the final decision as needed. Data were abstracted from each included article by one person and verified by another. All analyses were qualitative, and they were customized according to the topic. RESULTS We included 136 studies overall, with 34 on effectiveness, 26 of which reported intermediate clinical, economic, or patient outcomes, and 8 that reported on clinical perceptions of HIE. We also found 58 studies on the use of HIE, 22 on usability and other facilitators and barriers to actual use of HIE, 45 on facilitators or barriers to HIE implementation, and 17 on factors related to sustainability of HIE. No studies of HIE effectiveness reported impact on primary clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality and morbidity) or identified harms. Low-quality evidence somewhat supports the value of HIE for reducing duplicative laboratory and radiology test ordering, lowering emergency department costs, reducing hospital admissions (less so for readmissions), improving public health reporting, increasing ambulatory quality of care, and improving disability claims processing. In studies of clinician perceptions of HIE, most respondents attributed positive changes to HIE, such as improvements in coordination, communication, and knowledge about the patient. However in one study clinicians reported that the HIE did not save time and may not be worth the cost. Studies of HIE use found that HIE adoption has increased over time, with 76 percent of U.S. hospitals exchanging information in 2014, an 85-percent increase since 2008 and a 23-percent increase since 2013. HIE systems were used by 38 percent of office-based physicians in 2012, while use remains low, less than 1 percent, among long-term care providers. Within organizations with HIE, the number of users or the number of visits in which the HIE was used was generally very low. The degree of usability of an HIE was associated with increased rates of use but was not associated with effectiveness outcomes. The most commonly cited barriers to HIE use were lack of critical mass electronically exchanging data, inefficient workflow, and poorly designed interface and update features. Information was insufficient to allow us to assess usability by HIE function or architecture. Studies provided information on both external environmental and internal organizational characteristics that affect implementation and sustainability. General characteristics of the HIE organization (e.g., strong leadership) or specific characteristics of the HIE system were the most frequently cited facilitators, while disincentives such as competition or lack of a business case for HIE were the most frequently identified barriers. LIMITATIONS The scope of studies identified was limited compared with the actual uses and capabilities of HIE. The outcomes measured and methods of measurement and analysis, for example, were limited and narrowly defined; the issue of potential confounders was not addressed in most studies of effectiveness, and harms were not adequately studied. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes, HIE types, and settings across the studies, limiting the ability to synthesize the evidence; no quantitative analyses were possible. The applicability of this evidence base is uncertain because the HIE systems studied were so diverse, and many in existence have not contributed to research in this field. CONCLUSIONS The full impact of HIE on clinical outcomes and potential harms is inadequately studied, although evidence provides some support for benefit in reducing use of some specific resources and achieving improvements in quality-of-care measures. Use of HIE has risen over time, and is highest in hospitals and lowest in long-term care settings. However, use of HIE within organizations that offer it is still low. Barriers to HIE use include lack of critical mass participating in the exchange, inefficient workflow, and poorly designed interface and update features. Studies have identified numerous facilitators and barriers to implementation and sustainability, but the studies have not ranked or compared their impact. To advance our understanding of HIE, future studies need to address comprehensive questions, use more rigorous designs, use a standard for describing types of HIE, and be part of a coordinated systematic approach to studying HIE.
BACKGROUND:In 2009, the Institute of Medicine/Food and Nutrition Board constituted a Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) committee to undertake a review of the evidence that had emerged (since the 1997 DRI report) on the relationship of vitamin D and calcium, both individually and combined, to a wide range of health outcomes, and potential revision of the DRI values for these nutrients. To support that review, several United States and Canadian Federal Government agencies commissioned a systematic review of the scientific literature for use during the deliberations by the committee. The intent was to support a transparent literature review process and provide a foundation for subsequent reviews of the nutrients. The committee used the resulting literature review in their revision of the DRIs.In 2013, in preparation for a project the National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements (NIH/ODS) was undertaking related to evidence-based decisionmaking for vitamin D in primary care, based on the updated DRI report, the ODS and AHRQ requested an update to the 2009 systematic review to incorporate the findings of studies conducted since the 2009 evidence review on the relationship between vitamin D alone or vitamin D plus calcium to selected health outcomes and to report on the methods used to assay vitamin D in the included trials.PURPOSE:To systematically summarize the evidence on the relationship between vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium on selected health outcomes included in the earlier review: primarily those related to bone health, cardiovascular health, cancer, immune function, pregnancy, all-cause mortality, and vitamin D status; and to identify the vitamin D assay methods and procedures used for the interventional studies that aimed to assess the effect of vitamin D administration on serum 25(OH)D concentrations, and to stratify key outcomes by methods used to assay serum 25(OH)D concentrations.DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE; Cochrane Central; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and the Health Technology Assessments; search limited to English-language articles on humans.STUDY SELECTION:Primary interventional or prospective observational studies that reported outcomes of interest in human subjects in relation to vitamin D alone or in combination with calcium, as well as systematic reviews that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.DATA EXTRACTION:A standardized protocol with predefined criteria was used to extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and study quality.DATA SYNTHESIS:We summarized 154 newly identified primary articles and two new systematic reviews that incorporated more than 93 additional primary articles. Available evidence focused mainly on bone health, cardiovascular diseases, or cancer outcomes. Findings were inconsistent across studies for bone health; breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer; cardiovascular disease and mortality; immune function; and pregnancy-related outcomes. Few studies assessed pancreatic cancer and birth outcomes. One new systematic review of observational studies found that circulating 25(OH)D was generally inversely associated with risk for cardiovascular disease. Methods used to assay serum 25(OH)D in studies reporting on key outcomes diverged widely. The current report also identified one new systematic review published since the original report that addressed whether a dose response relationship exists between dietary and supplemental vitamin D intake and serum 25(OH)D concentrations. The systematic review, based on 76 RCTs, reported widely varying increases in serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for similar doses of vitamin D, with a general increase in serum concentration with dietary intake. The RCTs identified for the current report found increases in serum 25(OH)D with supplementation; however, the findings varied by age group and health status of participants, baseline vitamin D status, dose, duration, and assay used to assess serum 25(OH)D.LIMITATIONS:Studies on vitamin D and calcium were not specifically targeted at life stages (except for pregnant and postmenopausal women) specified for the determination of DRI and were often underpowered for their intended outcomes. Studies vary widely in methodological quality and in the assays used to measure vitamin D status.CONCLUSIONS:In solid agreement with the findings of the original report, the majority of the findings concerning vitamin D, alone or in combination with calcium, on the health outcomes of interest were inconsistent. Associations observed in prospective cohort and nested case-control studies were inconsistent, or when consistent, were rarely supported by the results of randomized controlled trials. Clear dose-response relationships between intakes of vitamin D and health outcomes were rarely observed. Although a large number of new studies (and longer followups to older studies) were identified, particularly for cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, several types of cancer, and intermediate outcomes for bone health, no firm conclusions can be drawn. Studies identified for the current report suggest a possible U-shaped association between serum 25(OH)D concentrations and both all-cause mortality and hypertension and also suggest that the level of supplemental vitamin D and calcium administered in the Women's Health Initiative Calcium-Vitamin D Trial are not associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease or cancer among postmenopausal women who are not taking additional supplemental vitamin D and calcium. Studies suggest the method used to assay 25(OH)D may influence the outcomes of dose-response assessments. Beyond these observations, it is difficult to make any substantive statements on the basis of the available evidence concerning the association of either serum 25(OH)D concentration, vitamin D supplementation, calcium intake, or the combination of both nutrients, with the various health outcomes because most of the findings were inconsistent.
IN RESPONSE: We thank the authors for their comments and Dr. Speedy for sharing his personal experience. Regarding Dr. White and colleagues' statements about the harms of exercise, we acknowledge that exercise testing differs from graded exercise programs. However, patients may consider both forms of exercise harmful. To clarify the results of Moss-Morris and associates' trial, whereas 44% of participants in the intervention group declined repeated exercise testing, 20% did so because of their perception of harm (1). Also, although the Cochrane review did not identify harms of exercise, the authors drew similar conclusions to ours, stating that, limited information makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the safety of exercise therapy (2). To address Dr. Chu and coworkers' comment about safety data in Nez and colleagues' trial, we agree that the intervention group reported a decline in physical function and increase in pain. However, the trial reported within-group differences and not between-group differences (3), which are necessary to support results of comparisons of interventions in the trial. Their statement about the importance of analyzing data on the basis of case definitions used for inclusion in trials is consistent with our approach. For example, in the CBT trials using the physical function item of the 36-item Short-Form Survey as an outcome measure, the 2 studies using the Oxford criteria indicated improvement, whereas the 2 using the CDC criteria reported no improvement. We also agree with Dr. White and colleagues that combining counseling and CBT trials in a meta-analysis may dilute the individual effectiveness of each intervention, which is why our meta-analysis included only trials of CBT. We excluded from our analysis the studies referenced by Dr. Chu and coworkers and Mr. Kirby about the comparative effectiveness of CBT and GET and predictors of outcomes because they included participants with chronic fatigue rather than ME/CFS (4, 5). One of the studies found that 31% of their fatigued participants met criteria for CFS (according to the CDC Fukuda criteria [ 5]). Although those with CFS had more fatigue and functional impairment than other participants, the authors did not compare case definitions or evaluate outcomes for those with CFS on the basis of intervention.
None of the current diagnostic methods have been adequately tested to identify patients with ME/CFS when diagnostic uncertainty exists. Rintatolimod improves exercise performance in some patients (low strength of evidence), while counseling therapies and GET have broader benefit but have not been adequately tested in more disabled populations (low to moderate strength of evidence). Other treatments and harms have been inadequately studied (insufficient evidence). More definitive studies are needed to fill the many research gaps in diagnosing and treating ME/CFS.
OBJECTIVES Chronic pain is common and use of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain has increased dramatically. This report reviews the current evidence on effectiveness and harms of opioid therapy for chronic pain, focusing on long-term (≥1 year) outcomes. DATA SOURCES A prior systematic review (searches through October 2008), electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Libraries January 2008 to August 2014), reference lists, and clinical trials registries. REVIEW METHODS Using predefined criteria, we selected randomized trials and comparative observational studies of patients with cancer or noncancer chronic pain being considered for or prescribed long-term opioid therapy that addressed effectiveness or harms versus placebo, no opioid use, or nonopioid therapies; different opioid dosing methods; or risk mitigation strategies. We also included uncontrolled studies ≥1 year that reported rates of abuse, addiction, or misuse, and studies on the accuracy of risk prediction instruments for predicting subsequent opioid abuse or misuse. The quality of included studies was assessed, data were extracted, and results were summarized qualitatively. RESULTS Of the 4,209 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 39 studies were included. For a number of Key Questions, we identified no studies meeting inclusion criteria. Where studies were available, the strength of evidence was rated no higher than low, due to imprecision and methodological shortcomings, with the exception of buccal or intranasal fentanyl for pain relief outcomes within 2 hours after dosing (strength of evidence: moderate). No study evaluated effects of long-term opioid therapy versus no opioid therapy. In 10 uncontrolled studies, rates of opioid abuse were 0.6 percent to 8 percent and rates of dependence were 3.1 percent to 26 percent in primary care settings, but studies varied in methods used to define and ascertain outcomes. Rates of aberrant drug-related behaviors ranged from 5.7 percent to 37.1 percent. Compared with nonuse, long-term opioid therapy was associated with increased risk of abuse (one cohort study), overdose (one cohort study), fracture (two observational studies), myocardial infarction (two observational studies), and markers of sexual dysfunction (one cross-sectional study), with several studies showing a dose-dependent association. One randomized trial found no difference between a more liberal opioid dose escalation strategy and maintenance of current dose in pain or function, but differences between groups in daily opioid doses at the end of the trial were small. One cohort study found methadone associated with lower risk of mortality than long-acting morphine in a Veterans Affairs population in a propensity adjusted analysis (adjusted HR 0.56, 95 percent CI 0.51 to 0.62). Estimates of diagnostic accuracy for the Opioid Risk Tool were extremely inconsistent and other risk assessment instruments were evaluated in only one or two studies. No study evaluated the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies on outcomes related to overdose, addiction, abuse, or misuse. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate benefits and harms of long-term opioid therapy in high-risk patients or in other subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Evidence on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain is very limited but suggests an increased risk of serious harms that appears to be dose-dependent. More research is needed to understand long-term benefits, risk of abuse and related outcomes, and effectiveness of different opioid prescribing methods and risk mitigation strategies.
BACKGROUND: Concerns about vaccine safety have led some parents to decline recommended vaccination of their children, leading to the resurgence of diseases. Reassurance of vaccine safety remains critical for population health. This study systematically reviewed the literature on the safety of routine vaccines recommended for children in the United States. METHODS: Data sources included PubMed, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices statements, package inserts, existing reviews, manufacturer information packets, and the 2011 Institute of Medicine consensus report on vaccine safety. We augmented the Institute of Medicine report with more recent studies and increased the scope to include more vaccines. Only studies that used active surveillance and had a control mechanism were included. Formulations not used in the United States were excluded. Adverse events and patient and vaccine characteristics were abstracted. Adverse event collection and reporting was evaluated by using the McHarm scale. We were unable to pool results. Strength of evidence was rated as high, moderate, low, or insufficient. RESULTS: Of 20 478 titles identified, 67 were included. Strength of evidence was high for measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine and febrile seizures; the varicella vaccine was associated with complications in immunodeficient individuals. There is strong evidence that MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. There is moderate evidence that rotavirus vaccines are associated with intussusception. Limitations of the study include that the majority of studies did not investigate or identify risk factors for AEs; and the severity of AEs was inconsistently reported. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that some vaccines are associated with serious AEs; however, these events are extremely rare and must be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.
OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological therapy for depression in women during pregnancy or the postpartum period.DATA SOURCES:Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scientific Information Packets from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Databases were searched from their inception to July 2013..REVIEW METHODS:We included studies comparing pharmacological treatments for depression during or after pregnancy with each other, with nonpharmacological treatments, or with usual care or no treatment. Outcomes included both maternal and infant or child benefits and harms. Dual review was used for study inclusion, data abstraction, and quality assessment. We assessed study quality using methods of the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We graded the strength of the body of evidence according to the methods of the Effective Health Care Program. Direct evidence comprised studies that compared interventions of interest in the population of interest (i.e., depressed women) and measured the outcomes of interest. Studies comparing groups of depressed women with control groups with no evidence of depression were considered indirect.RESULTS:We included 15 observational studies that provided direct evidence on benefits and harms of antidepressants for depression during pregnancy. We included six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies of antidepressant treatment for depression in postpartum women. Studies of depressed pregnant women primarily compared antidepressant treatment with no treatment, and studies of postpartum women also compared antidepressants alone with combination antidepressant-nonpharmacological treatments. This evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on the comparative benefits or harms of antidepressants for the outcomes of maternal depression symptoms, functional capacity, breastfeeding, mother-infant dyad interactions, and infant and child development for either pregnant or postpartum women with depression. Low-strength evidence suggests that neonates of women with depression taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy had higher risk of respiratory distress than neonates of untreated women but that risk of preterm birth or neonatal convulsions does not differ between these groups. Direct evidence on the risk of major malformations and neonatal development with exposure to antidepressants in utero was insufficient to draw conclusions. For postpartum women with depression, evidence was insufficient to evaluate the full range of benefits and harms of treatment. Low-strength evidence was unable to show a benefit of adding brief psychotherapy or cognitive behavioral therapy to SSRIs.To address gaps in the direct evidence, we included an additional 109 observational studies of pregnant women receiving antidepressants for mixed or unreported reasons compared with pregnant women not taking antidepressants whose depression status was unknown. Signals from this indirect evidence suggest that future research should focus on the comparative risk of congenital anomalies and neonatal motor developmental delays. Although the absolute increased risk of autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the child associated with antidepressant use for depression in pregnancy may be very small, this issue also merits attention in future research. Future research should compare available treatments in groups of women with depression and have adequate sample sizes. Investigations should also take into account potential confounding, including age, race, parity, other exposures (e.g., alcohol, smoking, and other potential teratogens), and the impact of dose, severity of depression, timing of diagnosis, or prior depressive episodes.CONCLUSIONS:Evidence about the comparative benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment of depression in pregnant and postpartum women was largely inadequate to allow well-informed decisions about treatment. For pregnant women, this was mainly because comparison groups were not exclusively depressed women. For postpartum women, the lack of evidence arose chiefly from a scarcity of studies. These are major limitations, as depression is known to be associated with serious adverse outcomes. Given the prevalence of depression and its impact on the lives of pregnant women, new mothers, and children, new research to fill this informational gap is essential.
OBJECTIVES:This review examined how to best communicate and disseminate evidence, including uncertain evidence, to inform health care decisions. The review focused on three primary objectives--comparing the effectiveness of: (1) communicating evidence in various contents and formats that increase the likelihood that target audiences will both understand and use the information (KQ 1); (2) a variety of approaches for disseminating evidence from those who develop it to those who are expected to use it (KQ 2); and (3) various ways of communicating uncertainty-associated health-related evidence to different target audiences (KQ 3). A secondary objective was to examine how the effectiveness of communication and dissemination strategies varies across target audiences, including evidence translators, health educators, patients, and clinicians.DATA SOURCES:We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO®, and the Web of Science. We used a variety of medical subject headings (MeSH terms) and major headings, and used free-text and title and abstract text-word searches. The search was limited to studies on humans published from 2000 to March 15, 2013, for communication and dissemination, given the prior systematic reviews, and from 1966 to March 15, 2013, for communicating uncertainty.REVIEW METHODS:We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and abstractions, and quality ratings and group consensus to resolve disagreements. We used group consensus to grade strength of evidence.RESULTS:The search identified 4,152 articles (after removing duplicates) for all three KQs. After dual review at the title/abstract stage and full-text review stage, we retained 61 articles that directly (i.e., head to head) compared strategies to communicate and disseminate evidence. Across the KQs, many of the comparisons yielded insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions. For KQ 1, we found that investigators frequently blend more than one communication strategy in interventions. For KQ 2, we found that, compared with single dissemination strategies, multicomponent dissemination strategies are more effective at enhancing clinician behavior, particularly for guideline adherence. Key findings for KQ 3 indicate that evidence on communicating overall strength of recommendation and precision was insufficient, but certain ways of communicating directness and net benefit may be helpful in reducing uncertainty.CONCLUSIONS:The lack of comparative research evidence to inform communication and dissemination of evidence, including uncertain evidence, impedes timely clinician, patient, and policymaker awareness, uptake, and use of evidence to improve the quality of care. Expanding investment in communication, dissemination, and implementation research is critical to the identification of strategies to accelerate the translation of comparative effectiveness research into community and clinical practice and the direct benefit of patient care.
OBJECTIVES:To review important patient safety practices for evidence of effectiveness, implementation, and adoption.DATA SOURCES:Searches of multiple computerized databases, gray literature, and the judgments of a 20-member panel of patient safety stakeholders.REVIEW METHODS:The judgments of the stakeholders were used to prioritize patient safety practices for review, and to select which practices received in-depth reviews and which received brief reviews. In-depth reviews consisted of a formal literature search, usually of multiple databases, and included gray literature, where applicable. In-depth reviews assessed practices on the following domains: • How important is the problem? • What is the patient safety practice? • Why should this practice work? • What are the beneficial effects of the practice? • What are the harms of the practice? • How has the practice been implemented, and in what contexts? • Are there any data about costs? • Are there data about the effect of context on effectiveness? We assessed individual studies for risk of bias using tools appropriate to specific study designs. We assessed the strength of evidence of effectiveness using a system developed for this project. Brief reviews had focused literature searches for focused questions. All practices were then summarized on the following domains: scope of the problem, strength of evidence for effectiveness, evidence on potential for harmful unintended consequences, estimate of costs, how much is known about implementation and how difficult the practice is to implement. Stakeholder judgment was then used to identify practices that were "strongly encouraged" for adoption, and those practices that were "encouraged" for adoption.RESULTS:From an initial list of over 100 patient safety practices, the stakeholders identified 41 practices as a priority for this review: 18 in-depth reviews and 23 brief reviews. Of these, 20 practices had their strength of evidence of effectiveness rated as at least "moderate," and 25 practices had at least "moderate" evidence of how to implement them. Ten practices were classified by the stakeholders as having sufficient evidence of effectiveness and implementation and should be "strongly encouraged" for adoption, and an additional 12 practices were classified as those that should be "encouraged" for adoption.CONCLUSIONS:The evidence supporting the effectiveness of many patient safety practices has improved substantially over the past decade. Evidence about implementation and context has also improved, but continues to lag behind evidence of effectiveness. Twenty-two patient safety practices are sufficiently well understood, and health care providers can consider adopting them now.
OBJECTIVE:To estimate the overall balance of harms and benefits from the potential use of oral contraceptives (OCs) for the primary prevention of ovarian cancerDATA SOURCES:We searched PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov for English-language studies published from January 1990 to June 2012 that evaluated the potential benefits (reduction in ovarian, colorectal, and endometrial cancers) and harms (increase in breast and cervical cancer, and vascular complications) of OC use.REVIEW METHODS:Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion; the investigators abstracted data, and they performed quality ratings, applicability ratings, and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects. A simulation model was used to estimate the effects of OC use on the overall balance of benefits and harms.RESULTS:We reviewed 55 studies relevant to ovarian cancer outcomes, 66 relevant to other cancers, and 50 relevant to vascular events. Ovarian cancer incidence was significantly reduced in OC users (OR [odds ratio], 0.73; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.66 to 0.81), with greater reductions seen with longer duration of use. Breast cancer incidence was slightly but significantly increased in OC users (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.17), with a significant reduction in risk as time since last use increased. The risk of cervical cancer was significantly increased in women with persistent human papillomavirus infection who used OCs, but heterogeneity prevented a formal meta-analysis. Incidences of both colorectal cancer (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.95) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.76) were significantly reduced by OC use. The risk of vascular events was increased in current OC users compared with nonusers, although the increase in myocardial infarction was not statistically significant. The overall strength of evidence for ovarian cancer prevention was moderate to low, primarily because of the lack of randomized trials and inconsistent reporting of important characteristics of use, such as duration. The simulation model predicted that the combined increase in risk of breast and cervical cancers and vascular events was likely to be equivalent to or greater than the decreased risk in ovarian cancer, although the harm/benefit ratio was much more favorable when protection against endometrial and colorectal cancers was added, resulting in net gains in life expectancy of approximately 1 month.CONCLUSIONS:There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of OCs solely for the primary prevention of ovarian cancer. Although the net effects of the current patterns of OC use likely result in increased life expectancy when other noncontraceptive benefits are included, the harm/benefit ratio for ovarian cancer prevention alone is uncertain, particularly when the potential quality-of-life impact of breast cancer and vascular events are considered.
OBJECTIVES:To catalogue study designs used to assess the clinical effectiveness of CDSSs and KMSs, to identify features that impact the success of CDSSs/KMSs, to document the impact of CDSSs/KMSs on outcomes, and to identify knowledge types that can be integrated into CDSSs/KMSs.DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE(®), CINAHL(®), PsycINFO(®), and Web of Science(®).REVIEW METHODS:We included studies published in English from January 1976 through December 2010. After screening titles and abstracts, full-text versions of articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed for seven domains in which sufficient studies with common outcomes were included.RESULTS:We identified 15,176 articles, from which 323 articles describing 311 unique studies including 160 reports on 148 randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for inclusion. RCTs comprised 47.5 percent of the comparative studies on CDSSs/KMSs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs effectively improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n = 25; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.58), ordering clinical studies (n = 20; OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.00), and prescribing therapies (n = 46; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.82). Fourteen CDSS/KMS features were assessed for correlation with success of CDSSs/KMSs across all endpoints. Meta-analyses identified six new success features: Integration with charting or order entry system. Promotion of action rather than inaction. No need for additional clinician data entry. Justification of decision support via research evidence. Local user involvement. Provision of decision support results to patients as well as providers. Three previously identified success features were confirmed: Automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow. Provision of decision support at time and location of decisionmaking. Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment. Only 29 (19.6%) RCTs assessed the impact of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, 22 (14.9%) assessed costs, and 3 assessed KMSs on any outcomes. The primary source of knowledge used in CDSSs was derived from structured care protocols.CONCLUSIONS:Strong evidence shows that CDSSs/KMSs are effective in improving health care process measures across diverse settings using both commercially and locally developed systems. Evidence for the effectiveness of CDSSs on clinical outcomes and costs and KMSs on any outcomes is minimal. Nine features of CDSSs/KMSs that correlate with a successful impact of clinical decision support have been newly identified or confirmed.
BACKGROUND "Bundled payment" is a method in which payments to health care providers are related to the predetermined expected costs of a grouping, or "bundle," of related health care services. The intent of bundled payment systems is to decrease health care spending while improving or maintaining the quality of care. PURPOSE To systematically review studies of the effects of bundled payment on health care spending and quality, and to examine key design and contextual features of bundled payment programs and their association with program effectiveness. DATA SOURCES Electronic literature search of PubMed® and the Cochrane Library for studies published between 1985 and 2011. STUDY SELECTION Title and abstract review followed by full-text review to identify studies that assessed the effect of bundled payment on health care spending and/or quality. DATA EXTRACTION Two authors independently abstracted data on study design, intervention design, context, comparisons, and findings. Reviewers rated the strength of individual studies as well as the strength and applicability of the body of evidence overall. Differences between reviewers were reconciled by consensus. Studies were categorized by bundled payment program and narratively summarized. DATA SYNTHESIS We reviewed 58 studies, excluding studies of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System, for which we reviewed 4 review articles. Most studies (57 of 58) were observational or descriptive; 1 study employed randomization of providers, and none employed random assignment of patients to treatment and control groups. The included studies examined 20 different bundled payment interventions, 16 of which focused on single institutional providers. The introduction of bundled payment was associated with: (1) reductions in health care spending and utilization, and (2) inconsistent and generally small effects on quality measures. These findings were consistent across different bundled payment programs and settings, but the strength of the body of evidence was rated as low, due mainly to concerns about bias and residual confounding. Insufficient evidence was available to identify the influence of key design factors and most contextual factors on bundled payment effects. LIMITATIONS Most of the bundled payment interventions studied in reviewed articles (16/20) were limited to payments to single institutional providers (e.g., hospitals, skilled nursing facilities) and so have limited generalizability to newer programs including multiple provider types and/or multiple providers. Exclusion criteria and the search strategy we used may have omitted some relevant studies from the results. The review is limited by the quality of the underlying studies. The interventions studied were often incompletely described in the reviewed articles. CONCLUSIONS There is weak but consistent evidence that bundled payment programs have been effective in cost containment without major effects on quality. Reductions in spending and utilization relative to usual payment were less than 10 percent in many cases. Bundled payment is a promising strategy for reducing health spending. However, effects may not be the same in future programs that differ from those included in this review.
OBJECTIVESThis systematic review sought to identify the best available evidence regarding strategies for allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events (MCEs). Specifically, the review addresses the following questions: (1) What strategies are available to policymakers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (2) What strategies are available to providers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (3) What are the public's key perceptions and concerns regarding the implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? (4) What methods are available to engage providers in discussions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs?DATA SOURCESWe searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health, Web of Science®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1990 through 2011. To identify relevant non-peer-reviewed reports, we searched the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report. We also reviewed relevant State and Federal plans, peer-reviewed reports and papers by nongovernmental organizations, and consensus statements published by professional societies. We included both English- and foreign-language studies.REVIEW METHODSOur review included studies that evaluated tested strategies in real-world MCEs as well as strategies tested in drills, exercises, or computer simulations, all of which included a comparison group. We reviewed separately studies that lacked a comparison group but nonetheless evaluated promising strategies. We also identified consensus recommendations developed by professional societies or government panels. We reviewed existing State plans to examine the current state of planning for scarce resource allocation during MCEs. Two investigators independently reviewed each article, abstracted data, and assessed study quality.RESULTSWe considered 5,716 reports for this comparative effectiveness review (CER); we ultimately included 170 in the review. Twenty-seven studies focus on strategies for policymakers. Among this group were studies that examined various ways to distribute biological countermeasures more efficiently during a bioterror attack or influenza pandemic. They provided modest evidence that the way these systems are organized influences the speed of distribution. The review includes 119 studies that address strategies for providers. A number of these studies provided evidence suggesting that commonly used triage systems do not perform consistently in actual MCEs. The number of high-quality studies addressing other specific strategies was insufficient to support firm conclusions about their effectiveness. Only 10 studies included strategies that consider the public's perspective. However, these studies were consistent in their findings. In particular, the public believes that resource allocation guidelines should be simple and consistent across health care facilities but should allow facilities some flexibility to make allocation decisions based on the specific demand and supply situation. The public also believes that a successful allocation system should balance the goals of ensuring the functioning of society, saving the greatest number of people, protecting the most vulnerable people, reducing deaths and hospitalizations, and treating people fairly and equitably. The remaining 14 studies provided strategies for engaging providers in discussions about allocating and managing scarce medical resources. These studies did not identify one engagement approach as clearly superior; however, they consistently noted the importance of a broad, inclusive, and systematic engagement process.CONCLUSIONSScientific research to identify the most effective adaptive strategies to implement during MCEs is an emerging area. While it remains unclear which of the many options available to policymakers and providers will be most effective, ongoing efforts to develop a focused, well-organized program of applied research should help to identify the optimal methods, techniques, and technologies to strengthen our nation's capacity to respond to MCEs.
OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness of patient, provider, and systems interventions (Key Question [KQ] 1) or policy interventions (KQ 2) in improving medication adherence for an array of chronic health conditions. For interventions that are effective in improving adherence, we then assessed their effectiveness in improving health, health care utilization, and adverse events.DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library. Additional studies were identified from reference lists and technical experts.REVIEW METHODS:Two people independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the risk of bias of relevant trials and systematic reviews. We synthesized the evidence for effectiveness separately for each clinical condition, and within each condition, by type of intervention. We also evaluated the prevalence of intervention components across clinical conditions and the effectiveness of interventions for a range of vulnerable populations. Two reviewers graded the strength of evidence using established criteria.RESULTS:We found a total of 62 eligible studies (58 trials and 4 observational studies) from our review of 3,979 abstracts. These studies included patients with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction, asthma, depression, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, musculoskeletal diseases, and multiple chronic conditions. Fifty-seven trials of patient, provider, or systems interventions (KQ 1) evaluated 20 different types of interventions; 4 observational studies and one trial of policy interventions (KQ 2) evaluated the effect of reduced out-of-pocket expenses or improved prescription drug coverage. We found the most consistent evidence of improvement in medication adherence for interventions to reduce out-of-pocket expenses or improve prescription drug coverage, case management, and educational interventions across clinical conditions. Within clinical conditions, we found the strongest support for self-management of medications for short-term improvement in adherence for asthma patients; collaborative care or case management programs for short-term improvement of adherence and to improve symptoms for patients taking depression medications; and pharmacist-led approaches for hypertensive patients to improve systolic blood pressure.CONCLUSIONS:Diverse interventions offer promising approaches to improving medication adherence for chronic conditions, particularly for the short term. Evidence on whether these approaches have broad applicability for clinical conditions and populations is limited, as is evidence regarding long-term medication adherence or health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE:To systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of health care and palliative care interventions to improve outcomes for patients with advanced and serious illness.DATA SOURCES:We searched MEDLINE®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through 2011. We identified additional studies from reference lists of eligible articles and relevant reviews, as well as from technical experts.REVIEW METHODS:We developed questions in collaboration with technical experts. We excluded retrospective and uncontrolled studies. Two investigators independently screened search results and abstracted data from eligible studies. We adapted previous frameworks to categorize included studies (e.g., by improvement target, setting). Because many studies did not report effect sizes and almost all studies were small (lt 200 studies), in order to be able to quantitatively describe the literature, we calculated the percentage of studies with a significant improvement in outcomes with the intervention compared to control group for each category. We also checked that all other studies did not report significant results in the opposite direction and checked that there were not differences between larger and smaller studies.RESULTS:We included 90 studies described in 96 articles. Of the 23 studies targeting continuity, coordination, and transitions, 33 percent of studies that evaluated quality of life as an outcome, 67 percent that evaluated patient satisfaction, and 31 percent that evaluated health care utilization (admissions and length of stay) found a statistically significant improvement with the intervention. Of the 21 studies targeting pain, almost all focused on patient education and self-management; 48 percent of them found a statistically significant improvement with the intervention. Findings for larger (>100) and smaller (le 100) studies were similar. For distress, only 29 percent of the seven included studies found a statistically significant impact. Of the 20 studies in communication and decisionmaking, only 22 percent of studies addressing patient or family satisfaction found a statistically significant improvement for this outcome, compared to 73 percent for the outcome of health care utilization. We found only two studies within hospice programs, both of which found a statistically significant improvement in at least one outcome; nine studies were in nursing homes, 78 percent of which demonstrated a significant improvement with the intervention. In terms of types of quality improvement, for the target of continuity, studies including patient-centered quality improvement types, such as education and self-management, had the strongest evidence of effectiveness on patient- and family-centered domains such as satisfaction and quality of life. Studies of provider-focused interventions (e.g., education, reminders) were more likely to have an impact on health care utilization. Only one of five studies addressing multiple targets and focusing on facilitated relay of clinical data to providers demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in either quality of life or satisfaction. In terms of consultative and integrative interventions, for the target of communication and decisionmaking, three-quarters of consultative interventions showed a statistically significant improvement with the intervention, compared to half of integrative interventions. The literature was too heterogeneous and effect sizes were too infrequently reported for quantitative synthesis. There was moderate strength of evidence for the target of continuity, coordination, and transitions and the outcome of patient and caregiver satisfaction but low strength of evidence for other outcomes. For the target of pain, there was moderate strength of evidence for pain as an outcome. For the target of communication and decisionmaking, there was moderate strength of evidence for the outcome of health care utilization but low strength of evidence for other outcomes.CONCLUSIONS:We found that evidence was strongest (moderate strength of evidence) for interventions for pain, and for the targets of communication and decisionmaking and continuity for selected outcomes. While a few high- and medium-quality, well-designed health care and palliative care interventions have been conducted to improve outcomes for patients with advanced and serious illness, this report highlights the continued presence of variable findings, quality deficiencies, vaguely defined interventions, and variable outcome measurement tools and reporting in much of this intervention literature. The evidence has a number of gaps, including few studies in the hospice setting or pediatrics. Future research needs include techniques for improving recruitment and retention to assure adequate sample size, better development and description of interventions, and further development and standardization of outcome measures and tools.
OBJECTIVE:To examine how health care outcomes for general medical care have been assessed for people with disabilities within the rubrics of care coordination and quality improvement.DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE®, PsychINFO, ERIC, and CIRRIE through March 27, 2012; hand searches of references from relevant literature and journals. A search of high-quality gray literature sources was also conducted.REVIEW METHODS:We included all forms of disability except severe and persistent mental illness for all age groups in outpatient and community settings. We focused on outcomes, patient experience, and care coordination process measures. We looked for generic outcome measures rather than disability-condition-specific measures. We also looked for examples of outcomes used in the context of disability as a complicating condition for a set of basic service needs relevant to the general population, and secondary conditions common to disability populations. Two independent reviewers screened all articles; disagreements were resolved through consensus. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables and quality-checked by a second reviewer. Data synthesis was qualitative.RESULTS:A total of 15,513 articles were screened; 15 articles were included for general outcome measures and 44 studies for care coordination. A large number of outcome measures have been critically assessed and mapped to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. We found no eligible studies of basic medical needs or secondary conditions that examined mixed populations of disabled and nondisabled participants for disability as a complicating condition. Care coordination literature for people with disabilities is relatively new and focuses on initial implementation of interventions rather than assessing the quality of the implementation.CONCLUSIONS:We found very few direct examples of work conducted from the perspective of disability as a complicating condition. The sparse literature indicates the early stages of research development. Capturing the disability perspective will require collaboration and coordination of measurement efforts across medical interventions, rehabilitation, and social support provision.
OBJECTIVES:The aim of this review is to identify, synthesize, and appraise the literature on the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of commercially available single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel tests for assessing the risk of prostate cancer.DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE®, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Embase, from the beginning of each database to October 2011. Search strategies used combinations of controlled vocabulary (medical subject headings, keywords) and text words. Grey literature was identified.REVIEW METHODS:Three Key Questions (KQs) encompassing broad aspects of the analytic validity, clinical validity, and clinical utility of SNP-based panels were developed with the input of a Technical Expert Panel assembled by the Evidence-based Practice Center and approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Standard systematic review methodology was applied, with eligibility criteria developed separately for each KQ.RESULTS:From 1,998 unique citations, 14 were retained for data abstraction and quality assessment following title and abstract screening and full text screening. All focused on clinical validity (KQ2), and evaluated 15 individual panels with two to 35 SNPs. All had poor discriminative ability for predicting risk of prostate cancer and/or distinguishing between aggressive and asymptomatic/latent disease. The risk of bias of the studies was determined to be moderate. None of the panels had been evaluated in routine clinical settings.CONCLUSIONS:The evidence on currently available SNP panels does not permit meaningful assessment of analytic validity. The limited evidence on clinical validity is insufficient to conclude that the panels assessed would perform adequately as screening or risk stratification tests. No evidence is available on the clinical utility of current panels.
