Evidence report/technology assessment最新文献

Objectives: To systematically identify quality measures and the evidence for them-to support quality assessment and improvement in the palliative care of patients with cancer in the areas of pain, dyspnea, depression, and advance care planning (ACP), and to identify important gaps in related research.

Data sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO in English 1995-2005. We also conducted an extensive Internet search of professional organizations seeking guidelines and other grey literature (i.e., not published in peer-reviewed journals) using similar terms and attempted to contact all measure developers.

Review methods: We searched using terms for each domain for patients (adults and children) with a cancer diagnosis throughout the continuum of care (e.g., diagnosis to death). Pain and depression searches were limited to cancer, but we searched broadly for dyspnea and ACP, because the evidence base for dyspnea is more limited and experts advised that ACP measures would be generalizable to cancer. Measures were included if they expressed a normative relationship to quality and included a measurable numerator and denominator. Citations and articles were each reviewed/abstracted by two of six palliative care researcher/clinicians who described populations, testing, and attributes for each measure.

Results: The literature search identified 5,187 titles, of which 4,650 were excluded at abstract review. Of 537 articles, only 25 contained measures: 21 on ACP, 4 on depression, 2 on dyspnea, and 12 on pain. Ten relevant measure sets were identified: ACOVE, QA Tools, Cancer Care Ontario, Cancer Care Nova Scotia, Dana-Farber, Georgia Cancer Coalition, University Health Consortium, NHPCO, VHA, and ASCO. We identified a total of 40 operationalized and 19 non-operationalized measures. The most measures were available for pain (12) and ACP (21), compared with only 4 for depression and 2 for dyspnea. Few of the measures were published, and few had been specifically tested in a cancer population.

Conclusions: A large number of measures are available for addressing palliative cancer care, but testing them in relevant populations is urgently needed. No measures or indicators were available to evaluate the quality of supportive pediatric cancer care. Basic research is urgently needed to address measurement in populations with impaired self-report. Funding field testing of highest quality measures should be an urgent patient and family-centered priority to meet the needs of patients with cancer.

Objectives: To identify measures that are currently available to assess the quality of care provided to patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and to assess the extent to which these measures have been developed and tested.

Data sources: Published and unpublished measures identified through a computerized search of English-language citations in MEDLINE (1966-January 2005), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse; through review of reference lists contained in seed articles, all included articles, and relevant review articles; and through searches of the grey literature (institutional or government reports, professional society documents, research papers, and other literature, in print or electronic format, not controlled by commercial publishing interests). Sources for grey literature included professional organization websites and the Internet.

Review methods: Measures were selected by reviewers according to standardized criteria relating to each question, and were then rated according to their importance and usability, scientific acceptability, and extent of testing; each domain was rated from 1 (poor) to 5 (ideal).

Results: We identified a number of well-developed and well-tested CRC-related quality-of-care measures, both general process-of-care measures (on a broader scale) and technical measures (pertaining to specific details of a procedure). At least some process measures are available for diagnostic imaging, staging, surgical therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, adjuvant radiation therapy, and colonoscopic surveillance. Various technical measures were identified for quality of colonoscopy (e.g., cecal intubation rate, complications) and staging (adequate lymph node retrieval and evaluation). These technical measures were guideline-based and well developed, but less well tested, and the linkage between them and patient outcomes, although intuitive, was not always explicitly provided. For some elements of the care pathway, such as operative reports and chemotherapy reports, no technical measures were found.

Conclusions: Some general process measures have a stronger evidence base than others. Those based on guidelines have the strongest evidence base; those derived from basic first principles supported by some research findings are relatively weaker, but are often sufficient for the task at hand. A consistent source of tension is the distinction between the clinically derived fine-tuning of the definition of a quality measure and the limitations of available data sources (which often do not contain sufficient information to act on such distinctions). Although some excellent technical measures were found, the overall development of technical measures seems less advanced than that of the general process measures.

Objectives: To systematically review evidence on definitions of the periodic health evaluation (PHE), its associated benefits and harms, and system-level interventions to improve its delivery.

Data sources: Electronic searches in MEDLINE, and other databases; hand searching of 24 journals and bibliographies through February 2006.

Review methods: Paired investigators abstracted data and judged study quality using standard criteria. We reported effect sizes for mean differences and proportions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We adapted GRADE Working Group criteria to assess quantity, quality and consistency of the best evidence pertaining to each outcome, assigning grades of "high," "medium," "low," or "very low."

Results: Among 36 identified studies (11 RCTs), definitions of the PHE varied widely. In studies assessing benefits, the PHE consistently improved (over usual care) the delivery/receipt of the gynecological exam/Pap smear (2 RCTs, small effect (Cohen's d (95% confidence interval (CI)):0.07 (0.07,0.07)) to large effect (Cohen's d (CI):1.71 (1.69, 1.73)), strength and consistency graded "high"); cholesterol screening (1 RCT, small effect (Cohen's d (CI):0.02 (0.00,0.04)) with large associations in 4 observational studies, graded "medium"); fecal occult blood testing (2 RCTs, large effects (Cohen's d (CI): 1.19 (1.17, 1.21) and 1.07 (1.05, 1.08)), graded "high"). Effects of the PHE were mixed among studies assessing delivery/receipt of counseling (graded "low"), immunizations (graded "medium"), and mammography (graded "low"). In one RCT, the PHE led to a smaller increase in patient "worry" (13%) compared to usual care (23%) (graded "medium"). The PHE had mixed effects on serum cholesterol (graded "low"), blood pressure, body mass index, disease detection, health habits and health status (graded "medium"), hospitalization (graded "high"), and costs, disability, and mortality (graded "medium"). No studies assessed harms. Delivery of the PHE was improved by scheduling of appointments for PHE (1 RCT, medium effects (Cohen's d (CI): 0.69 (0.68, 0.70)) and offering a free PHE (1 non-RCT, 22% increase) (graded "medium").

Conclusions: The evidence suggests delivery of some recommended preventive services are improved by the PHE and may be more directly affected by the PHE than intermediate or long-term clinical outcomes and costs. Descriptions of the PHE and outcomes were heterogeneous, and some trials were performed before dissemination of recommendations by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, limiting interpretations of findings. Efforts are needed to clarify the long-term benefits of receiving multiple preventive services in the context of the PHE. Future studies assessing the PHE should incorporate diverse populations, carefully define comparisons to "usual care," and comprehensively assess intermediate outcomes, harms, an

Objectives: The RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) systematically reviewed evidence on efficacy of treatment for anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), and binge eating disorder (BED), harms associated with treatments, factors associated with the treatment efficacy and with outcomes of these conditions, and whether treatment and outcomes for these conditions differ by sociodemographic characteristics.

Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Applied Health (CINAHL), PSYCHINFO, the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), the National Agricultural Library (AGRICOLA), and Cochrane Collaboration libraries.

Review methods: We reviewed each study against a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. For included articles, a primary reviewer abstracted data directly into evidence tables; a second senior reviewer confirmed accuracy. We included studies published from 1980 to September 2005, in all languages. Studies had to involve populations diagnosed primarily with AN, BN, or BED and report on eating, psychiatric or psychological, or biomarker outcomes.

Results: We report on 30 treatment studies for AN, 47 for BN, 25 for BED, and 34 outcome studies for AN, 13 for BN, 7 addressing both AN and BN, and 3 for BED. The AN literature on medications was sparse and inconclusive. Some forms of family therapy are efficacious in treating adolescents. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may reduce relapse risk for adults after weight restoration. For BN, fluoxetine (60 mg/day) reduces core bulimic symptoms (binge eating and purging) and associated psychological features in the short term. Individual or group CBT decreases core behavioral symptoms and psychological features in both the short and long term. How best to treat individuals who do not respond to CBT or fluoxetine remains unknown. In BED, individual or group CBT reduces binge eating and improves abstinence rates for up to 4 months after treatment; however, CBT is not associated with weight loss. Medications may play a role in treating BED patients. Further research addressing how best to achieve both abstinence from binge eating and weight loss in overweight patients is needed. Higher levels of depression and compulsivity were associated with poorer outcomes in AN; higher mortality was associated with concurrent alcohol and substance use disorders. Only depression was consistently associated with poorer outcomes in BN; BN was not associated with an increased risk of death. Because of sparse data, we could reach no conclusions concerning BED outcomes. No or only weak evidence addresses treatment or outcomes difference for these disorders.

Conclusions: The literature regarding treatment efficacy and outcomes for AN, BN, and BED is of highly variable quality. In future studies, researchers

Objectives: To assess the effects, associations, mechanisms of action, and safety of B vitamins and, separately, berries and their constituents on age-related neurocognitive disorders-primarily Alzheimer's (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD).

Data sources: MEDLINE and CAB Abstracts. Additional studies were identified from reference lists and technical experts.

Review methods: Vitamins B1, B2, B6, B12, and folate, and a dozen types of berries and their constituents were evaluated. Human, animal, and in vitro studies were evaluated. Outcomes of interest from human studies were neurocognitive function or diagnosis with AD, cognitive decline, PD, or related conditions. Intervention studies, associations between dietary intake and outcomes, and associations between B vitamin levels and outcomes were evaluated. Specific mechanisms of action were evaluated in animal and in vitro studies. Studies were extracted for study design, demographics, intervention or predictor, and neurocognitive outcomes. Studies were graded for quality and applicability.

Results: In animal studies, deficiencies in vitamins B1 or folate generally cause neurological dysfunction; supplementation with B6, B12, or folate may improve neurocognitive function. In animal experiments folate and B12 protect against genetic deficiencies used to model AD; thiamine and folate also affect neurovascular function and health. Human studies were generally of poor quality. Weak evidence suggests possible benefits of B1 supplementation and injected B12 in AD. The effects of B6 and folate are unclear. Overall, dietary intake studies do not support an association between B vitamin intake and AD. Studies evaluating B vitamin status were mostly inadequate due to poor study design. Overall, studies do not support an association between B vitamin status and age-related neurocognitive disorders. Only one study evaluated human berry consumption, finding no association with PD. Animal studies of berries have almost all been conducted by the same research group. Several berry constituents have been shown to affect brain and nerve tissue function. Blueberry and strawberry extract were protective of markers of disease, although effects on neurocognitive tests were less consistent. Berry extracts may protect against the deleterious effects of compounds associated with AD. Reporting of adverse events was uncommon. When reported, actual adverse events from B vitamins were rare and minor.

Conclusions: The current research on B vitamins is largely inadequate to confidently assess their mechanisms of action on age-related neurocognitive disorders, their associations with disease, or their effectiveness as supplements. B vitamin supplementation may be of value for neurocognitive function, but the evidence is inconclusive.

Objectives: The RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) systematically reviewed the evidence on the trend and incidence of cesarean delivery (CD) in the United States and in other developed countries, maternal and infant outcomes of cesarean delivery on maternal request (CDMR) compared with planned vaginal delivery (PVD), factors affecting the magnitude of the benefits and harms of CDMR, and future research directions.

Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaboration resources, and Embase and identified 1,406 articles to examine against a priori inclusion criteria. We included studies published from 1990 to the present, written in English. Studies had to include comparison between the key reference group (CDMR or proxies) and PVD.

Review methods: A primary reviewer abstracted detailed data on key variables from included articles; a second senior reviewer confirmed accuracy.

Results: We identified 13 articles for trends and incidence of CD, 54 for maternal and infant outcomes, and 5 on modifiers of CDMR. The incidence of CDMR appears to be increasing. However, accurately assessing either its true incidence or trends over time is difficult because currently CDMR is neither a well-recognized clinical entity nor an accurately reported indication for diagnostic coding or reimbursement. Virtually no studies exist on CDMR, so the knowledge base rests chiefly on indirect evidence from proxies possessing unique and significant limitations. Furthermore, most studies compared outcomes by actual routes of delivery, resulting in great uncertainty as to their relevance to planned routes of delivery. Primary CDMR and planned vaginal delivery likely do differ with respect to individual outcomes for either mothers or infants. However, our comprehensive assessment, across many different outcomes, suggests that no major differences exist between primary CDMR and planned vaginal delivery, but the evidence is too weak to conclude definitively that differences are completely absent. Given the limited data available, we cannot draw definitive conclusions about factors that might influence outcomes of planned CDMR versus PVD.

Conclusions: The evidence is significantly limited by its minimal relevance to primary CDMR. Future research requires developing consensus about terminology for both delivery routes and outcomes; creating a minimum data set of information about CDMR; improving study design and statistical analyses; attending to major outcomes and their special measurement issues; assessing both short- and long-term outcomes with better measurement strategies; dealing better with confounders; and considering the value or utility of different outcomes.