Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112815
Arnav Agarwal, Gordon Guyatt
{"title":"Successes, shortcomings and learning opportunities for evidence-based medicine from the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Arnav Agarwal, Gordon Guyatt","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112815","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112815","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141854737","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112722
Chantelle Garritty, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Candyce Hamel, Declan Devane
This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead of a full systematic review (SR). While both review types aim to comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within a shorter time frame of typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods to expedite the process. The decision to opt for an RR depends on the urgency of the research question, resource availability and the impact on decision outcomes. The paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies and identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances when RRs may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely for ease, quick publication or only cost-saving motives.When deciding on an RR, it is crucial to consider both conceptual and practical factors. These factors encompass the urgency of needing timely evidence, the consequences of waiting for a full SR, the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence, and the risk of not using synthesised evidence in decision-making, among other considerations. Key factors to weigh also include having a clearly defined need, a manageable scope and access to the necessary expertise. Overall, this paper aims to guide informed judgements about whether to choose an RR over an SR based on the specific research question and context. Researchers and decision-makers are encouraged to carefully weigh potential trade-offs when opting for RRs.
{"title":"Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.","authors":"Chantelle Garritty, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Candyce Hamel, Declan Devane","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112722","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112722","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead of a full systematic review (SR). While both review types aim to comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within a shorter time frame of typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods to expedite the process. The decision to opt for an RR depends on the urgency of the research question, resource availability and the impact on decision outcomes. The paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies and identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances when RRs may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely for ease, quick publication or only cost-saving motives.When deciding on an RR, it is crucial to consider both conceptual and practical factors. These factors encompass the urgency of needing timely evidence, the consequences of waiting for a full SR, the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence, and the risk of not using synthesised evidence in decision-making, among other considerations. Key factors to weigh also include having a clearly defined need, a manageable scope and access to the necessary expertise. Overall, this paper aims to guide informed judgements about whether to choose an RR over an SR based on the specific research question and context. Researchers and decision-makers are encouraged to carefully weigh potential trade-offs when opting for RRs.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"55-60"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140130641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112886
Ingrid Toews, Salman Hussain, John L Z Nyirenda, Maria A Willis, Lucia Kantorová, Simona Slezáková, Minyahil Tadesse Boltena, John Victor Peter, Luis Eduardo Santos Fontes, Miloslav Klugar, Behnam Sadeghirad, Joerg J Meerpohl
Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).
Design and setting: Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
Participants: Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.
Search methods: The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.
Results: We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.
Conclusions: Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.
目的评估预防重症监护病房(ICU)住院患者上消化道(GI)出血的药物干预措施的有效性和安全性:系统综述和频数网络荟萃分析,采用 Cochrane 推荐的标准方法筛选记录、提取数据并进行分析。采用建议评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)评估证据的确定性:检索方法:从2017年8月到2022年3月,对Cochrane肠道专业注册、Cochrane对照试验中央注册(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、Embase以及拉丁美洲和加勒比海健康科学信息数据库(LILACS)等数据库进行了检索。MEDLINE的检索于2023年4月更新。我们还检索了ClinicalTrials.gov和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(WHO ICTRP):主要结果:主要结果是预防临床上重要的上消化道出血:我们纳入了 123 项研究,共有 46 996 名参与者。西米替丁(相对风险 (RR) 0.56,95% CI 0.40 至 0.77,中等确定性)、雷尼替丁(RR 0.54,95% CI 0.38 至 0.76,中等确定性)、抗酸剂(RR 0.48,95% CI 0.33 至 0.68,中等确定性)、琥珀酸盐(RR 0.54,95% CI 0.39 至 0.75,中等确定性)以及雷尼替丁和抗酸剂的组合(RR 0.13,95% CI 0.任何干预措施对预防院内肺炎、重症监护室或医院内全因死亡率、重症监护室住院时间、插管时间和(严重)不良事件的影响仍不明确:结论:一些干预措施似乎能有效预防临床上重要的上消化道出血,但其他结果的证据却很有限。需要根据患者的基本情况评估与患者相关的益处和危害。
{"title":"Pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Ingrid Toews, Salman Hussain, John L Z Nyirenda, Maria A Willis, Lucia Kantorová, Simona Slezáková, Minyahil Tadesse Boltena, John Victor Peter, Luis Eduardo Santos Fontes, Miloslav Klugar, Behnam Sadeghirad, Joerg J Meerpohl","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112886","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112886","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP).</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"22-35"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141598378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Objectives: To investigate the associations between device-measured and self-reported physical activity (PA) and incident common mental disorders in the general population.
Design and setting: Large-scale prospective cohort study.
Participants: Using the UK Biobank data, a validated PA questionnaire was used to estimate self-reported weekly PA in 365 656 participants between 2006 and 2010 while 91 800 participants wore wrist-worn accelerometers for 7 days in 2013-2015 to derive objectively measured PA. All the participants were followed up until 2021.
Main outcome measures: Incidences of depression and anxiety were ascertained from hospital inpatient records. Cox proportional hazards models and restricted cubic splines were used to assess the associations between subjectively and objectively measured PA and common mental disorders.
Results: During a median follow-up of 12.6 years, 16 589 cases of depression, 13 905 cases of anxiety and 5408 cases of comorbid depression and anxiety were documented in the questionnaire-based cohort. We found J-shaped associations of self-reported PA with incident risk of depression and anxiety, irrespective of PA intensities. The lowest risk for depression occurred at 550, 390, 180 and 560 min/week of light-intensity PA (LPA), moderate-intensity PA (MPA), vigorous-intensity PA (VPA) and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), respectively. During a median follow-up of 6.9 years, a total of 2258 cases of depression, 2166 cases of anxiety and 729 cases of comorbid depression and anxiety were documented in the accelerometer-based cohort. We found L-shaped associations of device-measured MPA and VPA with incident depression and anxiety. MPA was adversely associated with incident depression and anxiety until 660 min/week, after which the associations plateaued. The point of inflection for VPA occurred at 50 min/week, beyond which there was a diminished but continued reduction in the risks of depression and anxiety.
Conclusion: Different patterns of associations between self-reported and device-measured PA and mental health were observed. Future PA guidelines should fully recognise this inconsistency and increasingly employ objectively measured PA standards.
{"title":"Associations between device-measured and self-reported physical activity and common mental disorders: Findings from a large-scale prospective cohort study.","authors":"Zhe Wang, Zhi Cao, Jiahao Min, Tingshan Duan, Chenjie Xu","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112933","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112933","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the associations between device-measured and self-reported physical activity (PA) and incident common mental disorders in the general population.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>Large-scale prospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Using the UK Biobank data, a validated PA questionnaire was used to estimate self-reported weekly PA in 365 656 participants between 2006 and 2010 while 91 800 participants wore wrist-worn accelerometers for 7 days in 2013-2015 to derive objectively measured PA. All the participants were followed up until 2021.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Incidences of depression and anxiety were ascertained from hospital inpatient records. Cox proportional hazards models and restricted cubic splines were used to assess the associations between subjectively and objectively measured PA and common mental disorders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During a median follow-up of 12.6 years, 16 589 cases of depression, 13 905 cases of anxiety and 5408 cases of comorbid depression and anxiety were documented in the questionnaire-based cohort. We found J-shaped associations of self-reported PA with incident risk of depression and anxiety, irrespective of PA intensities. The lowest risk for depression occurred at 550, 390, 180 and 560 min/week of light-intensity PA (LPA), moderate-intensity PA (MPA), vigorous-intensity PA (VPA) and moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), respectively. During a median follow-up of 6.9 years, a total of 2258 cases of depression, 2166 cases of anxiety and 729 cases of comorbid depression and anxiety were documented in the accelerometer-based cohort. We found L-shaped associations of device-measured MPA and VPA with incident depression and anxiety. MPA was adversely associated with incident depression and anxiety until 660 min/week, after which the associations plateaued. The point of inflection for VPA occurred at 50 min/week, beyond which there was a diminished but continued reduction in the risks of depression and anxiety.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Different patterns of associations between self-reported and device-measured PA and mental health were observed. Future PA guidelines should fully recognise this inconsistency and increasingly employ objectively measured PA standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"45-54"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141598376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113124
Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Eva Madrid, Erik van Raaij
{"title":"Reducing the environmental impact of healthcare to improve health, sustainability and equity.","authors":"Maria-Inti Metzendorf, Eva Madrid, Erik van Raaij","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113124","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113124","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143027721","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112607
Maria Björklund, Martin Ringsten, Matteo Bruschettini, Martin Garwicz
{"title":"Teaching evidence-based medicine by using a systematic review framework: implementation in a Swedish university setting.","authors":"Maria Björklund, Martin Ringsten, Matteo Bruschettini, Martin Garwicz","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112607","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112607","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"5-9"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140304827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112820
Aileen Zeng, Queenie Tang, Edel O'Hagan, Kirsten McCaffery, Kiran Ijaz, Juan C Quiroz, Ahmet Baki Kocaballi, Dana Rezazadegan, Ritu Trivedi, Joyce Siette, Timothy Shaw, Meredith Makeham, Aravinda Thiagalingam, Clara K Chow, Liliana Laranjo
Objectives: To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Eligibility criteria: Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF.
Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023.Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies.
Synthesis of results: We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge.
Results: 13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I2=26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I2=0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery.
Conclusions: In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted.
{"title":"Use of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Aileen Zeng, Queenie Tang, Edel O'Hagan, Kirsten McCaffery, Kiran Ijaz, Juan C Quiroz, Ahmet Baki Kocaballi, Dana Rezazadegan, Ritu Trivedi, Joyce Siette, Timothy Shaw, Meredith Makeham, Aravinda Thiagalingam, Clara K Chow, Liliana Laranjo","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112820","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112820","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess the effects of digital patient decision-support tools for atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment decisions in adults with AF.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated digital patient decision-support tools for AF treatment decisions in adults with AF.</p><p><strong>Information sources: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus from 2005 to 2023.Risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment: We assessed RoB using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and cluster RCT and the ROBINS-I tool for quasi-experimental studies.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>We used random effects meta-analysis to synthesise decisional conflict and patient knowledge outcomes reported in RCTs. We performed narrative synthesis for all outcomes. The main outcomes of interest were decisional conflict and patient knowledge.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>13 articles, reporting on 11 studies (4 RCTs, 1 cluster RCT and 6 quasi-experimental) met the inclusion criteria. There were 2714 participants across all studies (2372 in RCTs), of which 26% were women and the mean age was 71 years. Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups were poorly represented in the included studies. Seven studies (n=2508) focused on non-valvular AF and the mean CHAD2DS2-VASc across studies was 3.2 and for HAS-BLED 1.9. All tools focused on decisions regarding thromboembolic stroke prevention and most enabled calculation of individualised stroke risk. Tools were heterogeneous in features and functions; four tools were patient decision aids. The readability of content was reported in one study. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in decisional conflict (4 RCTs (n=2167); standardised mean difference -0.19; 95% CI -0.30 to -0.08; p=0.001; I<sup>2</sup>=26.5%; moderate certainty evidence) corresponding to a decrease in 12.4 units on a scale of 0 to 100 (95% CI -19.5 to -5.2) and improvement in patient knowledge (2 RCTs (n=1057); risk difference 0.72, 95% CI 0.68, 0.76, p<0.001; I<sup>2</sup>=0%; low certainty evidence) favouring digital patient decision-support tools compared with usual care. Four of the 11 tools were publicly available and 3 had been implemented in healthcare delivery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the context of stroke prevention in AF, digital patient decision-support tools likely reduce decisional conflict and may result in little to no change in patient knowledge, compared with usual care. Future studies should leverage digital capabilities for increased personalisation and interactivity of the tools, with better consideration of health literacy and equity aspects. Additional robust trials and implementation studies are warranted.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42020218025.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"10-21"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141475889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Participants: All adults (≥18 years) examined with dipsticks at emergency departments in North Denmark Region from September 20 through 23 October 2021.
Main outcome measures: UTI was defined as ≥1 symptom of new-onset frequency, dysuria or suprapubic tenderness combined with a positive urine culture. Positive dipsticks were defined as any reaction for leucocyte esterase and/or nitrite.
Results: Dipsticks were used in 1052/2495 (42%) of acutely hospitalised patients with a median age of 73 years (IQR 57-82) and 540 (51%) were female. Overall, 89/1052 (8%) fulfilled the UTI criteria and urine cultures were done in 607/1052 (58%) patients. Among patients examined with both dipstick and urine culture, sensitivity and specificity for UTI were 87% (95% CI 78% to 93%) and 45% (95% CI 41% to 50%). Positive and negative predictive values were 21% (95% CI 17% to 26%) and 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%), whereas positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.58 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.77) and 0.30 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.51). Pretest probabilities of UTI ranged from 29% to 60% in participants with specific UTI symptoms with corresponding post-test probabilities of 35-69% if dipsticks were positive and 12-27% if dipsticks were negative. Results remained comparable if final clinical diagnosis was used as outcome among all patients examined with dipsticks. Modified Poisson regression yielded an adjusted relative risk of 4.41 (95% CI 2.40 to 8.11) for empirical antibiotics for UTI in participants without specific UTI symptoms and a positive dipstick.
Conclusions: Dipsticks yielded limited clinical decision support compared with a symptom-driven approach in this study and were independently associated with excess antibiotics for UTI.
目的:确定浸渍棒对急性住院病人尿路感染(UTI)的附加诊断价值:确定浸渍棒对急性住院病人尿路感染(UTI)的附加诊断价值:前瞻性人群队列研究:地点:丹麦北部:2021年9月20日至10月23日期间在北丹麦大区急诊科使用滴定管检查的所有成年人(≥18岁):UTI的定义是:新发尿频、排尿困难或耻骨上压痛症状≥1个,且尿培养呈阳性。结果:1052 名患者使用了浸渍棒检测尿液中的白细胞酯酶和/或亚硝酸盐:1052/2495(42%)名急性住院患者使用了滴定管,中位年龄为 73 岁(IQR 57-82),其中 540 名(51%)为女性。总体而言,89/1052(8%)例患者符合尿毒症标准,607/1052(58%)例患者进行了尿培养。在同时接受量尺和尿培养检查的患者中,尿毒症的敏感性和特异性分别为 87% (95% CI 78% 至 93%) 和 45% (95% CI 41% 至 50%)。阳性和阴性预测值分别为 21% (95% CI 17% 至 26%) 和 95% (95% CI 92% 至 98%),阳性和阴性似然比分别为 1.58 (95% CI 1.41 至 1.77) 和 0.30 (95% CI 0.18 至 0.51)。在具有特定 UTI 症状的参与者中,测试前的 UTI 概率为 29% 至 60%,如果滴管呈阳性,则测试后的相应概率为 35% 至 69%,如果滴管呈阴性,则概率为 12% 至 27%。如果将最终临床诊断作为所有使用滴管检查的患者的结果,结果仍具有可比性。修正泊松回归结果显示,在没有特定UTI症状且量尺呈阳性的参与者中,使用经验性抗生素治疗UTI的调整相对风险为4.41(95% CI为2.40至8.11):在本研究中,与以症状为导向的方法相比,浸量尺只能提供有限的临床决策支持,而且与UTI抗生素用量过多有独立关联。
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of dipsticks for urinary tract infections in acutely hospitalised patients: a prospective population-based observational cohort study.","authors":"Laura Hauge Kristensen, Rannva Winther, Josefine Tvede Colding-Jørgensen, Anton Pottegård, Henrik Nielsen, Jacob Bodilsen","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112920","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112920","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the added diagnostic value of dipsticks for urinary tract infections (UTI) in acutely hospitalised individuals.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective population-based cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>North Denmark.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>All adults (≥18 years) examined with dipsticks at emergency departments in North Denmark Region from September 20 through 23 October 2021.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>UTI was defined as ≥1 symptom of new-onset frequency, dysuria or suprapubic tenderness combined with a positive urine culture. Positive dipsticks were defined as any reaction for leucocyte esterase and/or nitrite.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dipsticks were used in 1052/2495 (42%) of acutely hospitalised patients with a median age of 73 years (IQR 57-82) and 540 (51%) were female. Overall, 89/1052 (8%) fulfilled the UTI criteria and urine cultures were done in 607/1052 (58%) patients. Among patients examined with both dipstick and urine culture, sensitivity and specificity for UTI were 87% (95% CI 78% to 93%) and 45% (95% CI 41% to 50%). Positive and negative predictive values were 21% (95% CI 17% to 26%) and 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%), whereas positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.58 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.77) and 0.30 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.51). Pretest probabilities of UTI ranged from 29% to 60% in participants with specific UTI symptoms with corresponding post-test probabilities of 35-69% if dipsticks were positive and 12-27% if dipsticks were negative. Results remained comparable if final clinical diagnosis was used as outcome among all patients examined with dipsticks. Modified Poisson regression yielded an adjusted relative risk of 4.41 (95% CI 2.40 to 8.11) for empirical antibiotics for UTI in participants without specific UTI symptoms and a positive dipstick.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dipsticks yielded limited clinical decision support compared with a symptom-driven approach in this study and were independently associated with excess antibiotics for UTI.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"36-44"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141598377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-22DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112813
Hui Liu, Nan Yang, Janne Estill, Yaolong Chen
{"title":"Enhancing the transparency of clinical practice guidelines by prospective registration: the PREPARE platform.","authors":"Hui Liu, Nan Yang, Janne Estill, Yaolong Chen","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112813","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112813","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"68-70"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140896973","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-01-09DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112967
Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Isabelle Boutron, Lisa Bero, Andreas Lundh
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer review may improve the quality of research manuscripts and aid in editorial decisions, but reviewers can have conflicts of interest that impact on their recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective was to systematically map and describe the extent and nature of empirical research on peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in biomedical research.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review METHODS: In this scoping review, we included studies investigating peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in journal manuscripts, theses and dissertations, conference abstracts, funding applications and clinical guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Methodology Register, Google Scholar (up to January 2024) and other sources. Two authors independently included studies and extracted data on key study characteristics and results, and we organised data by study domain (eg, journal manuscripts) and study aims. We included studies directly investigating peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in our primary analysis, and studies investigating other questions (eg, reasons for retraction), but reporting relevant data on peer reviewers' conflicts of interest, were solely included in a supplementary analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening 44 353 references, we included 71 studies, of which 41 were included in our primary analysis. The 41 studies were published between 2005 and 2023, and 34 (83%) were journal publications. 30 (73%) studies investigated journal manuscripts, 1 (2%) conference abstracts, 4 (10%) funding applications and 6 (15%) clinical guidelines. No studies investigated theses or dissertations. 37 (90%) studies used quantitative research methods, 2 (5%) qualitative and 2 (5%) mixed methods. 21 (51%) studies investigated both financial and non-financial interests, 6 (15%) solely financial interests, 5 (12%) solely non-financial interests and 9 (22%) did not report the type of interest. We organised included studies based on study aims, with some studies having multiple aims: impact on recommendations (one study), occurrence of peer reviewers' conflicts of interest (11 studies), stakeholders' experiences (13 studies) and policy and management (22 studies). One (2%) study investigated the impact of peer reviewers' personal connections with authors on reviewers' recommendations. Nine (22%) studies estimated prevalences of conflicts of interest among peer reviewers, ranging from 3%-91%. Two (5%) studies both reported that conflicts of interest were a reason for declining to review in 1% of cases. 13 (32%) studies investigated stakeholders' experiences with peer reviewers' conflicts of interest, primarily using questionnaires of reviewers, editors and researchers. 16 (39%) studies estimated prevalences of having conflict of interest policies for peer reviewers, ranging from 5%-96%, among journals, conferences and clinical guideline organisations. Finally, six (15%) studies es
背景:同行评议可以提高研究稿件的质量并有助于编辑决策,但审稿人可能存在影响其推荐的利益冲突。目的:目的是系统地描绘和描述生物医学研究中同行审稿人利益冲突的实证研究的范围和性质。设计:范围审查方法:在本次范围审查中,我们纳入了调查同行审稿人在期刊手稿、论文、会议摘要、资助申请和临床指南中的利益冲突的研究。我们检索了MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Methodology Register,谷歌Scholar(截止到2024年1月)和其他来源。两位作者独立纳入研究并提取关键研究特征和结果的数据,我们按研究领域(如期刊手稿)和研究目标组织数据。我们在主要分析中纳入了直接调查同行评议人利益冲突的研究,以及调查其他问题(如撤稿原因)但报告了同行评议人利益冲突相关数据的研究,这些研究仅被纳入补充分析。结果:在筛选了44353篇文献后,我们纳入了71项研究,其中41项纳入了我们的主要分析。这41项研究发表于2005年至2023年之间,其中34项(83%)发表在期刊上。30项(73%)研究调查了期刊手稿,1项(2%)研究调查了会议摘要,4项(10%)研究调查了基金申请,6项(15%)研究调查了临床指南。没有研究调查论文或学位论文。37项(90%)研究采用定量研究方法,2项(5%)采用定性研究方法,2项(5%)采用混合研究方法。21项(51%)研究同时调查了经济利益和非经济利益,6项(15%)研究仅调查了经济利益,5项(12%)研究仅调查了非经济利益,9项(22%)研究未报告利益类型。我们根据研究目标组织了纳入研究,其中一些研究有多个目标:对建议的影响(1项研究)、同行审稿人利益冲突的发生(11项研究)、利益相关者的经验(13项研究)以及政策和管理(22项研究)。一项(2%)研究调查了同行审稿人与作者的个人关系对审稿人推荐的影响。9项(22%)研究估计了同行审稿人之间利益冲突的发生率,范围在3%-91%之间。两项(5%)研究都报告说,1%的案例中,利益冲突是拒绝审查的原因。13项(32%)研究调查了利益相关者对同行审稿人利益冲突的经历,主要使用审稿人、编辑和研究人员的问卷。在期刊、会议和临床指南组织中,有16项(39%)研究估计了同行审稿人利益冲突政策的患病率,从5%到96%不等。最后,6项(15%)研究估计了审稿人利益冲突声明公开的患病率,范围在0%-71%之间。结论:大多数研究主要通过对期刊政策的调查或对研究人员、编辑和同行评议人员的问卷调查来解决期刊手稿同行评议中的利益冲突。同行审稿人的利益冲突对推荐的影响及其普遍程度仍然知之甚少。我们的结果可以指导未来的研究,并用于调整同行审稿人利益冲突的政策和管理。研究注册:开放科学框架(DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/9QBMG)。
{"title":"Peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in biomedical research: scoping review.","authors":"Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Isabelle Boutron, Lisa Bero, Andreas Lundh","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112967","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer review may improve the quality of research manuscripts and aid in editorial decisions, but reviewers can have conflicts of interest that impact on their recommendations.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective was to systematically map and describe the extent and nature of empirical research on peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in biomedical research.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review METHODS: In this scoping review, we included studies investigating peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in journal manuscripts, theses and dissertations, conference abstracts, funding applications and clinical guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Methodology Register, Google Scholar (up to January 2024) and other sources. Two authors independently included studies and extracted data on key study characteristics and results, and we organised data by study domain (eg, journal manuscripts) and study aims. We included studies directly investigating peer reviewers' conflicts of interest in our primary analysis, and studies investigating other questions (eg, reasons for retraction), but reporting relevant data on peer reviewers' conflicts of interest, were solely included in a supplementary analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening 44 353 references, we included 71 studies, of which 41 were included in our primary analysis. The 41 studies were published between 2005 and 2023, and 34 (83%) were journal publications. 30 (73%) studies investigated journal manuscripts, 1 (2%) conference abstracts, 4 (10%) funding applications and 6 (15%) clinical guidelines. No studies investigated theses or dissertations. 37 (90%) studies used quantitative research methods, 2 (5%) qualitative and 2 (5%) mixed methods. 21 (51%) studies investigated both financial and non-financial interests, 6 (15%) solely financial interests, 5 (12%) solely non-financial interests and 9 (22%) did not report the type of interest. We organised included studies based on study aims, with some studies having multiple aims: impact on recommendations (one study), occurrence of peer reviewers' conflicts of interest (11 studies), stakeholders' experiences (13 studies) and policy and management (22 studies). One (2%) study investigated the impact of peer reviewers' personal connections with authors on reviewers' recommendations. Nine (22%) studies estimated prevalences of conflicts of interest among peer reviewers, ranging from 3%-91%. Two (5%) studies both reported that conflicts of interest were a reason for declining to review in 1% of cases. 13 (32%) studies investigated stakeholders' experiences with peer reviewers' conflicts of interest, primarily using questionnaires of reviewers, editors and researchers. 16 (39%) studies estimated prevalences of having conflict of interest policies for peer reviewers, ranging from 5%-96%, among journals, conferences and clinical guideline organisations. Finally, six (15%) studies es","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142944311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}