ObjectivesThere is increasing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. The lack of a standardized outcome classification system results in inconsistencies due to ambiguity and variation in how outcomes are described across different studies. Being able to classify by outcome would increase efficiency in searching sources such as clinical trial registries, patient registries, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database of core outcome sets (COS), thus aiding knowledge discovery.Study Design and SettingA literature review was carried out to determine existing outcome classification systems, none of which were sufficiently comprehensive or granular for classification of all potential outcomes from clinical trials. A new taxonomy for outcome classification was developed, and as proof of principle, outcomes extracted from all published COS in the COMET database, selected Cochrane reviews, and clinical trial registry entries were classified using this new system.ResultsApplication of this new taxonomy to COS in the COMET database revealed that 274/299 (92%) COS include at least one physiological outcome, whereas only 177 (59%) include at least one measure of impact (global quality of life or some measure of functioning) and only 105 (35%) made reference to adverse events.ConclusionsThis outcome taxonomy will be used to annotate outcomes included in COS within the COMET database and is currently being piloted for use in Cochrane Reviews within the Cochrane Linked Data Project. Wider implementation of this standard taxonomy in trial and systematic review databases and registries will further promote efficient searching, reporting, and classification of trial outcomes.

No abstract

BackgroundOverviews of reviews (overviews) compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there is limited methodological guidance available for researchers wishing to conduct overviews. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and collate all published and unpublished documents containing guidance for conducting overviews examining the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of healthcare interventions. Our aims were to provide a map of existing guidance documents; identify similarities, differences, and gaps in the guidance contained within these documents; and identify common challenges involved in conducting overviews.MethodsWe conducted an iterative and extensive search to ensure breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage. The search involved reference tracking, database and web searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Scopus, Cochrane Methods Studies Database, Google Scholar), handsearching of websites and conference proceedings, and contacting overview producers. Relevant guidance statements and challenges encountered were extracted, edited, grouped, abstracted, and presented using a qualitative metasummary approach.ResultsWe identified 52 guidance documents produced by 19 research groups. Relatively consistent guidance was available for the first stages of the overview process (deciding when and why to conduct an overview, specifying the scope, and searching for and including systematic reviews). In contrast, there was limited or conflicting guidance for the latter stages of the overview process (quality assessment of systematic reviews and their primary studies, collecting and analyzing data, and assessing quality of evidence), and many of the challenges identified were also related to these stages. An additional, overarching challenge identified was that overviews are limited by the methods, reporting, and coverage of their included systematic reviews.ConclusionsThis compilation of methodological guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions will facilitate the production of future overviews and can help authors address key challenges they are likely to encounter. The results of this project have been used to identify areas where future methodological research is required to generate empirical evidence for overview methods. Additionally, these results have been used to update the chapter on overviews in the next edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the rates of immediate survival and survival to discharge for adult patients undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and to identify demographic and clinical variables associated with these outcomes. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The MEDLARS database of the National Library of Medicine was searched. In addition, the authors' extensive personal files and the bibliography of each identified study were searched for further studies. Two sets of inclusion criteria were used, minimal (any study of adults undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation) and strict (included only patients from general ward and intensive care units, and adequately defined cardiopulmonary arrest and resuscitation). Each study was independently reviewed and abstracted in a nonblinded fashion by two reviewers. The data abstracted were compared, and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus discussion. For the subset of studies meeting the strict criteria, the overall rate of immediate survival was 40.7% and the rate of survival to discharge was 13.4%. The following variables were associated with failure to survive to discharge: sepsis on the day prior to resuscitation (odds ratio T he do-not-resuscitate (DNR) order has become well accepted and widely used in American hospitals, and for the majority of patients who die in the hospital, a DNR order has been written by the time of their death. 1-3 The decision to discuss or execute a DNR order is driven by several concerns: the patient's current quality of life, the likelihood that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) will be successful, the patient's long-term prognosis following successful resuscitation, and his or her anticipated quality of life following successful resuscitation. 4,5 Although judgments about quality of life are best assessed by the patient, physicians have typically been relied on to provide biomedical information and estimates of prognosis; this is consistent with a shared approach to medical decision making. Information about prognosis can either be communicated implicitly (e.g., "I don't think CPR is likely to help you") or explicitly ("Patients with your condition have a less than 1% chance of surviving to discharge after CPR"). The explicit approach has been shown in two studies to influence patient decisions about DNR orders, 6,7 so it is important that prognostic information be as accurate as possible.[Recent work has shown, however, that physicians are not accurate in predicting the outcome of CPR. In fact, when presented with detailed vignettes of actual patient cases, physician predictions of the likelihood of immediate survival following CPR were no better than random guessing, with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve not significantly different from 0.5. 8 An analysis with the physician prediction of the likelihood of survival as the outcome variable in a multivariate regression shows that physicians appear to have an underlying cognitive model. However, this model overemphasizes the imp...

Overviews of reviews are only as good as the SRs and primary studies on which they are based; gaps or lack of currency in this evidence will weaken the overview of reviews. Future directions in this work must address questions of bias and loss of information. Methods for overviews of reviews targeted for specific groups, such as children, need more elaboration. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care. ObjectivesTo assess the effects of antibiotics in improving outcomes and assess adverse effects of antibiotic therapy for patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis.