COMMENT © 2 0 1 7 M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h e r s L i m i t e d , p a r t o f S p r i n g e r N a t u r e . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d .

Plain English summaryWith the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported.AbstractBackgroundPatient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181–94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587–8]. Since POR’s inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials.MethodsThe MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included.ResultsOf the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23)...

BackgroundThere has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.MethodsA protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.ResultsAfter screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.ConclusionsResults from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).

BackgroundThe purpose of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions (BIs) as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances.MethodsBibliographic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to April 2012) and gray literature sources were searched. We included randomized controlled trials that opportunistically screened adolescents or adults and then provided a one-to-one, verbal BI to those at risk of substance-use harm. Of interest was the nonmedical use of psychoactive substances (for example, drugs prohibited by international law), excluding alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine. Interventions comprised four or fewer sessions and were compared with no/delayed intervention or provision of information only. Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results were synthesized narratively. Evidence was interpreted according to the GRADE framework.ResultsWe identified 8,836 records. Of these, five studies met our inclusion criteria. Two studies compared BI with no BI, and three studies compared BI with information only. Studies varied in characteristics such as substances targeted, screening procedures, and BI administered. Outcomes were mostly reported by a single study, leading to limited or uncertain confidence in effect estimates.ConclusionsInsufficient evidence exists as to whether BIs, as part of SBIRT, are effective or ineffective for reducing the use of, or harms associated with nonmedical use of, psychoactive substances when these interventions are administered to nontreatment-seeking, screen-detected populations. Updating this review with emerging evidence will be important.Trial registrationCRD42012002414

CONTEXT: Permanent hearing loss affects 1 to 3 per 1000 children and interferes with typical communication development. Early detection through newborn hearing screening and hearing technology provide most children with the option of spoken language acquisition. However, no consensus exists on optimal interventions for spoken language development. OBJECTIVE:To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of early sign and oral language intervention compared with oral language intervention only for children with permanent hearing loss.DATA SOURCES: An a priori protocol was developed. Electronic databases (eg, Medline, Embase, CINAHL) from 1995 to June 2013 and gray literature sources were searched. Studies in English and French were included. STUDY SELECTION:Two reviewers screened potentially relevant articles. DATA EXTRACTION:Outcomes of interest were measures of auditory, vocabulary, language, and speech production skills. All data collection and risk of bias assessments were completed and then verified by a second person. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to judge the strength of evidence. RESULTS:Eleven cohort studies metinclusion criteria, of which 8 included only children with severe to profound hearing loss with cochlear implants. Language development was the most frequently reported outcome. Other reported outcomes included speech and speech perception.LIMITATIONS: Several measures and metrics were reported across studies, and descriptions of interventions were sometimes unclear.CONCLUSIONS: Very limited, and hence insufficient, high-quality evidence exists to determine whethersign language in combination with oral language is more effective than oral language therapy alone. More research is needed to supplement the evidence base. Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; b Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; c Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; d Translational Research in Biomedicine Graduate Program, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia; f Consultant, Moncton, New Brunswick; g Audiology Clinic, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; and h Voice for Hearing-Impaired Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Dr Fitzpatrick conceptualized the project, fi nalized the protocol, was involved in all stages of the analysis and interpretation, wrote the fi rst draft of this manuscript, and is the study guarantor; Ms Hamel and Ms Pratt were involved in screening articles and extracted data; Ms Hamel conducted the quality assessment; Ms Hamel, Ms Pratt, Ms Stevens, and Dr Moher provided input into the fi nal manuscript; Ms Stevens contributed to the development of the methods, oversaw the screening, Early detection of permanent childhood hearing loss through population-based newborn screening has become standard care in much of the world. Expectations are that early intervention through hearing technolog...