No abstract

Exercise alone and various combinations of interventions were associated with lower risk of injurious falls compared with usual care. Choice of fall-prevention intervention may depend on patient and caregiver values and preferences.

BackgroundWe completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.MethodsWe used the Arksey and O’Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.ResultsWe identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.ConclusionsSystematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To determine whether people who donate a kidney have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.Design Retrospective population based matched cohort study.Participants All people who were carefully selected to become a living kidney donor in the province of Ontario, Canada, between 1992 and 2009. The information in donor charts was manually reviewed and linked to provincial healthcare databases. Matched non-donors were selected from the healthiest segment of the general population. A total of 2028 donors and 20 280 matched non-donors were followed for a median of 6.5 years (maximum 17.7 years). Median age was 43 at the time of donation (interquartile range 34-50) and 50 at the time of follow-up (42-58).

No abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for patients with choroidal neovascular age-related macular degeneration (cn-AMD), diabetic macular oedema (DMO), macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-MO) and myopic choroidal neovascularisation (m-CNV).DesignSystematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.MethodsMultiple databases were searched from inception to 17 August 2017. Eligible head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the (anti-VEGF) drugs in adult patients aged ≥18 years with the retinal conditions of interest. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias.Results19 RCTs involving 7459 patients with cn-AMD (n=12), DMO (n=3), RVO-MO (n=2) and m-CNV (n=2) were included. Vision gain was not significantly different in patients with cn-AMD, DMO, RVO-MO and m-CNV treated with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Similarly, vision gain was not significantly different between cn-AMD patients treated with aflibercept versus ranibizumab. Patients with DMO treated with aflibercept experienced significantly higher vision gain at 12 months than patients receiving ranibizumab or bevacizumab; however, this difference was not significant at 24 months. Rates of systemic serious harms were similar across anti-VEGF agents. Posthoc analyses revealed that an as-needed treatment regimen (6–9 injections per year) was associated with a mortality increase of 1.8% (risk ratio: 2.0 [1.2 to 3.5], 2 RCTs, 1795 patients) compared with monthly treatment in cn-AMD patients.ConclusionsIntravitreal bevacizumab was a reasonable alternative to ranibizumab and aflibercept in patients with cn-AMD, DMO, RVO-MO and m-CNV. The only exception was for patients with DME and low visual acuity (<69 early treatment diabetic retinopathy study [ETDRS] letters), where treatment with aflibercept was associated with significantly higher vision gain (≥15 ETDRS letters) than bevacizumab or ranibizumab at 12 months; but the significant effects were not maintained at 24 months. The choice of anti-VEGF drugs may depend on the specific retinal condition, baseline visual acuity and treatment regimen.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42015022041.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in communitydwelling adults aged ≥65 years, from inception until February 27, 2019. Two large RCTs (published in 2020 after the search closed) were included in post hoc analyses. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. Results: NMA including 192 studies revealed that the following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fallers: exercise (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.89) and quality improvement strategies (e.g., patient education) (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.98). Exercise as a single intervention was associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86). Common components of multiple interventions significantly associated with a reduction in number of fallers and falls rate were exercise, assistive technology, environmental assessment and modifications, quality improvement strategies, and

ObjectiveTo review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.MethodsStudies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently.ResultsAfter screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.ConclusionsThere is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact.