Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Agarwal, Arnav; Johnston, Bradley C.; Vernooij, Robin W.M.; Carrasco-Labra, Alonso; Brignardello‐Petersen, Romina; Neumann, Ignacio; Akl, Elie A.; Sun, Xin; Briel, Matthias; Busse, Jason W.; Ebrahim, Shanil; Granados, Carlos; Iorio, Alfonso; Irfan, Affan; García, Laura Martínez; Mustafa, Reem A.; Ramírez-Morera, Anggie; Selva, Anna; Solà, Iván; Sanabrai, Andrea J.; Tikkinen, Kari A.O.; Vandvik, Per Olav; Zazueta, Oscar E.; Zhou, Qi; Schünemann, Holger J.; Guyatt, Gordon; Alonso‐Coello, Pablo

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.004

Cited by 29 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This proportion was higher than for non-Cochrane reviews[ 11 ]. Two previous studies also found consistent results, with 68% to 71% of the reviews considering PIOs as primary outcomes[ 21 , 22 ]. A large survey of the completeness of main outcomes mapped the availability of information for a major clinical outcome across randomized trials and systematic reviews in an entire discipline: 75% of reviews reported the major clinical outcome as compared with only 20% of primary trial reports [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes.MethodsWe performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables.ResultsWe included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews).ConclusionsMany outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…We considered mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions as PIOs consistent with previous studies [ 8 , 11 , 21 , 22 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Included studies must have been published in peer-reviewed journals. We set no limitations on language, geographic location or setting to limit the identified impact from poor reporting of outcomes in medical research (19)(20)(21)(22)(23). A medical information specialist assisted in developing the search strategies (Additional File 1).…”

Section: Search Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audiovisual Educational Intervention for Children and Adolescent with Cancer: A Systematic Review

Yamaji¹,

Suzuki²,

Suto³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background : Audiovisual materials for children have been widely used for cancer education; however, the effects of the materials remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effects of audiovisual educational interventions for children.Methods : We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL on 3 September 2018. Randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials that evaluated the audiovisual materials for children with cancer were included to identify the effects of the audiovisual interventions. The results of the analysis were evaluated using the Grade of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence.Results: From the identified 5,367 studies, we included four reports based on two trials that included 388 children under 18 years old. One trial found that audiovisual educational intervention increased knowledge and self-efficacy (very low certainty of the evidence). The other trial reported that there were no clear differences in perceived stress and health locus of control (very low certainty of the evidence). The result of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no clear difference between the intervention group and the control group for the quality of life (very low certainty of the evidence).Conclusion: Audiovisual interventions might increase knowledge and self-efficacy, but there were no meaningful overall conclusions. Further trials are needed to assess educational interventions used in pediatric cancer treatment. Healthcare professionals should consider whether the materials they are currently using to communicate cancer-related information are sufficient and understandable for children with cancer.Systematic review registration: We registered the protocol to the PROSPERO (Registration: CRD42018110562)

show abstract

“…The importance of defining, choosing, measuring, analyzing, and reporting outcomes appropriately has always been at the core of health care practice and research since evidence‐based medicine came into play . In particular, concepts like patient important outcomes (as opposed to physiopathological outcomes), clinically important difference (in its many definitions) and the observation that important outcomes are often patient‐reported have progressively gained traction in the health care and hemophilia communities.…”

Section: The Evolution Of Outcome Measurement Theory Patient‐reportementioning

confidence: 99%

Hemophilia trials in the twenty‐first century: Defining patient important outcomes

Konkle

Skinner

Iorio

2019

Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment for hemophilia has advanced dramatically over the past 5 decades. Success of prophylactic therapy in preventing bleeding and decreasing associated complications has established a new standard of care. However, with the advent of gene therapy and treatments that effectively mimic sustained coagulation factor replacement, outcome measures that worked well for assessing factor replacement therapies in past clinical trials need to be reassessed. In addition, while therapies have advanced, so has the science of outcome assessment, including recognition of the importance of patient important and patient reported outcomes. This manuscript reviews strengths and limitations of outcome measures used in hemophilia from both a provider and patient perspective.

show abstract

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

Cited by 29 publications

References 21 publications

Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence

Patient-important outcomes in systematic reviews: Poor quality of evidence

Audiovisual Educational Intervention for Children and Adolescent with Cancer: A Systematic Review

Hemophilia trials in the twenty‐first century: Defining patient important outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About