Erratum to: Describe the outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: a systematic review protocol for the development of shared decision making resources

Dillon, Michael P.; Fatone, Stefania; Quigley, Matthew

doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0171-7

Cited by 106 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 1 publication

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other outcome in the 2001 core outcome set was “prevalence of breastfeeding”, an outcome that was reported in 18% of trials and none of the reviews in our sample, hence not among the most frequent outcomes we identified. We agree with various other authors regarding the pressing need for core outcome sets for high-burden conditions, such as HIV/AIDS [2,3,18,21]. …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…While those developing core outcome sets generally recognize that key stakeholder groups, such as consumers, health professionals, systematic reviewers, and clinical practice guideline developers, should be involved in the process [3], the likelihood that each group may bring different perspectives should also be considered. With so many stakeholders, some disease conditions may require core outcome sets of a larger size.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, the overall usefulness of trials and reviews is compromised when trials and reviews report data on different outcomes, or report data on the same outcomes measured or analyzed differently or at different time-points [2–5]. This ultimately hinders the applicability of review evidence for healthcare decision-making [3,6]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS

Saldanha

Yang

et al. 2017

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND The usefulness of clinical trials and systematic reviews is compromised when they report different outcomes. We compared outcomes in reviews of HIV/AIDS and the trials included in the reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We examined all Cochrane reviews of HIV/AIDS (as of June 2013) that included ≥ 1 trial, and the trials that the reviews included. We compared outcomes within subgroups defined by type of intervention: clinical management, biomedical prevention, behavioral prevention, and health services. RESULTS We included 84 reviews that encompassed 524 trials. Although the median number of outcomes per trial (8) and per review (7.5) was similar, the trials reported a considerably greater number of unique outcomes than the reviews (779 vs. 218), ranging from 2.3 times greater (clinical management) to 5.4 times greater (behavioral prevention). High proportions of trial outcomes were not in any review: 68% (clinical management) to 83% (behavioral prevention). Lower proportions of review outcomes were not in any trial: 11% (clinical management) to 39% (health services). CONCLUSION Outcomes in trials and reviews are not well aligned for appropriate inclusion of trial results in reviews and meta-analyses. Differences in perspectives, goals, and constraints between trialists and reviewers may explain differences in outcomes they consider important.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS

Saldanha

Yang

et al. 2017

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During consultations, HCEC members work directly with health care teams, patients, and families to address ethical concerns related to patient care. There has been a growing movement to assess the quality of the committees (Leslie et al 2016; Spike 2014; Tapper 2013) and to standardize the consultation process. Two professional organizations have been key to the movement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Membership recruitment and training in health care ethics committees: Results from a national pilot survey

Prince

Cadigan

Whipple

et al. 2017

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This pilot study reports on a survey regarding recruitment, appointment, and training of members for health care ethics committees (HCECs). Background Past studies have examined HCECs, but have focused on the roles of the committees and the broad makeup of membership. Thus, our study fills an important knowledge gap in trends of membership recruitment and appointment processes employed by HCECs to comprise their membership. Methods We posted our survey on several bioethics listservs between June and August 2015. Of the 103 respondents that started the survey, 59 were eligible for inclusion based on our criteria. We analyzed survey results descriptively and qualitatively. Results Overall we found no unifying standards of recruitment or appointment across the 59 respondents. Additionally, while responding committees varied in the professional backgrounds and attributes they valued in potential members, we found that most respondents valued traits of the applicants over specific knowledge or skills. Conclusions This study provides a first look into how HCECs recruit members. Future research is needed to better understand the complexities of the issues discovered during this study, given that the HCEC members appointed are the individuals who fulfill committee obligations.

show abstract

“…Upon request, the authors informed us that, using specialized screening software, the median number of articles that could be reviewed per hour was 68. Another recent study estimated the time needed to screen 1 record based on title and/or abstract at 1 minute [6]. A survey among review authors at Erasmus MC, to whom we had sent an earlier draft of this article, reported that the median number of titles and/or abstracts reviewed per hour with the present method was 308, with a maximum of 675.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote

Bramer

Milić²,

Mast

2017

jmla

155

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Erratum to: Describe the outcomes of dysvascular partial foot amputation and how these compare to transtibial amputation: a systematic review protocol for the development of shared decision making resources

Cited by 106 publications

References 1 publication

Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS

Clinical trials and systematic reviews addressing similar interventions for the same condition do not consider similar outcomes to be important: a case study in HIV/AIDS

Membership recruitment and training in health care ethics committees: Results from a national pilot survey

Reviewing retrieved references for inclusion in systematic reviews using EndNote

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About