Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None.

Objectives: Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions., Results: Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring., Conclusion: Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To enhance equity in clinical and epidemiological research, it is crucial to understand researcher motivations for conducting equity-relevant studies. Therefore, we evaluated author motivations in a randomly selected sample of equity-relevant observational studies published during the COVID-19 pandemic., Study Design and Setting: We searched MEDLINE for studies from 2020 to 2022, resulting in 16,828 references. We randomly selected 320 studies purposefully sampled across income setting (high vs low-middle-income), COVID-19 topic (vs non-COVID-19), and focus on populations experiencing inequities. Of those, 206 explicitly mentioned motivations which we analyzed thematically. We used discourse analysis to investigate the reasons behind emerging motivations., Results: We identified the following motivations: (1) examining health disparities, (2) tackling social determinants to improve access, and (3) addressing knowledge gaps in health equity. Discourse analysis showed motivations stem from commitments to social justice and recognizing the importance of highlighting it in research. Other discourses included aspiring to improve health-care efficiency, wanting to understand cause-effect relationships, and seeking to contribute to an equitable evidence base., Conclusion: Understanding researchers' motivations for assessing health equity can aid in developing guidance that tailors to their needs. We will consider these motivations in developing and sharing equity guidance to better meet researchers' needs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest L.G.C. is employed by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO). The ideas expressed in this manuscript are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the decisions and policies of PAHO/WHO. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Incorporating health equity considerations into guideline development often requires information beyond that gathered through traditional evidence synthesis methodology. This article outlines an operationalization plan for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)-equity criterion to gather and assess evidence from primary studies within systematic reviews, enhancing guideline recommendations to promote equity. We demonstrate its use in a clinical guideline on medical cannabis for chronic pain., Study Design and Setting: We reviewed GRADE guidance and resources recommended by team members regarding the use of evidence for equity considerations, drafted an operationalization plan, and iteratively refined it through team discussion and feedback and piloted it on a medicinal cannabis guideline., Results: We propose a seven-step approach: 1) identify disadvantaged populations, 2) examine available data for specific populations, 3) evaluate population baseline risk for primary outcomes, 4) assess representation of these populations in primary studies, 5) appraise analyses, 6) note barriers to implementation of effective interventions for these populations, and 7) suggest supportive strategies to facilitate implementation of effective interventions., Conclusion: Our approach assists guideline developers in recognizing equity considerations, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Its application across various guideline topics can verify its feasibility and necessary adjustments., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate an approach using automation and crowdsourcing to identify and classify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a living systematic review (LSR)., Methods: Records from a database search for RCTs in RA were screened first by machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to exclude non-RCTs, then by trainee reviewers using a Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) annotator platform to assess eligibility and classify the trial to the appropriate review. Disagreements were resolved by experts using a custom online tool. We evaluated the efficiency gains, sensitivity, accuracy, and interrater agreement (kappa scores) between reviewers., Results: From 42,452 records, machine learning and Cochrane Crowd excluded 28,777 (68%), trainee reviewers excluded 4,529 (11%), and experts excluded 7,200 (17%). The 1,946 records eligible for our LSR represented 220 RCTs and included 148/149 (99.3%) of known eligible trials from prior reviews. Although excluded from our LSRs, 6,420 records were classified as other RCTs in RA to inform future reviews. False negative rates among trainees were highest for the RCT domain (12%), although only 1.1% of these were for the primary record. Kappa scores for two reviewers ranged from moderate to substantial agreement (0.40-0.69)., Conclusion: A screening approach combining machine learning, crowdsourcing, and trainee participation substantially reduced the screening burden for expert reviewers and was highly sensitive., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Our objectives were to identify what and how data relating to the social determinants of health are collected and reported in equity-relevant studies and map these data to the PROGRESS-Plus framework., Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review. We ran two systematic searches of MEDLINE and Embase for equity-relevant studies published during 2021. We included studies in any language without limitations to participant characteristics. Included studies were required to have collected and reported at least two participant variables relevant to evaluating individual-level social determinants of health. We applied the PROGRESS-Plus framework to identify and organize these data., Results: We extracted data from 200 equity-relevant studies, providing 962 items defined by PROGRESS-Plus. A median of 4 (interquartile range = 2) PROGRESS-Plus items were reported in the included studies. 92% of studies reported age; 78% reported sex/gender; 65% reported educational attainment; 49% reported socioeconomic status; 45% reported race; 44% reported social capital; 33% reported occupation; 14% reported place and 9% reported religion., Conclusion: Our synthesis demonstrated that researchers currently collect a limited range of equity-relevant data, but usefully provides a range of examples spanning PROGRESS-Plus to inform the development of improved, standardized practices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest E.L.K. has received speaker fees for lectures on pain and rehabilitation from professional and scientific bodies and reimbursement of travel costs related to presentations at scientific conferences/symposia. G.L.M. has received support from Reality Health, ConnectHealth UK, Institutes of Health California, AIA Australia, Workers’ Compensation Boards and professional sporting organisations in Australia, Europe, South America, and North America. Professional and scientific bodies have reimbursed him for travel costs related to presentation of research on pain and pain education at scientific conferences/symposia. He has received speaker fees for lectures on pain, pain education, and rehabilitation and conference travel support from Sequirus. He receives royalties for books on pain and pain education. P.T. has received consulting fees to provide independent medical consultation and professional services. He is an independent Committee Member for clinical trial Data Safety Monitoring Boards for FDA-approved trials being conducted by UCB Biopharma GmbH & SPRL, Parexel International, and Prahealth Sciences. P.T. is an [unpaid] Chair of the Management Subcommittee of the Executive Committee of a registered non-profit independent medical research organization, OMERACT. OMERACT receives unrestricted educational grants from the American College of Rheumatology, European League of Rheumatology, and several pharmaceutical companies listed in this section, which is used to support fellows and international patient groups and support a major international bi-annual conference which results in many peer-reviewed publications. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations., Methods: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria., Results: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94)., Conclusion: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Several authors (L.R., M.L., G.H.) were involved in the development of guidelines that were included in the study. However, they did not participate in the evaluation of health equity considerations in the study. Authors hold sole responsibility for the views expressed in the manuscript, which may not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of the Pan American Health Organization, Canadian Rheumatology Association. The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest TWC declares contracts with CDC NIOSH to evaluate a research program with a stakeholder engagement component, with NY AIDS Bureau and HRSA to develop measures for engagement in HIV care quality, with PCORI to identify measures of engagement, with Innovation and Value Initiative to develop an approach for patient involvement in HTA, and with PhRMA to evaluate equity and inclusion in HTA. He has received an award and subsequent contract by PhRMA foundation for proposing a new approach for engaging patient in HTA. He serves as a director of community and stakeholder engagement for the Tufts CTSI (NIH/NCATS). He receives royalties by Springer International Publishing for serving as editor of a volume: “Broadly Engaged Team Science in Clinical and Translational Research.” He received a payment by Virginia Commonwealth University Wright Center for reviewing a grant proposal and anticipates payments by Henry Stewart Talks in 2022-23 for delivering four to six online lectures. PhRMA supported his attendance at ISPOR 22. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.

Objectives: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity., Results: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators"., Conclusion: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Although Luis Gabriel Cuervo is an official of the Pan American Health Organization, the views expressed in this publication are his sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO)., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews., Study Design and Setting: This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team., Results: We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples., Conclusion: Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: To develop a digital communication tool to improve the implementation of up-to-date COVID-19 recommendations. Specifically, to improve patient, caregiver and public understanding of healthcare recommendations on prevention, diagnoses and treatment., Methods: Multi-stakeholder engagement design. In conjunction with the COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization RecMap, we co-developed a stakeholder prioritization, drafting and editing process to enhance guideline communication and understanding., Results: This paper presents the multi-stakeholder development process with three distinct plain language recommendation formats: formal recommendation, good practice statement, and additional guidance. Our case study of COVID-19 plain language recommendations PLRs addresses both public health interventions (e.g., vaccination, face masks) and clinical interventions (e.g., home pulse oximetry)., Conclusion: This paper presents a novel approach to engaging stakeholders in improving the communication and understanding of published guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To understand trainee experiences of participating in a living systematic review (LSR) for rheumatoid arthritis and the potential benefits in terms of experiential evidence-based medicine (EBM) education., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a mixed-methods study with trainees who participated in the LSR and who were recruited broadly from training programs in two countries. Trainees received task-specific training and completed one or more tasks in the review: assessing article eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment. Trainees completed a survey followed by a one-on-one interview. Data were triangulated to produce broad themes., Results: Twenty one trainees, most of whom had a little prior experience with systematic reviews, reported a positive overall experience. Key benefits included learning opportunities, task segmentation (ability to focus on a single task, as opposed to an entire review), working in a supportive environment, international collaboration, and incentives such as authorship or acknowledgment. Trainees reported improvement in their competency as a Scholar, Collaborator, Leader, and Medical Expert. Challenges included communication and technical difficulties and appropriate matching of tasks to trainee skillsets., Conclusion: Participating in an LSR provided benefits to a wide range of trainees and may provide an opportunity for experiential EBM training, while helping LSR sustainability., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe divergence between actionable statements issued by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) guideline developers cataloged on the "COVID-19 Recommendations and Gateway to Contextualization" platform., Study Design and Setting: We defined divergence as at least two comparable actionable statements with different explicit judgments of strength, direction, or subgroup consideration of the population or intervention. We applied a content analysis to compare guideline development methods for a sample of diverging statements and to evaluate factors associated with divergence., Results: Of the 138 guidelines evaluated, 85 (62%) contained at least one statement that diverged from another guideline. We identified 223 diverging statements in these 85 guidelines. We grouped statements into 66 clusters. Each cluster addressed the same population, intervention, and comparator group or just similar interventions. Clinical practice statements were more likely to diverge in an explicit judgment of strength or direction compared to public health statements. Statements were more likely to diverge in strength than direction. The date of publication, used evidence, interpretation of evidence, and contextualization considerations were associated with divergence., Conclusion: More than half of the assessed guidelines issued at least one diverging statement. This study helps in understanding the types of differences between guidelines issuing comparable statements and factors associated with their divergence., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To explore mortality outcome usage in Cochrane systematic reviews and Core Outcome Sets for research., Study Design and Setting: Cochrane PICO searches identified Cochrane reviews (published January 2015-March 2021) including mortality outcomes. These outcomes were categorized according to terminology used: all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, infant mortality, maternal mortality, survival. Mortality outcomes in Core Outcome Sets (published until 2019 on the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database) were also extracted and categorized., Results: In total, 2454 mortality outcomes were reported in 49% (1978/3999) of Cochrane reviews published January 2015-March 2021: all-cause (37%), infant (23%), maternal (11%), survival (10%), cause-specific (9%). Due to reviews not specifying mortality outcome type or including studies reporting no data, 11% (273/2208) remained uncategorized. Infant mortality and maternal mortality were frequently used together in reviews reporting two mortality outcomes. In total, 226 mortality outcomes were reported in 37% (165/449) of Core Outcome Sets: all-cause (48%), survival (27%), cause-specific (12%), infant (9%), maternal (4%). Mortality measurement timing varied., Conclusion: Mortality outcome usage varies in Cochrane reviews and Core Outcome Sets. This is problematic for evidence-based decision-making. Greater standardization is necessary for effective utilization of health research., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines., Study Design and Setting: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework., Results: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process., Conclusion: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: We describe a systematic approach to preparing data in the conduct of Individual Participant Data (IPD) analysis., Study Design and Setting: A guidance paper proposing methods for preparing individual participant data for meta-analysis from multiple study sources, developed by consultation of relevant guidance and experts in IPD. We present an example of how these steps were applied in checking data for our own IPD meta analysis (IPD-MA)., Results: We propose five steps of Processing, Replication, Imputation, Merging, and Evaluation to prepare individual participant data for meta-analysis (PRIME-IPD). Using our own IPD-MA as an exemplar, we found that this approach identified missing variables and potential inconsistencies in the data, facilitated the standardization of indicators across studies, confirmed that the correct data were received from investigators, and resulted in a single, verified dataset for IPD-MA., Conclusion: The PRIME-IPD approach can assist researchers to systematically prepare, manage and conduct important quality checks on IPD from multiple studies for meta-analyses. Further testing of this framework in IPD-MA would be useful to refine these steps., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: This paper presents a unified framework for assessment of the methodological quality of analytic study designs., Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of 393 methodological quality assessment tools that updated a previous assessment with 100 tools. Tool items were extracted, examined and reworded. Bias domains and finally methodological standards to be fulfilled were defined., Results: There were 36 unique methodological safeguards that were categorized into seven methodological standards to be fulfilled in the MASTER scale. These methodological standards reflect initial and ongoing equivalence in particular areas, including equal recruitment, equal retention, equal ascertainment, equal implementation, equal prognosis, sufficient analysis, and temporal precedence., Conclusion: This approach unifies existing methods for methodological quality assessment and will be useful for (1) clinical researchers when a bias assessment of clinical research studies is required across analytical designs, (2) promoting a unified framework for bias assessment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Objective: To present a structured approach for assessing stakeholder perceptions and implementing the approach in guideline development., Methods: This work was carried out by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Equity and Stakeholder Engagement Project Groups through brainstorming and iterative frameworks, stakeholder engagement, pilot testing, refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes a GRADE conceptual article on implementation., Results: We introduce the FACE implementation criteria, feasibility, acceptability, cost, and equity; priority; and "intent to implement" criterion. We outline the implementation importance of networks and approaches to patient and other stakeholder engagement. Implementation is often highly contextual and can benefit from stakeholder engagement and other assessments. Our FACE approach provides stakeholder questions and language to inform guideline implementation and tools., Conclusion: The FACE criteria propose a series of knowledge translation questions to guide the assessment of implementation for evidence-based guidelines. It is desirable for guideline developers to use a conceptual approach, such as FACE, to tailor implementation and inform end of guideline dissemination and knowledge translation activities., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)