Search

Background: Systematic reviews should inform American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Pattern® (PPP) guidelines. The quality of systematic reviews related to the forthcoming Preferred Practice Pattern® guideline (PPP) Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery is unknown. We sought to identify reliable systematic reviews to assist the AAO Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery PPP.Methods: Systematic reviews were eligible if they evaluated the effectiveness or safety of interventions included in the 2012 PPP Refractive Errors & Refractive Surgery. To identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, we searched the Cochrane Eyes and Vision United States Satellite database of systematic reviews. Two authors identified eligible reviews and abstracted information about the characteristics and quality of the reviews independently using the Systematic Review Data Repository. We classified systematic reviews as "reliable" when they (1) defined criteria for the selection of studies, (2) conducted comprehensive literature searches for eligible studies, (3) assessed the methodological quality (risk of bias) of the included studies, (4) used appropriate methods for meta-analyses (which we assessed only when meta-analyses were reported), (5) presented conclusions that were supported by the evidence provided in the review.Results: We identified 124 systematic reviews related to refractive error; 39 met our eligibility criteria, of which we classified 11 to be reliable. Systematic reviews classified as unreliable did not define the criteria for selecting studies (5; 13%), did not assess methodological rigor (10; 26%), did not conduct comprehensive searches (17; 44%), or used inappropriate quantitative methods (3; 8%). The 11 reliable reviews were published between 2002 and 2016. They included 0 to 23 studies (median = 9) and analyzed 0 to 4696 participants (median = 666). Seven reliable reviews (64%) assessed surgical interventions.Conclusions: Most systematic reviews of interventions for refractive error are low methodological quality. Following widely accepted guidance, such as Cochrane or Institute of Medicine standards for conducting systematic reviews, would contribute to improved patient care and inform future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several papers report deficiencies in the reporting of information about the implementation of interventions in clinical trials. Information about implementation is also required in systematic reviews of complex interventions to facilitate the translation and uptake of evidence of provider-based prevention and treatment programs. To capture whether and how implementation is assessed within systematic effectiveness reviews, we developed a checklist for implementation (Ch-IMP) and piloted it in a cohort of reviews on provider-based prevention and treatment interventions for children and young people. This paper reports on the inter-rater reliability, feasibility and reasons for discrepant ratings. Methods: Checklist domains were informed by a framework for program theory; items within domains were generated from a literature review. The checklist was pilot-tested on a cohort of 27 effectiveness reviews targeting children and youth. Two raters independently extracted information on 47 items. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using percentage agreement and unweighted kappa coefficients. Reasons for discrepant ratings were content analysed. Results: Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.37 to 1.00 and were not influenced by one-sided bias. Most kappa values were classified as excellent (n = 20) or good (n = 17) with a few items categorised as fair (n = 7) or poor (n = 1). Prevalence-adjusted kappa coefficients indicate good or excellent agreement for all but one item. Four areas contributed to scoring discrepancies: 1) clarity or sufficiency of information provided in the review; 2) information missed in the review; 3) issues encountered with the tool; and 4) issues encountered at the review level. Use of the tool demands time investment and it requires adjustment to improve its feasibility for wider use. Conclusions: The case of provider-based prevention and treatment interventions showed relevancy in developing and piloting the Ch-IMP as a useful tool for assessing the extent to which systematic reviews assess the quality of implementation. The checklist could be used by authors and editors to improve the quality of systematic reviews, and shows promise as a pedagogical tool to facilitate the extraction and reporting of implementation characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about whether peer support improves outcomes for people with severe mental illness. Method A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane CENTRAL Register, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to July 2013 without restriction by publication status. Randomised trials of non-residential peer support interventions were included. Trial interventions were categorised and analysed separately as: mutual peer support, peer support services, or peer delivered mental health services. Meta-analyses were performed where possible, and studies were assessed for bias and the quality of evidence described. Results Eighteen trials including 5597 participants were included. These comprised four trials of mutual support programmes, eleven trials of peer support services, and three trials of peer-delivered services. There was substantial variation between trials in participants' characteristics and programme content. Outcomes were incompletely reported; there was high risk of bias. From small numbers of studies in the analyses it was possible to conduct, there was little or no evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on hospitalisation, overall symptoms or satisfaction with services. There was some evidence that peer support was associated with positive effects on measures of hope, recovery and empowerment at and beyond the end of the intervention, although this was not consistent within or across different types of peer support. Conclusions Despite the promotion and uptake of peer support internationally, there is little evidence from current trials about the effects of peer support for people with severe mental illness. Although there are few positive findings, this review has important implications for policy and practice: current evidence does not support recommendations or mandatory requirements from policy makers for mental health services to provide peer support programmes. Further peer support programmes should be implemented within the context of high quality research projects wherever possible. Deficiencies in the conduct and reporting of existing trials exemplify difficulties in the evaluation of complex interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Determining the effectiveness of social and psychological interventions is important for improving individual and population health. Such interventions are complex and, where possible, are best evaluated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The use of research findings in policy and practice decision making is hindered by poor reporting of RCTs. Poor reporting limits the ability to replicate interventions, synthesise evidence in systematic reviews, and utilise findings for evidence-based policy and practice. The lack of guidance for reporting the specific methodological features of complex intervention RCTs contributes to poor reporting. We aim to develop an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement for Social and Psychological Interventions (CONSORT-SPI). Methods/design: This research project will be conducted in five phases. The first phase was the project launch, which consisted of the establishment of a Project Executive and International Advisory Group, and recruitment of journal editors and the CONSORT Group. The second phase involves a Delphi process that will generate a list of possible items to include in the CONSORT Extension. Next, there will be a formal consensus meeting to select the reporting items to add to, or modify for, the CONSORT-SPI Extension. Fourth, guideline documents will be written, including an explanation and elaboration (E&E) document that will provide detailed advice for each item and examples of good reporting. The final phase will comprise guideline dissemination, with simultaneous publication and endorsement of the guideline in multiple journals, endorsement by funding agencies, presentations at conferences and other meetings, and a dedicated website that will facilitate feedback about the guideline. Conclusion: As demonstrated by previous CONSORT guidelines, the development of an evidence-based reporting guideline for social and psychological intervention RCTs should improve the accuracy, comprehensiveness, and transparency of study reports. This, in turn, promises to improve the critical appraisal of research and its use in policy and practice decision making. We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website (http://tinyurl.com/CONSORT-study). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social and psychological interventions are often complex. Understanding randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of these complex interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them; however, RCT reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources, and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. In this paper, we explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine, and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for RCTs: CONSORTSPI (an Extension for social and psychological interventions). We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website, in order to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines (http://tinyurl.com/ CONSORT-study). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018.Methods: We followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010.Results: The CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention.Conclusions: Authors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]