Search

Abstract Background Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours. Currently, different pharmacological and surgical options are used to treat localised and metastatic GISTs, although this research field is broad and the body of evidence is scattered and expanding. Our objectives are to identify, describe and organise the current available evidence for GIST through an evidence mapping approach. Methods We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping (GEM). We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos in order to identify systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses published between 1990 and March 2016. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data. Methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR. We organised the results according to identified PICO questions and presented the evidence map in tables and a bubble plot. Results A total of 17 SRs met eligibility criteria. These reviews included 66 individual studies, of which three quarters were either observational or uncontrolled clinical trials. Overall, the quality of the included SRs was moderate or high. In total, we extracted 14 PICO questions from them and the corresponding results mostly favoured the intervention arm. Conclusions The most common type of study used to evaluate therapeutic interventions in GIST sarcomas has been non-experimental studies. However, the majority of the interventions are reported as beneficial or probably beneficial by the respective authors of SRs. The evidence mapping is a useful and reliable methodology to identify and present the existing evidence about therapeutic interventions.

Abstract Background Identifying scientific literature addressing patients’ views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence. Methods We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search’s precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR). Results We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: “Patient Preferences and Decision Making” and “Health State Utilities Values”. When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50. Conclusions This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients’ views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

Abstract Background Systematic reviews provide the best evidence on the effect of health care interventions. They rely on comprehensive access to the available scientific literature. Electronic search strategies alone may not suffice, requiring the implementation of a handsearching approach. We have developed a database to provide an Internet-based platform from which handsearching activities can be coordinated, including a procedure to streamline the submission of these references into CENTRAL, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials. Methods We developed a database and a descriptive analysis. Through brainstorming and discussion among stakeholders involved in handsearching projects, we designed a database that met identified needs that had to be addressed in order to ensure the viability of handsearching activities. Three handsearching teams pilot tested the proposed database. Once the final version of the database was approved, we proceeded to train the staff involved in handsearching. Results The proposed database is called BADERI (Database of Iberoamerican Clinical Trials and Journals, by its initials in Spanish). BADERI was officially launched in October 2015, and it can be accessed at www.baderi.com/login.php free of cost. BADERI has an administration subsection, from which the roles of users are managed; a references subsection, where information associated to identified controlled clinical trials (CCTs) can be entered; a reports subsection, from which reports can be generated to track and analyse the results of handsearching activities; and a built-in free text search engine. BADERI allows all references to be exported in ProCite files that can be directly uploaded into CENTRAL. To date, 6284 references to CCTs have been uploaded to BADERI and sent to CENTRAL. The identified CCTs were published in a total of 420 journals related to 46 medical specialties. The year of publication ranged between 1957 and 2016. Conclusions BADERI allows the efficient management of handsearching activities across different countries and institutions. References to all CCTs available in BADERI can be readily submitted to CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews.

Abstract Background To date there is no consensus about the optimal strategy for keeping clinical guidelines (CGs) up-to-date. The aims of this study were (1) to develop a continuous surveillance and updating strategy for CGs and (2) to test the strategy in a specific CG. Methods The main steps were as follows: (1) recruiting members for the CG Updating Working Group, (2) mapping the CG, (3) identifying new evidence from the CG Updating Working Group, (4) designing and running restricted literature searches, (5) reviewing drugs and medical devices alerts, (6) screening and assessing the new evidence, (7) reviewing and, if necessary, modifying clinical questions and recommendations, and (8) updating the CG document. Results The Pregnancy CG Updating Working Group consisted of 29 members, including clinicians, patients and caregivers, and clinical guideline methodology experts. We selected 69 clinical questions (123 recommendations) from the “Assistance during pregnancy” section. For the first update cycle (32-month duration), 9710 references were identified. Of these, 318 were pertinent, 289 were relevant, and 55 were classified as potential key references. For the second and third update cycles (6-month duration each), 2160 and 2010 references were retrieved, respectively. The continuous surveillance and updating strategy has not yet been completely implemented. Conclusions Further resources are needed in updating the CG field, both for implementing updating strategies and for developing methodological research.