Search

BackgroundAdherence to study registration and reporting best practices are vital to foster evidence-based medicine. Poor adherence to these standards in clinical trials conducted in Canada would be detrimental to patients, researchers, and the public alike.MethodsAll registered clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov conducted in Canada as of 2009 and completed by 2019 were identified. A cross-sectional analysis of those trials assessed prospective registration, subsequent result reporting in the registry, and subsequent publication of study findings. The lead sponsor, phase of study, clinical trial site location, total patient enrollment, number of arms, type of masking, type of allocation, year of completion, and patient demographics were examined as potential effect modifiers to these best practices.ResultsA total of 6,720 trials met the inclusion criteria. From 2009-2019, 59% (n=3,967) of them were registered prospectively and 39% (n=2,642) reported their results in the registry. Of the trials registered between 2009-2014, 55% (n=1,482) were subsequently published in an academic journal. Of the 3,763 trials conducted exclusively in Canada, 3% (n=123) met all 3 criteria of: prospective registration, reporting in the registry, and publishing findings. In contrast, of the remaining 2,957 trials with both Canadian and international sites, 41% (n=1,238) had an overall compliance to these three criteria. Overall, the odds of having adherence to all three practices concurrently in Canadian trials decreases by 95% when compared to international trials (OR = 0.05; 95CI: 0.04 – 0.06).ConclusionCanadian clinical trials substantially lacked adherence to study registration and reporting best practices. Knowledge of this widespread non-compliance should motivate stakeholders in the Canadian clinical trials ecosystem to address and continue to monitor this problem. The data presented provides a baseline against which to compare any improvement in the registration and reporting of clinical trials in Canada.

Objective: To evaluate the magnitude of the association between risk factors and premature myocardial infarction (MI) (men aged 18-55 years; women aged 18-65 years). Patients and Methods: We searched MEDLINE and other databases from inception through April 30, 2020, as well as bibliography of articles selected for data extraction. We selected observational studies reporting the magnitude of the association of at least 1 risk factor (demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, clinical risk factors, or biomarkers) with premature MI and a control group. Pooled risk estimates (random effects) from all studies unadjusted and adjusted for risk factors were reported as summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Results: From 35,320 articles of 12.7 million participants, we extracted data on 19 risk factors from 77 studies across 58 countries. Men had a higher risk of premature MI (OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.35) than did women. Family history of cardiac disease was associated with a higher risk of premature MI (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.29 to 3.27). Major modifiable risk factors associated with higher risk were current smoking (OR, 4.34; 95% CI, 3.68 to 5.12 vs no/former), diabetes mellitus (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.69 to 4.65), dyslipidemia (OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.76 to 4.91), and hypertension (OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 2.48 to 3.27). Higher body mass index carried higher risk (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.71 for ≥25 kg/m2 vs

Background: Reproducibility is a central tenant of research. Explicit reproducibility checks are made across different disciplines trying to assess the replication of previously published studies. We aimed to synthesize the literature on reproducibility and describe its epidemiological characteristics, including how reproducibility is defined and assessed. We also aimed to determine and compare estimates for reproducibility across different fields.Methods and Findings: We conducted a scoping review to identify English language replication studies published between 2018-2019 in economics, education, psychology, health sciences and biomedicine. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature – CINAHL, Education Source via EBSCOHost, ERIC, EconPapers, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), and EconLit. Documents retrieved were screened in duplicate against our inclusion criteria. We extracted year of publication, number of authors, country of affiliation of the corresponding author, and whether the study was funded. For the individual replication studies, we recorded whether a registered protocol was used, whether there was contact between the replicating team and the original authors, what study design was used, and what the primary outcome was. Finally, we recorded how replication was defined by the authors, and whether the assessed study(ies) successfully replicated based on this definition. Extraction was done by a single reviewer and quality controlled by a second reviewer. Our search identified 11,224 unique documents, of which 47 were included in this review. Most studies were related to either psychology (48.6%) or health sciences (23.7%). Among these 47 documents, 36 described a single replication study while the remaining 11 reported at least two replications in the same paper. Less than the half of the studies referred to a registered protocol. There was variability in the definitions of replication success. In total, across the 47 documents 177 studies were reported. Based on the definition used by the author of each study, 95 of 177 (53.7%) studies replicated. Conclusion: This study gives an overview of research across five disciplines that explicitly set out to replicate previous research. Such replication studies are extremely scarce, the definition of a success in replication is ambiguous, and the replication rate is overall modest.

Background When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review. Methods We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher’s PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types. Results We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ2 (4) = 23.50, p Conclusion Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions.

This scoping review was designed to synthesize the extant literature on associations between subjective and/or objective measures of cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) and blood-based biomarkers in adults with non-central nervous system cancers. The literature search was done for studies published from the start of each database searched (i.e., MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, grey literature) through to October 20, 2021. A total of 95 studies are included in this review. Of note, a wide variety of biomarkers were evaluated. Most studies evaluated patients with breast cancer. A variety of cognitive assessment measures were used. The most consistent significant findings were with various subjective and objective measures of CRCI and levels of interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor. Overall, biomarker research is in an exploratory phase. However, this review synthesizes findings and proposes directions for future research.

Background Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers. Methods This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment. Discussion The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers. Trial registration Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at 10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.

Older adults with cancer may be spousal caregivers for partners with one or more chronic conditions, and there has not been an overview of the needs of this population. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review to assess what is known about the type and amount of spousal care provided by older adults (≥65 years) with any type of cancer, in the active treatment phase.A search strategy was designed with a Health Sciences Librarian and performed using the following electronic databases from inception to January 2021: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycInfo. Two independent reviewers screened all abstracts and full-text studies for inclusion.Searches were run February 26, 2020, and re-run January 8, 2021. A total of 8887 titles and abstracts were screened and 32 selected for full text review, but only two case reports were included in this review. The two case reports discussed the experience of an older adult with cancer, in active treatment, as the caregiver to a spouse. However, the type and amount of care provided by the caregiver to the spouse was not specified in either report. In both reports, caregivers declined cancer therapy to focus on the needs of the care recipients.Only two case reports were identified that examined the experiences of older adults with cancer acting as caregivers to a spouse. It is important for future studies to address this gap to better understand the needs of this population and develop future supportive interventions.

Importance Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline’s core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Objective.We performed a systematic review of the literature to describe current knowledge of cardiovascular (CV) risk prediction algorithms in rheumatic diseases.Methods.A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases was performed. The search was restricted to original publications in English, had to include clinical CV events as study outcomes, assess the predictive properties of at least 1 CV risk prediction algorithm, and include patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or psoriasis. By design, only cohort studies that followed participants for CV events were selected.Results.Eleven of 146 identified manuscripts were included. Studies evaluated the predictive performance of the Framingham Risk Score, QRISK2, Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), Reynolds Risk Score, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE), Expanded Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Score for Rheumatoid Arthritis (ERS-RA), and the Italian Progetto CUORE score. Approaches to improve predictive performance of general risk algorithms in patients with RA included the use of multipliers, biomarkers, disease-specific variables, or a combination of these to modify or develop an algorithm. In both SLE and PsA patients, multipliers were applied to general risk algorithms. In studies of RA and SLE patients, efforts to include nontraditional risk factors, disease-related variables, multipliers, and biomarkers largely failed to substantially improve risk estimates.Conclusion.Our study confirmed that general risk algorithms mostly underestimate and at times overestimate CV risk in rheumatic patients. We did not find studies that evaluated models for psoriasis or AS, which further demonstrates a need for research in these populations.

Scoping reviews are a methods-focused type of literature review, which have become an attractive review type in social science disciplines. Scoping reviews allow researchers to address exploratory research questions and synthesize findings from a variety of study types including both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Although research shows steady growth in the number of scoping reviews being published each year, there are gaps in our understanding of the basic patterns and practices used in scoping reviews in the social science disciplines, in particular. The objective of this scoping review is to explore the disciplinary spread of scoping reviews in the social sciences, the search practices used in these reviews, and the participation of LIS professionals in this type of knowledge synthesis work.

OBJECTIVES: Despite wide usage of the PRISMA Statement reporting guideline by systematic review authors, compliance with its items regarding literature search reporting is suboptimal. We sought to develop an international standard for literature search reporting aligned with the PRISMA Statement to improve the quality and reproducibility of reported literature searches.METHODOLOGY: We formed an executive committee to lead the PRISMA-S extension development. The study protocol was published prior to study inception. To identify potential items for inclusion, we performed a literature search. Identified items were reviewed for overlap and consolidated. We then used a three-step Delphi survey process to assess the items. The first survey asked 163 international experts to rate each item, and the second and third rounds asked respondents to select the 25 most necessary items for a checklist. Potential items moved to rounds 2 and 3 based on pre-specified criteria. Remaining items were discussed at an in-person consensus conference. After the consensus conference, the remaining items were consolidated into a checklist. Executive committee members developed an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. The checklist and documentation were distributed for pilot testing. RESULTS: We identified 405 potential items from 61 sources located through the literature search process. Sources included both explicit reporting guidelines and studies assessing reproducibility of search strategies. These were consolidated into 123 potential items for the Delphi survey. We received 52 responses (32% response rate) to the first survey, and 35 (67% response rate) to both surveys two and three. The results of the Delphi process were reported at the consensus conference meeting in May 2016. Post-consensus conference, 34 items remained. The checklist was finalized into 13 items and 10 sub-items. Pilot testing is underway. This document is the draft for the Explanation & Elaboration for Draft 1, released for review/testing.CONCLUSIONS: The PRISMA-S extension for the PReferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline will provide a consensus-driven international standard for literature search reporting. Using this new reporting guideline may enable librarians and information specialists to produce higher quality, more reproducible, transparent search strategies for systematic reviews and other literature review-based publications.

ObjectivesThe overall objectives of this rapid scoping review are to (a) synthesize the common triggers of stress, burnout, and depression faced by women in health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, and (b) identify individual-, organizational-, and systems-level interventions that can support the well-being of women HCWs during a pandemic.DesignThis scoping review is registered on Open Science Framework (OSF) and was guided by the JBI guide to scoping reviews and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension to scoping reviews. A systematic search of literature databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and ERIC) was conducted from 2003 until June 12, 2020. Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles according to predefined criteria.InterventionsWe included review articles and primary studies that reported on stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs; that primarily focused on women; and that included the percentage or number of women included. All English language studies from any geographical setting where COVID-19 has affected the population were reviewed.Primary and secondary outcome measuresStudies reporting on mental health outcomes (e.g., stress, burnout, and depression in HCWs), interventions to support mental health well-being were included.ResultsOf the 2,803 papers found, 31 were included. The triggers of stress, burnout and depression are grouped under individual-, organizational-, and systems-level factors. There is a limited amount of evidence on effective interventions that prevents anxiety, stress, burnout and depression during a pandemic.ConclusionsOur preliminary findings show that women HCWs are at increased risk for stress, burnout, and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic. These negative outcomes are triggered by individual level factors such as lack of social support; family status; organizational factors such as access to personal protective equipment or high workload; and systems-level factors such as prevalence of COVID-19, rapidly changing public health guidelines, and a lack of recognition at work.Strengths and limitations of this studyA rapid scoping review was conducted to identify stress, burnout and depression faced by women HCWs during COVID-19.To ensure the relevance of our review, representatives from the women HCWs were engaged in defining the review scope, developing review questions, approving the protocol and literature search strategies, and identifying key messages.It provides a descriptive synthesis of current evidence on interventions to prevent mental health for women HCWs.Most studies used cross-sectional surveys, making it difficult to determine the longitudinal impact.There was significant variability in the tools used to measure mental health.

Introduction Older adults with cancer are at increased risk of delirium due to age, comorbidities, medications, cognitive impairment, and possibly cancer treatments. However, there is scant information on the risks of delirium with chemotherapy and approaches to prevent or treat it. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize available evidence. Materials and Methods We systematically searched peer-reviewed journal articles in English, French, German, and Dutch from five databases from 1990 to May 2019 to identify studies examining delirium in adult patients receiving chemotherapy. We also attempted to identify delirium risk prediction models and prevention or treatment trials. All reviews and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Summary estimates were derived from random effects models. Results A total of 23,389 titles and abstracts were screened, and 1272 full-text articles were reviewed. Nineteen articles reported on delirium using an acceptable diagnostic standard. Sample sizes varied from 7 to 324. The incidence of delirium ranged from 0 to 51% (weighted mean 9%, 95% confidence interval 5–16%). In a sensitivity analysis including 122 studies that used terminology suggestive of delirium but did not meet our inclusion criteria, the weighted incidence of delirium was 10% (95% confidence interval 8–12%). Age was not consistently associated with increased delirium risk. No intervention studies to prevent or treat delirium were identified. Conclusions Delirium may occur in 1 in 11 older adults receiving chemotherapy; however, there were substantial limitations in reported studies. This systemic review highlights key gaps in knowledge, particularly regarding risk factors, prevention, and treatments.

BackgroundSystematic and scoping reviews are being published in health sciences and medicine at an increasing rate. At each stage during the systematic or scoping review cycle, different challenges can arise, especially for a novice researcher. Some of these challenges relate to inadequate or limited training in research methods, reporting standards, and the publication cycle, resulting in poorly conducted or reported reviews being published. We aimed to identify the challenges and facilitators experienced by early career researchers when undertaking systematic and scoping reviews. MethodsUsing a scoping review approach, we conducted comprehensive searches in multiple databases. The selection criteria for screening were established a priori and pilot tested. We included studies that focused on scoping or systematic reviews undertaken by early career researchers in the health sciences and medicine. All levels of screening were performed by two independent reviewers, while conflicts were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data using a pre-tested form, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Results were analysed thematically.ResultsThe literature search yielded a total of 14967 citations. Upon completion of title and abstract screening, 148 references were deemed potentially relevant and reviewed. Subsequently, 8 documents fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were included. ConclusionThis scoping review provides an overview of the barriers early career researchers face when conducting systematic and scoping reviews such as time, experience and expertise, training and mentoring, and methods. We also found facilitators that can be harnessed to assist them including training and adhering to reporting guidelines.

Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. With the aging of the population there will be a considerable increase in the number of older adults with cancer. Optimal care of the older adult with cancer requires the involvement of many types of health care providers, including oncologists, nurses, primary care practitioners, and geriatricians. In this narrative review, the literature for evidence relating to the roles of and collaboration between geriatricians, primary care practitioners, nurses, and the oncology team during cancer treatment delivery to older adults was examined. Relevant abstracts were reviewed by all team members. The full texts were reviewed to identify common themes related to roles and collaboration. The results showed that primary care practitioners felt underutilized and that the communication and collaboration between oncologists and primary care practitioners is challenging due to lack of clarity about roles and lack of timely communication/sharing of all relevant information. Furthermore, some of oncology staff, but not all, saw a need for greater collaboration between oncologists and geriatricians. The lack of availability of geriatricians limited the collaboration. Geriatric oncology nurses perceived themselves as having an important role in geriatric assessment and management, but there was no data on their collaboration with these medical specialists. There is a clear need for improvement of collaboration to improve patient outcomes. In conclusion, further research is needed to examine the impact of geriatric oncology team collaboration on the quality of cancer care, in particular, the role of nurses in supporting quality of care during treatment.

Ulcerated infantile hemangiomas may present a therapeutic challenge, especially if there is concurrent hemorrhage or infection. The aim of this study was to systematically review the published evidence on the treatment of ulcerated hemangiomas, focusing on wound healing as the outcome of interest. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science from inception to July 2016. Seventy-seven studies met our inclusion criteria. One study was a randomized controlled trial, 30 were observational studies, and 46 were case reports or case series. There is significant heterogeneity among the methods used. We reviewed 1239 patients in total. Of the 197 treated with oral propranolol, 191 (97.0%) achieved complete ulcer healing. Thirty-one patients failed corticosteroid therapy (oral, intralesional, or topical) and were subsequently successfully treated with other therapies. Surgical resections were typically performed for larger hemangiomas and those causing complications. None of the therapies discussed appear to offer significant advantages over others. Therefore, treatment decisions should be individualized based on location of disease, extent, symptoms, feasibility, cost, and parental preference.

This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers' use of the evidence. This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one. The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at “policy briefs,” one study looked at an “evidence summary,” two looked at a “summary of findings table,” and one compared a “summary of findings table” to an evidence summary. None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, “Is this summary easy to understand?” Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews. Plain language summary Policy briefs make systematic reviews easier to understand but little evidence of impact on use of study findings It is likely that evidence summaries are easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. Whether these summaries increase the use of evidence from systematic reviews in policymaking is not clear. What is this review about? Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews. Other names for evidence reviews are policy briefs, evidence briefs, summaries of findings, or plain language summaries. The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence. What is the aim of this review? This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers' use of the evidence. What are the main findings of this review? This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one. The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at “policy briefs,” one study looked at an “evidence summary,” two looked at a “summary of findings table,” and one compared a “summary of findings table” to an evidence summary. None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, “Is this summary easy to understand?” Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read.. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews. What do the findings of this review mean? Our review suggests that evidence summaries help policymakers to better understand the findings presented in systematic reviews. In short, evidence summaries should be developed to make it easier for policymakers to understand the evidence presented in systematic reviews. However, right now there is very little evidence on the best way to present systematic review evidence to policymakers. How up to date is this review? The authors of this review searched for studies through June 2016. Executive summary/Abstract Background Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision‐making. Strategies to promote the use of evidence to decision makers are required, and evidence summaries have been suggested as a facilitator. Evidence summaries include policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings tables, and plain language summaries. There are many organizations developing and disseminating systematic review evidence summaries for different populations or subsets of decision makers. However, evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of systematic review summaries is lacking. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review evidence summaries. Objectives This systematic review aimed to 1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policy‐makers' use of the evidence and 2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policy‐makers' use of the evidence. Search methods We searched several online databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health Library, Popline, Africa‐wide, Public Affairs Information Services, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Web of Science, and DfiD), websites of research groups and organizations which produce evidence summaries, and reference lists of included summaries and related systematic reviews. These databases were searched in March‐April, 2016. Selection criteria Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non‐randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before‐after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of “evidence summary”, “policy brief”, or other product derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. These interventions could be compared to active comparators (e.g. other summary formats) or no intervention. The primary outcomes were: 1) use of systematic review summaries decision‐making (e.g. self‐reported use of the evidence in policy‐making, decision‐making) and 2) policymaker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g. changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g. format) of the summaries. Results Our database search combined with our grey literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text and we included 6 studies (reported in 7 papers, 1661 participants) as well as protocols from 2 ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision‐making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (4 studies) and perceived usefulness or usability (3 studies). Summary of Findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for Summary of Findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. No studies assessed adverse effects. The risks of bias in these studies were mainly assessed as unclear or low however, two studies were assessed as high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data due to very high rates of attrition. Authors' conclusions Evidence summaries may be easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

Objectives We reviewed the published literature on antimicrobial stewardship training in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education to determine which interventions have been implemented, the extent to which they have been evaluated, and to understand which are most effective. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to December 2016. Four thousand three hundred eighty-five (4385) articles were identified and underwent title and abstract review. Only those articles that addressed antimicrobial stewardship interventions for medical trainees were included in the final review. We employed Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation (reaction, learning, behaviour, results) to categorize intervention evaluations. Results Our review included 48 articles. The types of intervention varied widely amongst studies worldwide. Didactic teaching was used heavily in all settings, while student-specific feedback was used primarily in the postgraduate setting. The high-level evaluation was sparse, with 22.9% reporting a Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation; seventeen reported no evaluation. All but one article reported positive results from the intervention. No articles evaluated the impact of an intervention on undergraduate trainees’ prescribing behaviour after graduation. Conclusions This study enhances our understanding of the extent of antimicrobial stewardship in the context of medical education. While our study demonstrates that medical schools are implementing antimicrobial stewardship interventions, rigorous evaluation of programs to determine whether such efforts are effective is lacking. We encourage more robust evaluation to establish effective, evidence-based approaches to training prescribers in light of the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

ObjectiveTo summarise the effects of herbal medications for the prevention of anxiety, depression, pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological or cardiovascular surgical procedures.MethodsSearches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and LILACS up until January 2018 were performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included RCTs or quasi-RCTs evaluating any herbal medication among adults undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological or cardiovascular surgeries. The primary outcomes were anxiety, depression, pain and PONV. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome.ResultsEleven trials including 693 patients were eligible. Results from three RCTs suggested a statistically significant reduction in vomiting (relative risk/risk ratio (RR) 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.86) and nausea (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) with the use ofZingiber officinale(ginger) compared with placebo in both laparoscopic and obstetrical/gynaecological surgeries. Results suggested a non-statistically significantly reduction in the need for rescue medication for pain (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.13 to 2.13) withRosa damascena(damask rose) and ginger compared with placebo in laparoscopic and obstetrical/gynaecological surgery. None of the included studies reported on adverse events (AEs).ConclusionsThere is very low-certainty evidence regarding the efficacy of bothZingiber officinaleandRosa damascenain reducing vomiting (200 fewer cases per 1000; 288 fewer to 205 fewer), nausea (207 fewer cases per 1000; 333 fewer to 27 fewer) and the need for rescue medication for pain (666 fewer cases per 1000; 580 fewer to 752 more) in patients undergoing either laparoscopic or obstetrical/gynaecological surgeries. Among our eligible studies, there was no reported evidence on AEs.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016042838

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are usually expressed on immune cells such as macrophages, dendritic cells, mast cells, as well as on eosinophils and some epithelial cells. They play a central role in the recognition of harmful molecules that belong to invading microorganisms or internal damaged tissues, which lead to inflammation. Among the hallmarks of cancer, there is immune evasion and inflammation. Summing this with the discovery that a majority of cancers also seem to express TLRs, made researchers realize these receptors might also be linked with cancer progression. This review will cover some of the effects of TLR engagement in cancer cells that might induce the promotion or inhibition of cancer with mechanisms involved. The differences of TLR expression in cancer progression and its possible relation with patient prognosis, TLR genetic disorders found in cancer, and new strategies to cancer therapy will be discussed to target TLRs in cancer cells.

An increasing number of systematic reviews (SysRev) are being published in health sciences and medicine; however, many are poorly conducted or reported.Strategies are needed to help reduce this avoidable waste in research . Systematic reviews can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SysRev or scoping review may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct them are flawed, or if reporting is incomplete.At each stage during the systematic or scoping review cycle, different challenges can arise, especially for a novice researcher. All knowledge syntheses, once past the stage of question formulation, begin with the literature search. Librarians are in a strategic position to uncover issues regarding a researcher’slevel of preparedness in conducting these types of studies. From this vantage point, librarians can have a significant impact by teaching researchers about practices to properly report findings, as well as by raising awareness about which methodology might be more appropriate for their research question. Research waste is a growing concern, and librariansare part of the answer in the role they play as advocates for research integrity and transparency. This scoping review would be the first to cover this topic in a comprehensive, structured and methodologically rigorous way. Results would be of interest to librarians, researchers, educators and the wider research community in health sciences and medicine.

Canine mesenchymal stem cells (cMSCs) are gaining popularity in the veterinary field as a regenerative therapy. But, their limited culture lifespan makes it an obstacle for preclinical investigation and therapeutic use. In this study, primary canine adipose tissue-derived MSCs (PCAT-MSCs) were isolated from adipose tissue and were transfected with the SV40-T retrovirus resulting in a life-extended immortalized canine adipose tissue-derived MSCs (ICAT-MSCs). A comparison was made through the characterization of both PCAT-MSCs and ICAT-MSCs. Both showed a fibroblastic morphology; ICAT-MSCs showed a higher potential of colony formation compared with PCAT-MSCs and a reduced population doubling time; stem cell markers SOX2 and NANOG were expressed in both cell lines; karyotyping analysis showed no abnormalities in both PCAT-MSCs and ICAT-MSCs; both cell lines were CD90+ , CD44 + , and CD45 - ; both generated chondrogenic pellet; in osteogenic differentiation both showed upregulation of Osterix, a master transcriptome of osteogenesis, but in PCAT-MSCs, an upregulation of SOX2 was also observed. In conclusion, ICAT-MSCs showed similar characteristics with PCAT-MSCs, thus established as an easy to access platform for studies on better understanding about cMSCs nature.

Aims Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates medical, psychological, social and functional capacity. No systematic review of the use of CGA in radiation oncology has been conducted. This paper reviews the use of CGA in radiation oncology, examines whether such assessments are feasible and evaluates the effectiveness of these assessments in predicting and modifying outcomes. Materials and methods We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library for articles published between 1 January 1996 and 24 January 2017. Results Twelve non-randomised studies were identified; four studies used a geriatric screening tool only and the eight other studies combined a screening tool with a CGA. Most studies had small samples (mean 63 participants). Two studies identified a significant (95% confidence interval 1.5–4.8 and 1.5–6.9) association between an abnormal screening and increased risk of mortality. One study showed an ability of the CGA to influence treatment decision making, whereas six papers suggested a non-significant association between the screening tool/CGA and treatment tolerance. Conclusion The studies suggest the feasibility of using a screening tool to select patients for CGA. ‘Vulnerability' showed a non-statistically significant association with treatment tolerance, but a significant association with mortality.

Introduction Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) can have detrimental effects on quality of life, even among patients with non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers. Several studies have been conducted to explore different markers associated with CRCI to understand its pathobiology. It is proposed that the underlying mechanisms of CRCI are related to a cascade of physiological adaptive events in response to cancer and/or treatment. Hence, peripheral blood would be a logical source to observe and identify these physiological events. This paper outlines the protocol for a scoping review being conducted to summarise the extant literature regarding blood-based biomarkers of CRCI among patients with non-CNS cancer. Methods/analysis Methods will be informed by the updated guidelines of Arksey and O’Malley. The systematic search for literature will include electronic databases, handsearching of key journals and reference lists, forward citation tracking and consultation with content experts. Study selection will be confirmed by duplicate review and calculation of inter-rater reliability. Data to be charted will include study design, sample size, cancer and treatment characteristics, demographic characteristics, cognitive variable/s and biomarkers assessed, associations between cognitive functioning and biomarkers (including statistics used), and rigour in biomarker sample collection and processing. Results will be presented through: (1) a descriptive numerical summary of studies, including a flow diagram based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement, (2) a list of blood-based biomarkers associated with CRCI and (3) a narrative overview developed through collaboration among the research team and consultation with content experts. Dissemination The findings of this review will highlight current directions and gaps in the current body of evidence that may lead to improved rigour in future CRCI investigations. The dissemination of this work will be facilitated through the involvement of clinicians and researchers on the research team, an external consultation process and the presentation of the results through scholarly publication and presentation.

Mesenchymal stem cells are classified as multipotent stem cells, due to their capability to transdifferentiate into various lineages that develop from mesoderm. Their popular appeal as cell-based therapy was initially based on the idea of their ability to restore tissue because of their differentiation potential in vitro; however, the lack of evidence of their differentiation to target cells in vivo led researchers to focus on their secreted trophic factors and their role as potential powerhouses on regulation of factors under different immunological environments and recover homeostasis. To date there are more than 800 clinical trials on humans related to MSCs as therapy, not to mention that in animals is actively being applied as therapeutic resource, though it has not been officially approved as one. But just as how results from clinical trials are important, so is to reveal the biological mechanisms involved on how these cells exert their healing properties to further enhance the application of MSCs on potential patients. In this review, we describe characteristics of MSCs, evaluate their benefits as tissue regenerative therapy and combination therapy, as well as their immunological properties, activation of MSCs that dictate their secreted factors, interactions with other immune cells, such as T cells and possible mechanisms and pathways involved in these interactions.

BACKGROUND The adoption of the flipped classroom in undergraduate medical education calls on students to learn from various self-paced tools—including online lectures—before attending in-class sessions. Hence, the design of online lectures merits special attention, given that applying multimedia design principles has been shown to enhance learning outcomes. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to understand how online lectures have been integrated into medical school curricula, and whether published literature employs well-accepted principles of multimedia design. METHODS This scoping review followed the methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Education Source, FRANCIS, ERIC, and ProQuest, were searched to find articles from 2006 to 2016 related to online lecture use in undergraduate medical education. RESULTS In total, 45 articles met our inclusion criteria. Online lectures were used in preclinical and clinical years, covering basic sciences, clinical medicine, and clinical skills. The use of multimedia design principles was seldom reported. Almost all studies described high student satisfaction and improvement on knowledge tests following online lecture use. CONCLUSIONS Integration of online lectures into undergraduate medical education is well-received by students and appears to improve learning outcomes. Future studies should apply established multimedia design principles to the development of online lectures to maximize their educational potential.

Background Cardiac pain is considered the primary indicator of coronary artery disease (CAD). Existing reviews lack appropriate numbers of women or sex-based subgroup analyses, or both; thus, the benefits of self-management (women with cardiac pain actively participating in their own care and treatment) remain uncertain. Methods Using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre at the Institute of Education, 7 databases were systematically searched to examine and synthesize the evidence on self-management interventions for women with cardiac pain and cardiac pain equivalents, such as fatigue, dyspnea, and exhaustion. Results Our search yielded 22,402 article titles and abstracts. Of these, 57 randomized controlled trials were included in a final narrative synthesis, comprising data from 13,047 participants, including 5299 (41%) women. Self-management interventions targeting cardiac pain in women compared with a control population reduced (1) cardiac pain frequency and cardiac pain proportion (obstructive and nonobstructive CAD), (2) fatigue at 12 months, and (3) dyspnea at 2 months. There was no evidence of group differences in postprocedural (percutaneous coronary intervention or cardiac surgery) pain. Results indicated that self-management interventions for cardiac pain were more effective if they included a greater proportion of women (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.01; standard error, 0.003; P = 0.02), goal setting (SMD, −0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.49 to −0.03), and collaboration/support from health care providers (SMD, −0.57; 95% CI, −1.00 to −0.14). Conclusions The results of this review suggest that self-management interventions reduce cardiac pain and cardiac pain equivalents.

Introduction Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) affect approximately 80% of surgical patients and is associated with increased length of hospital stay and systemic costs. Preoperative and postoperative pain, anxiety and depression are also commonly reported. Recent evidence regarding their safety and effectiveness has not been synthesised. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medications for the treatment and prevention of anxiety, depression, pain and PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological and cardiovascular surgical procedures. Methods and analysis The following electronic databases will be searched up to 1 October 2016 without language or publication status restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and LILACS. Randomised clinical trials enrolling adult surgical patients undergoing laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological and cardiovascular surgeries and managed with herbal medication versus a control group (placebo, no intervention or active control) prophylactically or therapeutically will be considered eligible. Outcomes of interest will include the following: anxiety, depression, pain, nausea and vomiting. A team of reviewers will complete title and abstract screening and full-text screening for identified hits independently and in duplicate. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments and evaluation of the overall quality of evidence for each relevant outcome reported will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation classification system. Dichotomous data will be summarised as risk ratios; continuous data will be summarised as standard average differences with 95% CIs. Ethics and dissemination This is one of the first efforts to systematically summarise existing evidence evaluating the use of herbal medications in laparoscopic, obstetrical/gynaecological and cardiovascular surgical patients. The findings of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016042838.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of orthosis following lumbar spinal surgery for people with degenerative disease on pain reduction and improvement of functional status. Secondary objectives are to examine the effect of the intervention on overall health or health-related quality of life and treatment success (from the patient's perspective). We will compare the effect of the intervention to no immobilization.

Study objective To compare the use of inhalation versus intravenous anaesthesia for adults undergoing on-pump or off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Design A systematic review. Setting A hospital-affiliated university. Measurements The following databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS (from inception to October 2016). We used the GRADE approach to rate overall certainty of the evidence. Results In total we included 58 studies with a total of 6105 participants. The methodological quality was difficult to assess as it was poorly reported in 35 included studies (three or more domains were rated as unclear risk of bias). Two trials of sevoflurane showed a statistically significant reduction in death within 180 to 365days of surgery (on-pump) (RR 4.10, 95% CI 1.42 to 11.79; p =0.009; I 2 =not applicable; high quality of evidence). There was also a statistically significant difference favouring sevoflurane compared to propofol on both inotropic (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.90; p 2 =0%) and vasoconstrictor support needed (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.22; p =0.03; I 2 =0%) after coronary artery bypass grafting on-pump. Two trials of sevoflurane (MD −0.22, 95% CI −0.41 to −0.03; p =0.02; I 2 =0%) and two further trials of desflurane (MD −0.33, 95% CI −0.45 to −0.20; p 2 =82%) showed a statistically significant difference on cardiac index during and after coronary artery bypass grafting on-pump, respectively. Conclusions There is high quality evidence that sevoflurane reduces death within 180 to 365days of surgery and, inotropic and vasoconstrictor support compared to propofol for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. There is also some evidence showing that the cardiac index is minimally influenced by administration of sevoflurane and desflurane compared to propofol.

Objective Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Older adults have been under-represented in clinical cancer research. Around the world there is a push for patient engagement on study teams as it is anticipated to improve study design, recruitment and dissemination of findings. In the current overview we examined the evidence with regard to: 1) the history of patient engagement in research and frameworks developed; 2) impact of patient engagement on patient and research outcomes; 3) use of patient engagement in geriatrics and oncology, 4) recommendations for successful engagement; and 5) gaps in the literature that should be studied further. Methods A narrative review was conducted. Articles published in English were searched in Medline with the help of a librarian. Results Patient engagement has been shown to improve the conduct of studies by making the study design more relevant and feasible, and improving recruitment rates and uptake of research findings by patients. However, the best way to engage patients is not clear yet. Several resources have been developed to support researchers engaging older adults with cancer in research. Conclusions While patient engagement in research seems promising to improve study outcomes, little evidence is available thus far in geriatric oncology settings. Several gaps in the literature are identified that should be further studied to determine the value of, and best approaches to, patient engagement with older adults with cancer.

Background Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers’ use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers’ use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products. Methods We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of “evidence summary,” “policy brief,” or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers’ understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries. Results Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. Conclusions Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear. Trial registration The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122) Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

e23025 Background: Older adults with cancer are at increased risk of delirium given their advanced age, multiple comorbidities and medications, prevalence of cognitive impairment, and possibly cancer treatment. Awareness of such risks and interventions to prevent or treat delirium is important to clinicians and to provide high quality care. However, there is scant published information on the risks of delirium with chemotherapy or evidence-based approaches to prevent or treat it. We performed a scoping review to summarize the available evidence. Methods: We conducted a scoping review using the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. We systematically searched peer-reviewed journal articles in English, French, and German from Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Central from inception until January 2017 to identify studies that examined delirium in patients receiving chemotherapy. We also attempted to identify any studies that reported on multivariable delirium risk prediction models and any clinical trials that examined prevention or treatment of delirium. Article titles and abstracts as well as full text articles were reviewed using Covidence software by two or more reviewers independently. Similarly, data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Results: A total of 21,678 titles and abstracts were screened, and 1,166 full-text articles were reviewed. Nineteen articles with varying study designs (retrospective administrative databases to clinical trials) reported on delirium using an acceptable diagnostic standard. Sample sizes varied from 15 to over 21,000. No one tumour site or treatment protocol constituted the majority of studies. The incidence of delirium ranged from 0 to 51% (mean 13.5%). The time course of delirium relative to the cycle of chemotherapy was inconsistently reported. No studies reported on risk prediction models for delirium, and no intervention studies to prevent or treat delirium were identified. An additional 109 studies reported on outcomes that could be part of the delirium syndrome but did not meet even our broad inclusion criteria (e.g. cognitive disturbance). Conclusions: Delirium may occur in over 1 in 8 older adults receiving chemotherapy, although there were substantial limitations in reported studies. This scoping review highlights the dearth of knowledge in the area, particularly for risk factors, prevention, and treatment, and emphasizes the need for high-quality studies examining these important outcomes in the oncology setting.

IntroductionPremature myocardial infarction (MI) generally refers to MI in men ≤55 years or women ≤65 years. Premature MI is a major contributor to cardiovascular disease (CVD), which claimed 17.6 million lives globally in 2016. Reducing premature MI and CVD is a key priority for all nations; however, there is sparse synthesis of information on risk factors associated with premature MI. To address this knowledge gap, we are conducting a systematic review to describe the association between risk factors (demographics, lifestyle factors and biomarkers) and premature MI.Methods and analysisThe following databases were searched from inception to June 2018: CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinical Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE. We will include original research articles (case–control, cohort and cross-sectional studies) that report a quantitative relationship between at least one risk factor and premature MI. Two investigators will use predetermined selection criteria and independently screen articles based on title and abstract (primary screening). Articles that meet selection criteria will undergo full-text screening based on criteria used for primary screening (secondary screening). Data will be extracted using predetermined data extraction forms. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case–control and cohort studies will be used to evaluate the risk of bias and will be adapted for cross-sectional studies. Whenever feasible, data will be summarised into a random-effects meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationTo our knowledge, this will be the first study to synthesise results on the relationship between risk factors and premature MI. These findings will inform healthcare providers on factors associated with risk of premature MI and potentially improve primary prevention efforts by guiding development of interventions. These findings will be summarised and presented at conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018076862.

Objectives The global challenge of accessible, affordable cancer care for all older adults requires a new research agenda for gero-oncology nursing to guide investigator skill development, identify priority areas for investigation, and direct resource distribution. Data Sources Published peer-reviewed literature and web-based resources. Conclusion A cross-cutting theme of the research agenda is the need to determine the gero-oncology nursing care that will preserve economic resources, promote function, provide symptom management, and incorporate patient preferences. Implications for Nursing Practice In partnership with interprofessional colleagues, gero-oncology nurse scientists are poised to conduct global research that improves access to quality cancer care.

Background: The adoption of the flipped classroom in undergraduate medical education calls on students to learn from various self-paced tools—including online lectures—before attending in-class sessions. Hence, the design of online lectures merits special attention, given that applying multimedia design principles has been shown to enhance learning outcomes. Objective: The aim of this study was to understand how online lectures have been integrated into medical school curricula, and whether published literature employs well-accepted principles of multimedia design. Methods: This scoping review followed the methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). Databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Education Source, FRANCIS, ERIC, and ProQuest, were searched to find articles from 2006 to 2016 related to online lecture use in undergraduate medical education. Results: In total, 45 articles met our inclusion criteria. Online lectures were used in preclinical and clinical years, covering basic sciences, clinical medicine, and clinical skills. The use of multimedia design principles was seldom reported. Almost all studies described high student satisfaction and improvement on knowledge tests following online lecture use. Conclusions: Integration of online lectures into undergraduate medical education is well-received by students and appears to improve learning outcomes. Future studies should apply established multimedia design principles to the development of online lectures to maximize their educational potential. [JMIR Med Educ 2018;4(1):e11]