Search

The objective of this scoping review was to explore how absorptive capacity has been conceptualized and measured in studies of innovation adoption in health care organizations.Current literature highlights the need to incorporate knowledge translation processes at the organizational and system level to enhance the adoption of new knowledge into practice. Absorptive capacity is a set of routines and processes characterized by knowledge acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and application. Absorptive capacity, a key concept in organizational learning theory, is thought to be critical to the adoption of new knowledge and innovations in organizations. To understand how absorptive capacity was conceptualized and measured in health care organizations, it was appropriate to conduct a scoping review to answer our research question.This scoping review included published and unpublished primary studies (ie, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative study designs), as well as reviews that broadly focused on the adoption of innovations at the organizational level in health care, and framed innovation adoption as processes that rely on organizational learning and absorptive or learning capacity.Searches included electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus) and gray literature, as well as reference scanning of relevant studies. Study abstracts and full texts were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Data extraction of relevant studies was also done independently by two reviewers. All discrepancies were addressed through discussion or adjudicated by a third reviewer. Synthesis of the extracted data focused on descriptive frequencies and counts of the results. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).The search strategies identified a total of 7433 citations. Sixteen papers were identified for inclusion, including a set of two companion papers, and data were extracted from 15 studies. We synthesized the objectives of the included studies and identified that researchers focused on at least one of the following aspects: i) exploring pre-existing capacity that affects improvement and innovation in health care settings; ii) describing factors influencing the spread and sustainability of organizations; iii) identifying measures and testing the knowledge application process; and iv) providing construct clarity. No new definitions were identified within this review; instead existing definitions were refined to suit the local context of the health care organization in which they were used.Given the rapidly changing and evolving nature of health care, it is important to understand both current best practices and an organization's ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and apply these practices to their specific organization. While much research has gone into developing ways to implement knowledge translation, understanding an organization's internal structures and framework for seeking out and implementing new evidence as it relates to absorptive capacity is still a relatively novel concept.

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

BACKGROUND: Increasing availability of competing biosimilar alternatives makes it challenging to make treatment decisions. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin products and biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from inception to March 27, 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies of adults with T1DM receiving ultra-long-/long-/intermediate-acting insulin, compared to each other, as well as biosimilar insulin compared to human/animal insulin were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk-of-bias. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted. Summary effect measures were mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: We included 65 unique studies examining 14,200 patients with T1DM. Both ultra-long-acting and long-acting insulin were superior to intermediate-acting insulin in reducing A1c, FPG, weight gain, and the incidence of major, serious, or nocturnal hypoglycemia. For fasting blood glucose, long-acting once a day (od) was superior to long-acting twice a day (bid) (MD - 0.44, 95% CI: - 0.81 to - 0.06) and ultra-long-acting od was superior to long-acting bid (MD - 0.73, 95% CI - 1.36 to - 0.11). For weight change, long-acting od was inferior to long-acting bid (MD 0.58, 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.10) and long-acting bid was superior to long-action biosimilar od (MD - 0.90, 95% CI: - 1.67 to - 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Our results can be used to tailor insulin treatment according to the desired results of patients and clinicians and inform strategies to establish a competitive clinical market, address systemic barriers, expand the pool of potential suppliers, and favor insulin price reduction. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017077051 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-06642-7.

Objective To explore how absorptive capacity has been conceptualized and measured in studies of innovation adoption in health care organizations. Introduction Current literature highlights the need to incorporate knowledge translation processes at the organizational and system level to enhance the adoption of new knowledge into practice. Absorptive capacity is a set of routines and processes characterized by knowledge acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and application. Absorptive capacity, a key concept in organizational learning theory, is thought to be critical to the adoption of new knowledge and innovations in organizations. Inclusion criteria This scoping review will include primary studies (ie, experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative study designs) and gray literature that broadly focus on the adoption of innovations at the organizational level in health care, and frame innovation adoption as processes that rely on organizational learning and absorptive or learning capacity. Methods Data sources will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus), gray literature, and reference scanning of relevant studies. Study abstracts and full texts will be screened for eligibility by two reviewers, independently. Data extraction of relevant studies will also be done independently by two reviewers. All discrepancies will be addressed through further discussion or adjudicated by a third reviewer. Synthesis of the extracted data will focus on descriptive frequencies, counts, and thematic analysis and the results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Objectives The aim of the study was to examine the effect of providing a financial incentive to authors of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to obtain individual patient data (IPD). Study Design and Setting Parallel-group RCT with authors identified in the RCTs eligible for two systematic reviews. The authors were randomly allocated to the intervention (financial incentive with several contact approaches) or control group (using the same contact approaches). Studied outcomes are proportion of authors who provided IPD, time to obtain IPD, and completeness of IPD received. Results Of the 129 authors contacted, 37 authors suggested or contacted a person or funder providing relevant details or showed interest to collaborate, whereas 45 authors directed us to contact a person or funder, lacked resources or time, did not have ownership or approval to share the IPD, or claimed IPD was too old. None of the authors shared their IPD. We contacted 17 sponsors and received two complete IPD datasets from one sponsor. The time to obtain IPD was >1 year after a sponsor's positive response. Common barriers included study identification, data ownership, limited data access, and required IPD licenses. Conclusion IPD sharing may depend on study characteristics, including funding type, study size, study risk of bias, and treatment effect, but not on providing a financial incentive.

Background Current text mining tools supporting abstract screening in systematic reviews are not widely used, in part because they lack sensitivity and precision. We set out to develop an accessible, semi-automated “workflow” to conduct abstract screening for systematic reviews and other knowledge synthesis methods. Methods We adopt widely recommended text-mining and machine-learning methods to (1) process title-abstracts into numerical training data; and (2) train a classification model to predict eligible abstracts. The predicted abstracts are screened by human reviewers for (“true”) eligibility, and the newly eligible abstracts are used to identify similar abstracts, using near-neighbor methods, which are also screened. These abstracts, as well as their eligibility results, are used to update the classification model, and the above steps are iterated until no new eligible abstracts are identified. The workflow was implemented in R and evaluated using a systematic review of insulin formulations for type-1 diabetes (14,314 abstracts) and a scoping review of knowledge-synthesis methods (17,200 abstracts). Workflow performance was evaluated against the recommended practice of screening abstracts by 2 reviewers, independently. Standard measures were examined: sensitivity (inclusion of all truly eligible abstracts), specificity (exclusion of all truly ineligible abstracts), precision (inclusion of all truly eligible abstracts among all abstracts screened as eligible), F1-score (harmonic average of sensitivity and precision), and accuracy (correctly predicted eligible or ineligible abstracts). Workload reduction was measured as the hours the workflow saved, given only a subset of abstracts needed human screening. Results With respect to the systematic and scoping reviews respectively, the workflow attained 88%/89% sensitivity, 99%/99% specificity, 71%/72% precision, an F1-score of 79%/79%, 98%/97% accuracy, 63%/55% workload reduction, with 12%/11% fewer abstracts for full-text retrieval and screening, and 0%/1.5% missed studies in the completed reviews. Conclusion The workflow was a sensitive, precise, and efficient alternative to the recommended practice of screening abstracts with 2 reviewers. All eligible studies were identified in the first case, while 6 studies (1.5%) were missed in the second that would likely not impact the review’s conclusions. We have described the workflow in language accessible to reviewers with limited exposure to natural language processing and machine learning, and have made the code available to reviewers.

Background/Objectives To examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease (AD). Design Systematic review and Bayesian network metaanalysis (NMA). Setting MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Ageline (inception–March 2016). Participants Individuals with AD in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and nonrandomized studies. Intervention Any combination of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, or memantine. Measurements Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts; abstracted data; and appraised risk of bias. Results Twenty thousand three hundred forty-three citations were screened, and 142 studies were included (110 RCTs, 21 non-RCTs, 11 cohort studies). NMA found that donepezil (Mini-Mental State Examination: mean difference (MD) = 1.39, 95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.53–2.24), donepezil+memantine (2.59, 95% CrI = 0.12–4.98), and transdermal rivastigmine (2.02, 95% CrI = 0.02–4.08) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale–cognitive: MD = −3.29, 95% CrI = −4.57 to −1.99) and galantamine (MD = −2.13, 95% CrI = −3.91 to −0.27) improved cognition more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil+memantine (MD = −5.23, 95% CrI = −8.72 to −1.56) improved behavior more than placebo. NMA found that donepezil (MD = −0.32, 95% CrI = −0.46 to −0.19), donepezil+memantine (MD = −0.57, 95% CrI = −0.95 to −0.21), oral rivastigmine (MD = −0.38, 95% CrI = −0.56 to −0.17), and galantamine (MD = −3.79, 95% CrI = −6.98 to −0.59) improved global status more than placebo. NMA found that galantamine decreased the odds of mortality (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CrI = 0.36–0.87). No agent increased risk of serious adverse events, falls, or bradycardia. Some increased risk of headache (oral rivastigmine), diarrhea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil), nausea (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine), and vomiting (oral rivastigmine, donepezil, galantamine). Conclusion An exhaustive review of the literature involving 142 studies demonstrated that cognitive enhancers in general have minimal effects on cognition according to minimal clinically important difference and global ratings. The drugs appear safe, but this must be interpreted cautiously because trial participants may have less comorbidity and fewer adverse effects than those treated with these drugs in clinical practice.

Background: Frequent users of health care services are a relatively small group of patients who account for a disproportionately large amount of health care utilization. We conducted a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to improve the coordination of care to reduce health care utilization in this patient group. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until May 2014 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing quality improvement strategies for the coordination of care of frequent users of the health care system. Articles were screened, and data abstracted and appraised for quality by 2 reviewers, independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted. Results: We identified 36 RCTs and 14 companion reports (total 7494 patients). Significantly fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group were admitted to hospital (relative risk [RR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72–0.91). In subgroup analyses, a similar effect was observed among patients with chronic medical conditions other than mental illness, but not among patients with mental illness. In addition, significantly fewer patients 65 years and older in the intervention group than in the control group visited emergency departments (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.89). Interpretation: We found that quality improvement strategies for coordination of care reduced hospital admissions among patients with chronic conditions other than mental illness and reduced emergency department visits among older patients. Our results may help clinicians and policy-makers reduce utilization through the use of strategies that target the system (team changes, case management) and the patient (promotion of self-management).

Background: Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, are used to treat dementia, but their effectiveness for mild cognitive impairment is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment. Methods: Our eligibility criteria were studies of the effects of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine or memantine on mild cognitive impairment reporting cognition, function, behaviour, global status, and mortality or harms. We identified relevant material by searching electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), the references of included studies, trial registries and conference proceedings, and by contacting experts. Two reviewers independently screened the results of the literature search, abstracted data and appraised risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: We screened 15 554 titles and abstracts and 1384 full-text articles. Eight randomized clinical trials and 3 companion reports met our inclusion criteria. We found no significant effects of cognitive enhancers on cognition (Mini–Mental State Examination: 3 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], mean difference [MD] 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.22 to 0.50; Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale — cognition subscale: 3 RCTs, standardized MD −0.07, 95% CI−0.16 to 0.01]) or function (Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living inventory: 2 RCTs, MD 0.30, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.86). Cognitive enhancers were associated with higher risks of nausea, diarrhea and vomiting than placebo. Interpretation: Cognitive enhancers did not improve cognition or function among patients with mild cognitive impairment and were associated with a greater risk of gastrointestinal harms. Our findings do not support the use of cognitive enhancers for mild cognitive impairment.

Background Although serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting, they may be associated with increased cardiac risk. Our objective was to examine the comparative safety and effectiveness of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (e.g., dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, tropisetron) alone or combined with steroids for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until December 2015 for studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other or placebo in chemotherapy patients. The search results were screened, data were abstracted, and risk of bias was appraised by pairs of reviewers, independently. Random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted. Results After screening 9226 citations and 970 full-text articles, we included 299 studies (n = 58,412 patients). None of the included studies reported harms for active treatment versus placebo. For NMAs on the risk of arrhythmia (primary outcome; three randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 627 adults) and mortality (secondary outcome; eight RCTs, 4823 adults), no statistically significant differences were observed between agents. A NMA on the risk of QTc prolongation showed a significantly greater risk for dolasetron + dexamethasone versus ondansetron + dexamethasone (four RCTs, 3358 children and adults, odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 2.13–4.17). For NMAs on the number of patients without nausea (44 RCTs, 11,664 adults, 12 treatments), number of patients without vomiting (63 RCTs, 15,460 adults, 12 treatments), and number of patients without chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting (27 RCTs, 10,924 adults, nine treatments), all agents were significantly superior to placebo. For a NMA on severe vomiting (10 RCTs, 917 adults), all treatments decreased the risk, but only ondansetron and ramosetron were significantly superior to placebo. According to a rank-heat plot with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve results, palonosetron + steroid was ranked the safest and most effective agent overall. Conclusions Most 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were relatively safe when compared with each other, yet none of the studies compared active treatment with placebo for harms. However, dolasetron + dexamethasone may prolong the QTc compared to ondansetron + dexamethasone. All agents were effective for reducing risk of nausea, vomiting, and chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting. Trial registration This study was registered at PROSPERO: (CRD42013003564). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0761-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim:\ud To compare the effectiveness of different compression-to-ventilation methods during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in patients with cardiac arrest.\ud \ud Methods:\ud We searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until January 2016. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that compared different chest compression-to-ventilation ratios during CPR for all patients and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: favourable neurological outcomes, survival, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and quality of life. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results, abstracted data, and appraised the risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted separately for randomised and non-randomised studies, as well as study characteristics, such as CPR provider.\ud \ud Results:\ud After screening 5703 titles and abstracts and 229 full-text articles, we included 41 studies, of which 13 were companion reports. For adults receiving bystander or dispatcher-instructed CPR, no significant differences were observed across all comparisons and outcomes. Significantly less adults receiving bystander-initiated or plus dispatcher-instructed compression-only CPR experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and ROSC compared to CPR 30:2 (compression-to-ventilation) in un-adjusted analyses in a large cohort study. Evidence from emergency medical service (EMS) CPR providers showed significantly more adults receiving CPR 30:2 experiencing improved favourable neurological outcomes and survival versus those receiving CPR 15:2. Significantly more children receiving CPR 15:2 or 30:2 experienced favourable neurological outcomes, survival, and greater ROSC compared to compression-only CPR. However, for children

Background Knowledge translation (KT, also known as research utilization, and sometimes referring to implementation science) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health. A KT intervention is one which facilitates the uptake of research. The long-term sustainability of KT interventions is unclear. We aimed to characterize KT interventions to manage chronic diseases that have been used for healthcare outcomes beyond 1 year or beyond the termination of initial grant funding. Methods We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Campbell from inception until February 2013. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies providing information on the sustainability of KT interventions for managing chronic diseases in adults and focusing on end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health service managers, and policy-makers. Articles were screened and abstracted by two reviewers, independently. The data were charted and results described narratively. Results We included 62 studies reported in 103 publications (total 260,688 patients) plus 41 companion reports after screening 12,328 titles and abstracts and 464 full-text articles. More than half of the studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The duration of the KT intervention ranged from 61 to 522 weeks. Nine chronic conditions were examined across the studies, such as diabetes (34 %), cardiovascular disease (28 %), and hypertension (16 %). Thirteen KT interventions were reported across the studies. Patient education was the most commonly examined (20 %), followed by self-management (17 %). Most studies (61 %) focused on patient-level outcomes (e.g. disease severity), while 31 % included system-level outcomes (e.g. number of eye examinations), and 8 % used both. The interventions were aimed at the patient (58 %), health system (28 %), and healthcare personnel (14 %) levels. Conclusions We found few studies focusing on the sustainability of KT interventions. Most of the included studies focused on patient-level outcomes and patient-level KT interventions. A future systematic review can be conducted of the RCTs to examine the impact of sustainable KT interventions on health outcomes. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0421-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction The choice of a basal insulin regimen to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) may have different risks of adverse events and effectiveness, due to the difference in the effectiveness of these agents across patient characteristics (eg, baseline glycosylated haemoglobin; A1C). Currently, there is a lack of high quality evidence to support the tailoring of insulin regimens according to an individual9s needs. The aim of this study is to update our previous systematic review and perform an individual patient data network meta-analysis (IPD-NMA) to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin in different subgroups of patients with T1DM. Methods and analysis We will update our previous literature search from January 2013 onwards searching relevant electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE), as well as perform grey literature search through relevant society/association websites, and conference abstracts, and scan reference lists of the eligible studies. We will include randomised clinical trials of any duration examining long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin preparations for adult patients with T1DM. We will focus on A1C and severe hypoglycaemia outcomes. For each pairwise treatment comparison, we will combine all IPD from all studies in a single multilevel model, where each study is a different cluster. For a connected network of trials, we will perform an IPD-NMA to identify potential effect modifiers, and estimate the most effective and safe treatments for patients with different characteristics. If we are not successful in obtaining IPD for at least one study, we will include aggregated data (AD) abstracted from the included RCTs in our analysis, combining IPD and AD into a single model. We will report our results using the PRISMA-IPD statement. Ethics and dissemination The results of this systematic review and IPD-NMA will be of interest to stakeholders and will help in improving existing guideline recommendations. PROSPERO registry number CRD42015023511.

Objective To examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013. Study selection Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included. Results 39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A 1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference −0.39%, 95% confidence interval −0.59% to −0.19%; −0.26%, −0.48% to −0.03%; and −0.36%, −0.65% to −0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: −5.51 kg, −6.56 to −4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: −5.14 kg, −6.07 to −4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses. Conclusions Long acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A 1c . Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42013003610.

Introduction Knowledge translation (KT also known as research utilisation, translational medicine and implementation science) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health. After the implementation of KT interventions, their impact on relevant outcomes should be monitored. The objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) conduct a systematic search of the literature to identify the impact on healthcare outcomes beyond 1 year, or beyond the termination of funding of the initiative of KT interventions targeting chronic disease management for end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers; (2) identify factors that influence sustainability of effective KT interventions; (3) identify how sustained change from KT interventions should be measured; and (4) develop a framework for assessing sustainability of KT interventions. Methods and analysis Comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of funding agencies and websites of healthcare provider organisations will be conducted to identify relevant material. We will include experimental, quasi-experimental and observational studies providing information on the sustainability of KT interventions targeting chronic disease management in adults and focusing on end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction form. They will then screen all citations, full articles and abstract data in duplicate independently. The results of the scoping review will be synthesised descriptively and used to develop a framework to assess the sustainability of KT interventions. Discussion and dissemination Our results will help inform end-users (ie, patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions. Our dissemination plan includes publications, presentations, website posting and a stakeholder meeting.

Background Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) causes progressive destruction of pancreatic beta cells leading to absolute insulin deficiency. Treatment of T1DM requires insulin, and some evidence suggests that longer acting insulin analogues might have a higher effectiveness and greater safety profile compared to intermediate-acting insulin. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of long-acting insulin versus intermediate-acting insulin through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Design/methods Studies examining long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin or placebo preparations for adult T1DM patients will be included. The primary outcome is glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C), and secondary outcomes include emergency department and physician visits, hospital admissions, weight gain, quality of life, microvascular complications (e.g., retinopathy), macrovascular complications (e.g., cardiovascular disease), all-cause mortality, incident cancers, and cost. We will include experimental [randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs], quasi-experimental (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), observational (cohort), and cost studies, of any duration of follow-up, conducted during all time periods, and disseminated in any language. We will conduct comprehensive searches of electronic databases from inception onwards, including MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. We will also search for difficult to locate and unpublished literature by searching dissertation databases, public health organization websites, and trial registries. After a calibration exercise using our eligibility criteria and data abstraction forms, two reviewers will screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data in duplicate. Conflicts will be resolved by team discussion. Using a similar process, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Risk of Bias tool will be used to appraise the risk of bias of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the methodological quality of cohort studies. If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis, as well as a network meta-analysis. Discussion Our systematic review will be of utility to healthcare providers, policy-makers, T1DM patients and family members regarding treatment options of long-acting versus intermediate-acting insulin preparations. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003610

Introduction Alzheimer9s dementia (AD) is the most common cause of dementia, and several organisations, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, suggest that management of patients with AD should be tailored to their needs. To date, little research has been conducted on the treatment effect in different subgroups of patients with AD. The aim of this study is to examine the comparative effectiveness and safety of cognitive enhancers for different patient characteristics. Methods and analysis We will update our previous literature search from January 2015 forward, using the same terms and electronic databases (eg, MEDLINE) from our previous review. We will additionally search grey literature and scan the reference lists of the included studies. Randomised clinical trials of any duration conducted at any time comparing cognitive enhancers alone or in any combination against other cognitive enhancers, or placebo in adults with AD will be eligible. The outcomes of interest are cognition according to the Mini-Mental State Examination, and overall serious adverse events. For each outcome and treatment comparison, we will perform a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects meta-analysis combining the individual patient data (IPD) from each eligible study. If the identified treatment comparisons form a connected network diagram, we will perform an IPD network meta-analysis (NMA) to estimate subgroup effects for patients with different characteristics, such as AD severity and sex. We will combine aggregated data from studies that we will not be able to obtain IPD, with the IPD provided by the original authors, in a single model. We will use the PRISMA-IPD and PRISMA-NMA statements to report our findings. Ethics and dissemination The findings of this study will be of interest to stakeholders, including decision makers, guideline developers, clinicians, methodologists and patients, and they will help to improve guidelines for the management of patients with AD. Trial registration number CRD42015023507.

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors versus intermediate-acting insulin for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and poor glycaemic control despite treatment with two oral agents. Setting Studies were multicentre and multinational. Participants Ten studies including 2967 patients with T2DM. Interventions Studies that examined DPP-4 inhibitors compared with each other, intermediate-acting insulin, no treatment or placebo in patients with T2DM. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome was glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes were healthcare utilisation, body weight, fractures, quality of life, microvascular complications, macrovascular complications, all-cause mortality, harms, cost and cost-effectiveness. Results 10 randomised clinical trials with 2967 patients were included after screening 5831 titles and abstracts, and 180 full-text articles. DPP-4 inhibitors significantly reduced HbA1c versus placebo in network meta-analysis (NMA; mean difference (MD) −0.62%, 95% CI −0.93% to −0.33%) and meta-analysis (MD −0.61%, 95% CI −0.81% to −0.41%), respectively. Significant differences in HbA1c were not observed for neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin versus placebo and DPP-4 inhibitors versus NPH insulin in NMA. In meta-analysis, no significant differences were observed between DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo for severe hypoglycaemia, weight gain, cardiovascular disease, overall harms, treatment-related harms and mortality, although patients receiving DPP-4 inhibitors experienced less infections (relative risk 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Conclusions DPP-4 inhibitors were superior to placebo in reducing HbA1c levels in adults with T2DM taking at least two oral agents. Compared with placebo, no safety signals were detected with DPP-4 inhibitors and there was a reduced risk of infection. There was no significant difference in HbA1c observed between NPH and placebo or NPH and DPP-4 inhibitors. Trial registration number PROSPERO # CRD42013003624.

Introduction Heart failure (HF) is a leading reason for hospitalisation and readmissions to hospital, particularly among individuals older than 65 years of age. The prognosis of patients with HF is grim, with high rates of mortality risk and hospital readmissions. The transition period early after hospital discharge represents a window of opportunity to positively influence patient outcomes using quality improvement (QI) strategies. However, little is known about which QI interventions exist for early events of HF after discharge, so the main objective of our study is to conduct a scoping review of the literature to determine which QI strategies are effective for reducing hospital readmissions and mortality for patients with HF who transition from the hospital back into independent living. We will also investigate which elements contribute to effective QI strategies. Methods and analysis We will search the literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane library for randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating QI interventions aimed at improving outcomes for patients with HF transitioning from the hospital back into the community. Two reviewers will independently apply our eligibility criteria at level 1 (abstract/title) and level 2 (full-text) screening; disagreements will be resolved through consensus. We will extract data in duplicate on study characteristics, population, setting, QI intervention and outcomes. We will synthesise results descriptively and explore QI elements to determine which aspect contributes to its impact. We will also consider synthesis of our data according to several conceptual frameworks such as Wagner9s Chronic Care Model. Discussion and dissemination The findings of this scoping review will be used to determine which elements should comprise a QI intervention aimed at facilitating the transition of newly admitted patients with HF back into the community. We will disseminate our findings through publications, presentations as well as through a stakeholder meeting to generate key messages most relevant to each.

Background Antiretroviral therapy reduces mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) during pregnancy, delivery, and breastfeeding. However, these agents have been associated with preterm birth, anemia and low birth weight. We aim to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of the use of antiretroviral drugs among HIV-infected women and the effects on their infants and children through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods/Design Studies examining the effects of six antiretroviral drug classes (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, integrase inhibitors, fusion inhibitors, co-receptor inhibitors) administered to HIV-infected pregnant women will be included. We will include randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, controlled before-after, interrupted time series, cohort, registry, and case–control studies. No limitations will be imposed on publication status (that is, unpublished studies are eligible for inclusion), duration of follow-up, study conduct period, and language of dissemination. Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in major electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Gray literature will be identified through searching dissertation databases, trial protocol registries, and conference abstracts. Two team members will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data; conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The risk of bias and methodological quality will be appraised using appropriate tools (for example, Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms). If feasible and appropriate, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis will be considered for outcomes with the greatest number of treatment comparisons available that fulfill network meta-analysis assumptions (for example, consistency of evidence between direct and indirect data, and low statistical heterogeneity between included studies). The primary effectiveness outcome is mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and the primary safety outcome is major congenital malformation (overall and specific types) among newborns of HIV-infected women. Secondary safety outcomes include stillbirths, infant/child death, preterm delivery, overall and specific minor congenital malformations, and small for gestational age infants. Discussion Our systematic review will be of utility to healthcare providers, policy-makers, and HIV-positive women regarding the use of antiretroviral drugs. Trial registration PROSPERO registry number: CRD42014009071.

BACKGROUND: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis is considered the "gold standard" for exploring the effectiveness of interventions in different subgroups of patients. However, obtaining IPD is time-consuming and contact with the researchers responsible for the original trials is usually required. To date, there are no studies evaluating different strategies to optimize the process for retrieval of IPD from such researchers. Our aim is to examine the impact of providing incentives to the researchers responsible for the trials eligible for a meta-analysis to submit their IPD.METHODS/DESIGN: We updated our previously published systematic reviews for type 1 diabetes mellitus comparing long- and intermediate-acting insulin regimens (from January 2013 to June 2015) and for Alzheimer's dementia comparing cognitive enhancers (from January 2015 to May 2015). Eligible were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the eligibility criteria of the systematic reviews. We will randomly allocate authors of the reports of these RCTs into an intervention or control group. Those allocated to the intervention group will be contacted by email, mail, and phone, and will be asked to provide the IPD from their RCT and will be given a financial incentive. Those allocated to the control group will be contacted by email, mail, and phone, but will not receive a financial incentive. Our primary outcome will be the proportion of authors who provide the IPD. The secondary outcomes will be the time to return the dataset (defined as the period between the information request and the authors' response with the dataset), and completeness of data. We will compare the response rates in the two groups using the odds ratio and the corresponding 95 % confidence interval. We will also use binary logistic regression and cox regression analyses to examine whether different RCT characteristics, such as study size and sponsor information, influence the probability of providing IPD and the time needed to share the data.DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether a financial incentive affects response rates when seeking IPD from the original researchers. We will disseminate our findings in an open access scientific journal and present results at national and international conferences.TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in Clinical Trials.gov, ID number NCT02569411 . Date of registration 5 October 2015.

Background Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients, but these agents may be harmful. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists. Methods Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564. Results Overall, 120 studies and 27,787 patients were included after screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly more patients receiving granisetron plus dexamethasone experienced an arrhythmia relative to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.11–7.94), ondansetron (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.17–8.95), dolasetron (OR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.51–12.62), tropisetron (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 1.02–10.43), and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OR 5.75, 95 % CI 1.71–19.34) in a NMA including 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 6,623 patients of all ages. No statistically significant differences in delirium frequency were observed across all treatment comparisons in a NMA including 18 RCTs and 3,652 patients. Conclusion Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0379-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.