Search

Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org.

Background: In recent years, meters for continuous monitoring of interstitial fluid glucose have been introduced to help people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) to achieve better control of their disease. Objective: The objective of this project was to summarise the evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed® Paradigm™ Veo system (Medtronic Inc., Northridge, CA, USA) and the Vibe™ (Animas® Corporation, West Chester, PA, USA) and G4® PLATINUM CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) system (Dexcom Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) in comparison with multiple daily insulin injections (MDIs) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), both with either self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) or CGM, for the management of T1DM in adults and children. Data sources: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Diagnostic Assessment Programme manual. We searched 14 databases, three trial registries and two conference proceedings from study inception up to September 2014. In addition, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were checked. In the absence of randomised controlled trials directly comparing Veo or an integrated CSII + CGM system, such as Vibe, with comparator interventions, indirect treatment comparisons were performed if possible. Methods: A commercially available cost-effectiveness model, the IMS Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness diabetes model version 8.5 (IMS Health, Danbury, CT, USA), was used for this assessment. This model is an internet-based, interactive simulation model that predicts the long-term health outcomes and costs associated with the management of T1DM and type 2 diabetes. The model consists of 15 submodels designed to simulate diabetes-related complications, non-specific mortality and costs over time. As the model simulates individual patients over time, it updates risk factors and complications to account for disease progression. Results: Fifty-four publications resulting from 19 studies were included in the review. Overall, the evidence suggests that the Veo system reduces hypoglycaemic events more than other treatments, without any differences in other outcomes, including glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. We also found significant results in favour of the integrated CSII + CGM system over MDIs with SMBG with regard to HbA1c levels and quality of life. However, the evidence base was poor. The quality of the included studies was generally low, often with only one study comparing treatments in a specific population at a specific follow-up time. In particular, there was only one study comparing Veo with an integrated CSII + CGM system and only one study comparing Veo with a CSII + SMBG system in a mixed population. Cost-effectiveness analyses indicated that MDI + SMBG is the option most likely to be cost-effective, given the current threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, whereas integrated CSII + CGM systems and Veo are dominated and extendedly dominated, respectively, by stand-alone, non-integrated CSII with CGM. Scenario analyses did not alter these conclusions. No cost-effectiveness modelling was conducted for children or pregnant women. Conclusions: The Veo system does appear to be better than the other systems considered at reducing hypoglycaemic events. However, in adults, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Integrated systems are also generally unlikely to be cost-effective given that stand-alone systems are cheaper and, possibly, no less effective. However, evidence in this regard is generally lacking, in particular for children. Future trials in specific child, adolescent and adult populations should include longer term follow-up and ratings on the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions scale at various time points with a view to informing improved cost-effectiveness modelling.

Introduction. Estimates on the epidemiology of chronic pain vary widely throughout Europe. It is unclear whether this variation reflects true differences between populations or methodological factors. Information on the epidemiology of chronic pain can support decision makers in allocating adequate health care resources. Methods. In order to obtain epidemiological data on chronic pain in Denmark and Sweden, we conducted a literature review of epidemiological data primarily on chronic noncancer pain, prioritising studies of highest quality, recency, and validity by conducting a systematic search for relevant studies. Following quality assessment, data were summarised and assigned to the research questions. Results. The prevalence of moderate to severe noncancer pain was estimated at 16% in Denmark and 18% in Sweden. Chronic pain impacts negatively on perceived health status, quality of life and is associated with increased cost. Despite using pain medications, a large proportion of chronic pain sufferers have inadequate pain control. There was a lack of high-quality and low-bias studies with clear inclusion criteria. Conclusions. In both Denmark and Sweden, chronic pain is a common health problem which is potentially undertreated and warrants attention of health care workers, policy makers and researchers. Future research should utilise clear reporting guidelines to assist decision and policy makers, in this important area.