Search

BackgroundVirtual care models are used to follow-up patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy. There is increasing interest in the expansion of virtual, or even remote-only, CIED care models to alleviate resource and economic burden to both patients and specialty device clinics and to maintain or improve equity and access to high-quality cardiovascular care. This qualitative framework synthesis aims to identify barriers and enablers to virtual care models from both the perspective of the patient and device clinics. How setting, context, equity factors or other aspects influence these factors, or satisfaction with care, will also be investigated.MethodsWe will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, other EBM Reviews, and trial registry databases. Screening will be completed by two independent review authors. Original research articles having a qualitative component (i.e., qualitative, mixed-, or multi-method) are eligible. Study populations of interest are (a) individuals with a CIED or (b) healthcare providers involved in any aspect of virtual or remote follow-up of patients with CIEDs. Eligibility will be restricted to studies published after January 1, 2000 in English or French. Data will be captured using standardized templates based on the domains and constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Warwick Patient Experiences Framework. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research will be applied to all included studies. The GRADE-CERQual approach will be applied to assess and summarize confidence in key findings. Reporting will follow the enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) statement. Detailed descriptive results will be presented, and summary of qualitative findings tables will be produced.DiscussionWhile a number of trials have captured the clinical effectiveness and safety of virtual follow-up for CIEDs, there has been less attention given to factors affecting use and implementation of remote care by patients and healthcare providers or satisfaction with care. Results from this qualitative framework synthesis will provide important lived experience data from both patients and healthcare providers which will be essential to incorporate in clinical guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPEROCRD42020160533.

Cannabinoid oils are being increasingly used to treat Dravet syndrome, yet the long-term costs and outcomes of this approach are unknown. Thus, we examined the cost effectiveness of cannabinoid oil as an adjunctive treatment (added to clobazam and valproate), compared with adjunctive stiripentol or with clobazam and valproate alone, for the treatment of Dravet syndrome in children. We performed a probabilistic cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Canadian public health care system, comparing cannabinoid oil and stiripentol (both on a background of clobazam and valproate) with clobazam and valproate alone. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using a Markov model that followed a cohort of children aged from 5 to 18 years through model states related to seizure frequency. Model inputs were obtained from the literature. The cost effectiveness of adjunctive cannabinoid oil, adjunctive stiripentol, and clobazam/valproate alone was assessed through sequential analysis. The influence of perspective and other assumptions were explored in scenario analyses. All costs are expressed in 2019 Canadian dollars, and costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 1.5% per year. The incremental cost per QALY gained with the use of adjunctive cannabinoid oil, from the health care system perspective, was $32,399 compared with clobazam and valproate. Stiripentol was dominated by cannabinoid oil, producing fewer QALYs at higher costs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000, cannabinoid oil was the optimal treatment in 76% of replications. From a societal perspective, cannabinoid oil dominated stiripentol and clobazam/valproate. The interpretation of the results was insensitive to model and input assumptions. Compared with clobazam/valproate, adjunctive cannabinoid oil may be a cost-effective treatment for Dravet syndrome, if a decision maker is willing to pay at least $32,399 for each QALY gained. The opportunity costs of continuing to fund stiripentol, but not cannabinoid oil, should be considered.

Purpose To understand the experiences with and perspectives of neurologists about the use of medical cannabis in the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. Methods In this qualitative study, we interviewed neurologists who provide care to children with drug-resistant epilepsy in Canada. Through semi-structured telephone interviews, we sought participants’ views about and experiences with medical cannabis for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children. Here we present a thematic summary of the interviews. Results The 12 interviewed neurologists generally perceived medical cannabis as a viable treatment option for children with drug-resistant epilepsy; however, participants identified important gaps in the evidence and implications for their practices. Six themes were generated from the content of the interviews: learning about medical cannabis; perceptions about medical cannabis; discussing medical cannabis with parents; experiences with medical cannabis authorization; barriers to authorizing medical cannabis; and the impact of medical cannabis on clinical care. Of note, while some neurologists took on all aspects of the children’s care, including medical cannabis, others referred interested families to non-neurology health care professionals. Conclusion Our findings highlight the diverse opinions and experiences of neurologists in Canada with medical cannabis for the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy in children, including with the authorization process and caring for children using medical cannabis. Additional education about medical cannabis may be warranted, in order to better prepare neurologists to have informed and open conversations with parents about this treatment option and to provide care for children using medical cannabis.

Drug-resistant epilepsy affects about one-third of children with epilepsy and is associated with high costs to the healthcare system, yet the cost effectiveness of most treatments is unclear. Use of cannabis-based products for epilepsy is increasing, and the cost effectiveness of such strategies relative to conventional pharmacologic treatments must be considered. The objective of this systematic review was to identify economic evaluations of cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy. We also sought to identify and appraise decision models that have been used in economic evaluations of pharmacologic treatments (i.e., antiepileptic drugs) in this population. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library, as well as a targeted grey literature search, were undertaken (11 June 2018). Model-based full economic evaluations involving cannabis-based treatments or pharmacologic treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy in children were eligible for inclusion. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion, and study quality was assessed by use of the Drummond and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklists. Study findings, as well as model characteristics, are narratively summarized. Nine economic evaluations involving children with drug-resistant epilepsy were identified; however, none involved cannabis-based treatments. All studies involved pharmacologic treatments compared with other pharmacologic treatments or non-pharmacologic treatments (i.e., ketogenic diet, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation). Few studies have assessed the cost effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments in specific drug-resistant epilepsy syndromes, including Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndromes. Five included studies involved use of Markov models with a similar structure (i.e., health states based on seizure frequency relative to baseline). There was a wide range of methodological quality, and few studies fully addressed context-specific issues such as weight gain and treatment switching. Whether cannabis-based treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy represent good value for money has yet to be investigated. Economic evaluations of such treatments are needed and should address issues of particular importance in pediatric epilepsy, including weight gain over time, switching or discontinuation of treatments, effectiveness of interventions and comparators, and long-term effectiveness beyond the duration of available clinical studies. CRD42018099591.

BACKGROUND Evidence to guide treatment of pediatric medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU) is fragmented because of large variability in outcome selection and measurement. Our goal was to develop core outcome sets (COSs) for these diseases to facilitate meaningful future evidence generation and enhance the capacity to compare and synthesize findings across studies. METHODS Parents and/or caregivers, health professionals, and health policy advisors completed a Delphi survey and participated in a consensus workshop to select core outcomes from candidate lists of outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Delphi participants rated the importance of outcomes on a nine-point scale (1–3: not important, 4–6: important but not critical, 7–9: critical). Candidate outcomes were progressively narrowed down over 3 survey rounds. At the workshop, participants evaluated the remaining candidate outcomes using an adapted nominal technique, open discussion, and voting. After the workshop, we finalized the COSs and recommended measurement instruments for each outcome. RESULTS There were 85, 61, and 53 participants across 3 Delphi rounds, respectively. The candidate core outcome lists were narrowed down to 20 outcomes per disease to be discussed at the consensus workshop. Voting by 18 workshop participants led to COSs composed of 8 and 9 outcomes for MCAD deficiency and PKU, respectively, with measurement recommendations. CONCLUSIONS These are the first known pediatric COSs for MCAD deficiency and PKU. Adoption in future studies will help to ensure best use of limited research resources to ultimately improve care for children with these rare diseases.

Purpose Alternative models of genetic counseling are needed to meet the rising demand for genomic sequencing. Digital tools have been proposed as a method to augment traditional counseling and reduce burden on professionals; however, their role in delivery of genetic counseling is not established. This study explored the role of the Genomics ADvISER, a digital decision aid, in delivery of genomic counseling. Methods We performed secondary analysis of 52 pretest genetic counseling sessions that were conducted over the course of a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Genomics ADvISER. As part of the trial, participants were randomized to receive standard counseling or use the tool and then speak with a counselor. A qualitative interpretive description approach using thematic analysis and constant comparison was used for analysis. Results In the delivery of genomic counseling, the Genomics ADvISER contributed to enhancing counseling by (1) promoting informed dialogue, (2) facilitating preference-sensitive deliberation, and (3) deepening personalization of decisions, all of which represent fundamental principles of patient-centered care: providing clear high-quality information, respecting patients' values, preferences, and expressed needs, and providing emotional support. Conclusion This study demonstrates that our digital tool contributed to enhancing patient-centered care in the delivery of genomic counseling.

BackgroundCapacity to deliver outpatient care for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) may soon be outweighed by need. This systematic review aims to investigate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost for virtual or remote clinic interventions for patients with CIEDs and explores how outcomes may be influenced by patient or system factors in-depth.MethodsWe will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Dissertations & Theses, other EBM Reviews, and trial registry databases. Two authors will independently screen titles and abstracts for eligibility. We will include randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized and experimental studies, cohort, and case-control studies. Study populations of interest are individuals with a CIED (pacemaker, ICD, CRT). Eligibility will be restricted to virtual or remote follow-up or care interventions compared to any other approach. The co-primary outcomes of interest are mortality and patient satisfaction. Secondary outcomes include clinical effectiveness (e.g., ICD shock, time-to-detection of medical event, hospitalizations), safety (e.g., serious or device-related adverse events), device efficacy (e.g., transmissions, malfunctions), costs, workflow (e.g., resources, process outcomes, time-saved), and patient reported (e.g., burden, quality of life). Data will be extracted by one author and checked by a second using a standardized template. We will use published frameworks to capture data relevant to intervention effects that may be influenced by intervention definition or complexity, context and setting, or in socially disadvantaged populations. Detailed descriptive results will be presented for all included studies and outcomes, and where feasible, synthesized using meta-analysis. Risk of bias will be assessed by two review authors independently using Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Certainty of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach.DiscussionIncreases in number of CIEDs implanted, combined with an aging population and finite health resource allocations at the system-level may lead to increased reliance on virtual follow-up or care models in the future. These models must prioritize consistent, equitable, and timely care as a priority. Results from this systematic review will provide important insight into the potential contextual factors which moderate or mediate the effectiveness, safety, and cost of virtual follow-up or care models for patients.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42020145210

Background Inherited metabolic diseases (IMDs) are a group of individually rare single-gene diseases. For many IMDs, there is a paucity of high-quality evidence that evaluates the effectiveness of clinical interventions. Clinical effectiveness trials of IMD interventions could be supported through the development of core outcome sets (COSs), a recommended minimum set of standardized, high-quality outcomes and associated outcome measurement instruments to be incorporated by all trials in an area of study. We began the process of establishing pediatric COSs for two IMDs, medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency and phenylketonuria (PKU), by reviewing published literature to describe outcomes reported by authors, identify heterogeneity in outcomes across studies, and assemble a candidate list of outcomes. Methods We used a comprehensive search strategy to identify primary studies and guidelines relevant to children with MCAD deficiency and PKU, extracting study characteristics and outcome information from eligible studies including outcome measurement instruments for select outcomes. Informed by an established framework and a previously published pediatric COS, outcomes were grouped into five, mutually-exclusive, a priori core areas: growth and development, life impact, pathophysiological manifestations, resource use, and death. Results For MCAD deficiency, we identified 83 outcomes from 52 articles. The most frequently represented core area was pathophysiological manifestations, with 33 outcomes reported in 29/52 articles (56%). Death was the most frequently reported outcome. One-third of outcomes were reported by a single study. The most diversely measured outcome was cognition and intelligence/IQ for which eight unique measurement instruments were reported among 14 articles. For PKU, we identified 97 outcomes from 343 articles. The most frequently represented core area was pathophysiological manifestations with 31 outcomes reported in 281/343 articles (82%). Phenylalanine concentration was the most frequently reported outcome. Sixteen percent of outcomes were reported by a single study. Similar to MCAD deficiency, the most diversely measured PKU outcome was cognition and intelligence/IQ with 39 different instruments reported among 82 articles. Conclusions Heterogeneity of reported outcomes and outcome measurement instruments across published studies for both MCAD deficiency and PKU highlights the need for COSs for these diseases, to promote the use of meaningful outcomes and facilitate comparisons across studies.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts,theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers,publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Introduction The use of medical cannabis to treat drug-resistant epilepsy in children is increasing; however, there has been limited study of the experiences of parents with the current system of accessing medical cannabis for their children. Methods In this qualitative study, we used a patient-centered access to care framework to explore the barriers faced by parents of children with drug-resistant epilepsy when trying to access medical cannabis in Canada. We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 parents to elicit their experiences with medical cannabis. We analyzed the data according to five dimensions of access, namely approachability, acceptability, availability, affordability, and appropriateness. Results Parents sought medical cannabis as a treatment because of a perceived unmet need stemming from the failure of antiepileptic drugs to control their children's seizures. Medical cannabis was viewed as an acceptable treatment, especially compared with adding additional antiepileptic drugs. After learning about medical cannabis from the media, friends and family, or other parents, participants sought authorization for medical use. However, most encountered resistance from their child's neurologist to discuss and/or authorize medical cannabis, and many parents experienced difficulty in obtaining authorization from a member of the child's existing care team, leading them to seek authorization from a cannabis clinic. Participants described spending up to $2000 per month on medical cannabis, and most were frustrated that it was not eligible for reimbursement through public or private insurance programs. Conclusions Parents pursue medical cannabis as a treatment for their children's drug-resistant epilepsy because of a perceived unmet need. However, parents encounter barriers in accessing medical cannabis in Canada, and strategies are needed to ensure that children using medical cannabis receive proper care from healthcare professionals with training in epilepsy care, antiepileptic drugs, and medical cannabis.

Dravet syndrome is a catastrophic form of pediatric treatment-resistant epilepsy with few effective treatment options. Stiripentol is approved for use in Canada for treatment of Dravet syndrome, but the associated long-term costs and benefits have not been well-studied and its cost effectiveness is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of stiripentol as an adjunctive treatment to clobazam and valproate for treatment of Dravet syndrome from the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer. A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with adjunctive stiripentol treatment compared with clobazam and valproate alone in children with Dravet syndrome. Transition probabilities, drug efficacy, utility weights, and costs were obtained from a review of the literature. Probabilistic analyses were conducted using a Markov model with health states related to seizure frequency. A 10-year horizon was used. The incremental cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) for adjunctive use of stiripentol was calculated, and assumptions were explored in scenario analyses. All costs are expressed in 2017 Canadian dollars ($Can). Compared with clobazam and valproate alone, the adjunctive use of stiripentol is associated with an ICER of $Can151,310. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000, the probability that stiripentol was the optimal treatment was 5.2%. The cost of stiripentol would need to be reduced by 61.4% for stiripentol to be cost effective. From the perspective of the Canadian public healthcare payer, stiripentol is not cost effective at its current price at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $Can50,000. Funding stiripentol will be associated with important opportunity costs that bear consideration.

Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews.Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group.Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted.Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

Purpose To provide an up-to-date summary of the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products for epilepsy in children. Methods We updated our earlier systematic review, by searching for studies published up to May 2019. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) involving cannabis-based products administered to children with epilepsy. Outcomes were seizure freedom, seizure frequency, quality of life, sleep, status epilepticus, death, gastrointestinal adverse events, and emergency room visits. Results Thirty-five studies, including four RCTs, have assessed the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products in pediatric epilepsy (12 since April 2018). All involved cannabis-based products as adjunctive treatment, and most involved cannabidiol. In the RCTs, there was no statistically significant difference between cannabidiol and placebo for seizure freedom (relative risk 6.77, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.36–128.38), quality of life (mean difference [MD] 0.6, 95 %CI –2.6 to 3.9), or sleep disruption (MD –0.3, 95 %CI –0.8 to 0.2). Data from both RCTs and NRS suggest that cannabidiol reduces seizure frequency and increases treatment response; however, there is an increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse events. Conclusion Newly available evidence supports earlier findings that cannabidiol probably reduces the frequency of seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy. PROSPERO CRD42018084755

Background. Treatment options in oncology are rapidly advancing, and public payer systems are increasingly under pressure to adopt new but expensive cancer treatments. Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are used to estimate the relative costs and effects of competing interventions, where health outcomes are measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Health state utility values (HSUVs) are used to reflect health-related quality of life or health status in the calculation of QALYs. To support reimbursement agencies in the appraisal of oncology drug submissions, which typically include a CUA component, we have proposed a systematic literature review of published HSUV estimates in the field of oncology. Methods. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and CINAHL. A team of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, will evaluate abstracts and full-text publications for eligibility against broad inclusion criteria. Studies using a direct, indirect, or combination approach to eliciting preferences related to cancer or cancer treatments are eligible. Data extraction will capture details of study methodology, participants, health states, and corresponding HSUVs. We will summarize our findings with descriptive analyses at this stage. A pilot review in thyroid cancer is presented to illustrate the proposed methods. Discussion. This systematic review will generate a comprehensive summary of the oncology HSUV literature. As a component of the Health Utility Book (HUB) project, we anticipate that this work will assist both health economic modelers as well as critical reviewers in the development and appraisal of CUAs in oncology.

Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is a widely recommended form of health economic evaluation worldwide. The outcome measure in CUA is quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), which are calculated using health state utility values (HSUVs) and corresponding life-years. Therefore, HSUVs play a significant role in determining cost-effectiveness. Formal adoption and endorsement of CUAs by reimbursement authorities motivates methodological advancement in HSUV measurement and application. A large body of evidence exploring various methods in measuring HSUVs has accumulated, imposing challenges for investigators in identifying and applying HSUVs to CUAs. First, large variations in HSUVs between studies are often reported, and these may lead to different cost-effectiveness conclusions. Second, issues concerning the quality of studies that generate HSUVs are increasingly highlighted in the literature. This issue is compounded by the limited published guidance and methodological standards for assessing the quality of these studies. Third, reimbursement decision making is a context-specific process. Therefore, while an HSUV study may be of high quality, it is not necessarily appropriate for use in all reimbursement jurisdictions. To address these issues, by promoting a systematic approach to study identification, critical appraisal, and appropriate use, we are developing the Health Utility Book (HUB). The HUB consists of an HSUV registry, a quality assessment tool for health utility studies, and a checklist for interpreting their use in CUAs. We anticipate that the HUB will make a timely and important contribution to the rigorous conduct and proper use of health utility studies for reimbursement decision making. In this way, health care resource allocation informed by HSUVs may reflect the preferences of the public, improve health outcomes of patients, and maintain the efficiency of health care systems.

Background Drug-resistant epilepsy negatively impacts the quality of life and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high costs to the healthcare system. Cannabis-based treatments may be effective in reducing seizures in this population, but whether they are cost-effective is unclear. In this systematic review, we will search for cost-effectiveness analyses involving the treatment of pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy with cannabis-based products to inform decision-making by public healthcare payers about reimbursement of such products. We will also search for cost-effectiveness analyses of other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as estimates of healthcare resource use, costs, and utilities, for use in a subsequent cost-utility analysis to address this decision problem. Methods We will search the published and gray literature for economic evaluations of cannabis-based products and other pharmacologic treatments for pediatric drug-resistant epilepsy, as well as resource utilization and utility studies. Two independent reviewers will screen the title and abstract of each identified record and the full-text version of any study deemed potentially relevant. Study and population characteristics, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), as well as total costs and benefits, will be extracted, and quality will be assessed by use of the Drummond and CHEERS checklists; context-specific issues will also be considered. From model-based cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses, we will extract and summarize the model structure, including health states, time horizon, and cycle length. From resource utilization studies, we will extract data about the frequency of resource use (e.g., neurology visits, emergency department visits, admissions to hospital). From utility studies, we will extract the utility for each health state, the source of the preferences (e.g., child, parent, patient, general public), and the method of elicitation. Discussion Drug-resistant epilepsy in children is associated with important costs to the healthcare system, and decision-makers require high-quality evidence on which to base reimbursement decisions. The results of this review will be useful to both decision-makers considering the decision problem of whether to reimburse cannabis-based products through public formularies and to analysts conducting studies in this area. Systematic review registration PROSPERO no.: CRD42018099591. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0990-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

OBJECTIVES To examine outcome reporting bias of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcomes from systematic review publications were compared with those reported in the corresponding PROSPERO records; discrepancies in the primary outcomes were assessed as upgrades, additions, omissions, or downgrades. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the likelihood of having a change in primary outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. RESULTS Ninety-six systematic reviews were published. A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 2.14; 95% CI: 0.53, 8.63) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27, 2.17) an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favorable and statistically significant. As well, there was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR, 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31, 2.53) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR, 0.56; 95% CI: 0.29, 1.08) an outcome when the conclusion was positive. CONCLUSIONS We recommend review authors carefully consider primary outcome selection, and journals are encouraged to focus acceptance on registered systematic reviews.

Objectives:Rapid reviews are characterized as an accelerated evidence synthesis approach with no universally accepted methodology or definition. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of defining characteristics for rapid reviews that may be used as a functional definition.Methods:Expert panelists with knowledge in rapid reviews and evidence synthesis were identified. In the first round, panelists were asked to answer a seventeen-item survey addressing a variety of rapid review topics. Results led to the development of statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews that were circulated to experts for agreement in a second survey round and further revised in a third round. Consensus was reached if ≥70 percent of experts agreed and there was stability in free-text comments.Results:A panel of sixty-six experts participated. Consensus was reached on ten of eleven statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews. According to the panel, rapid reviews aim to meet the requirements and timelines of a decision maker and should be conducted in less time than a systematic review. They use a variety of approaches to accelerate the evidence synthesis process, tailor the methods conventionally used to carry out systematic reviews, and use the most rigorous methods that the delivery time frame will allow.Conclusions:This study achieved consensus on ten statements describing the defining characteristics of rapid reviews based on the opinion of a panel of knowledgeable experts. Areas of disagreement were also highlighted. Findings emphasize the role of the decision maker and stress the importance of transparent reporting.

Objectives Screening has generally been met with enthusiasm, and, in some cases, has been associated with demonstrable reductions in morbidity and mortality. In other cases, the balance of benefits and harms may be less clear and may evolve over time. Recommendations to reduce (de-intensify) or stop screening altogether (de-implementation) have occurred, but have proved to be controversial. The goal of this study was to review existing recommendations to better understand the stated rationales for de-intensification or de-implementation of established population screening programs. In doing so we: Identify examples of population screening programs recommended for de–intensification or de–implementation and describe the characteristics of these program changes Describe the stated reasons for de–intensification or de–implementation Explore the information cited for justification of recommendations Method We conducted a Critical Interpretive Synthesis (CIS) of published literature. This included an extensive search (websites of major screening organizations, reference searches, and content expert input) in addition to an electronic search of standard data bases. Data were analysed, coded and labeled in an inductive manner, and thus allowed for further searches that explicitly sought out contrasting or conflicting evidence. The review has been registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42016035279). Results Of 9570 titles total of 66 documents, were included for analyses. Of these, 55 covered adult screening conditions and were largely cancer-related. Infant conditions included congenital toxoplasmosis (1), Down syndrome (1), fetal movement count (2), hearing test (1), urinalysis (3) and neuroblastoma (3). Of 107 recommendations, 50 related to de-intensification (e.g. increase of start age, extension of screening interval), 33 called for de-implementation, and 24 called for changes to the screening modality (often due to reduction in invasiveness or in association with increased periodicity). Explicit reasons were provided for 49 recommendations, while only 41 recommendations cited specific information in the justification. Conclusion We identified examples of programs across jurisdictions, age ranges, and clinical areas. Cancer screening dominates the examples identified. Recommendations to de-intensify or de-implement programs varied in terms of the level of evidence cited, as well as the stated rationales. Only around half of the identified recommendations provided an explicit rationale, and less than half of all recommendations were supported by a specific citation of evidence. Given the contested nature of de-implementation decisions, there is a greater need for transparency regarding the rationale behind recommendations and clearer articulation of the evidence used to support specific recommendations.

Background Pediatric epilepsy, including treatment-resistant forms, has a major effect on the quality of life, morbidity, and mortality of affected children. Interest has been growing in the use of medical cannabis as a treatment for pediatric epilepsy, yet there has been no comprehensive review of the benefits and harms of cannabis use in this population. In this systematic review, we will search for, synthesize, and assess the published and gray literature in order to provide usable and relevant information to parents, clinicians, and policy makers. Methods We will perform a living systematic review of studies involving the use of cannabis to treat pediatric epilepsy. We will search the published and gray literature for studies involving children with any type of epilepsy taking any form of cannabis. Studies will be selected for inclusion by two independent reviewers. The primary outcome is seizure freedom. Secondary outcomes are seizure frequency, quality of life (child, caregiver), quality and quantity of sleep, status epilepticus, tonic-clonic seizures, death (all-cause, sudden unexpected death in epilepsy), gastrointestinal adverse events (diarrhea, vomiting), and visits to the emergency room. The quality of each included study will be assessed. If data are sufficient in quantity and sufficiently similar, we will conduct pairwise random-effects meta-analysis. We will repeat the literature search every 6 months to identify studies published after the previous search date. Sequential meta-analysis will be performed as necessary to update the review findings. Discussion Our review aims to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the available evidence to inform decisions about the use of cannabis in children with treatment-resistant epilepsy. The results of this review will be of use to parents, clinicians, and policy makers as they navigate this rapidly evolving area. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084755 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0761-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To assess the benefits and harms of cannabis-based products for pediatric epilepsy. Methods We identified in this living systematic review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRSs) involving children with epilepsy treated with cannabis-based products. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and gray literature (April 25, 2018). The primary outcome was seizure freedom; secondary outcomes were seizure frequency (total, ≥50% reduction), quality of life, sleep, status epilepticus, death, gastrointestinal adverse events, and visits to the emergency room. Data were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed for each study, and GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. Results Four RCTs and 19 NRSs were included, primarily involving cannabidiol. All RCTs were at low risk of bias, whereas all NRSs were at high risk. Among RCTs, there was no statistically significant difference between cannabidiol and placebo in seizure freedom (relative risk [RR] = 6.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.36-128.38; 1 RCT), quality of life (mean difference = 0.6, 95% CI = -2.6 to 3.9; 3 RCTs), sleep disruption (mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI = -0.8 to 0.2; 3 RCTs), or vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.51-1.96; 4 RCTs). There was a statistically significant reduction in the median frequency of monthly seizures with cannabidiol compared with placebo (-19.8%, 95% CI = -27.0% to -12.6%; 3 RCTs) and an increase in the number of participants with at least a 50% reduction in seizures (RR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.07-2.88; 1 RCT) and diarrhea (RR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.38-3.68; 3 RCTs). Death and status epilepticus were infrequently reported. Significance Evidence from high-quality RCTs suggests that cannabidiol probably reduces seizures among children with drug-resistant epilepsy (moderate certainty). At this time, the evidence base is primarily limited to cannabidiol, and these findings should not be extended to all cannabis-based products.

Background Inherited metabolic diseases (IMD) are a large group of rare single-gene disorders that are typically diagnosed early in life. There are important evidence gaps related to the comparative effectiveness of therapies for IMD, which are in part due to challenges in conducting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for rare diseases. Registry-based RCTs present a unique opportunity to address these challenges provided the registries implement standardized collection of outcomes that are important to patients and their caregivers and to clinical providers and healthcare systems. Currently there is no core outcome set (COS) for studies evaluating interventions for paediatric IMD. This protocol outlines a study that will establish COS for each of two relatively common IMD in children, phenylketonuria (PKU) and medium-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase (MCAD) deficiency. Methods This two-part study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Part 1 includes a rapid review and development of an evidence map to identify a comprehensive listing of outcomes reported in past studies of PKU and MCAD deficiency. The review follows established methods for knowledge synthesis, including a comprehensive search strategy, two stages of screening citations against inclusion/exclusion criteria by two reviewers working independently, and extraction of important data elements from eligible studies, including details of the outcomes collected and outcome measurement instruments. The review findings will inform part 2 of our study, a set of Delphi surveys to establish consensus on the highest priority outcomes for each condition. Healthcare providers, families of children with PKU or MCAD deficiency, and health system decision-makers will be invited to participate in two to three rounds of Delphi surveys. The design of the surveys will involve parents of children with IMD who are part of a family advisory forum. Discussion This protocol is a crucial step in developing the capacity to launch RCTs with meaningful outcomes that address comparative effectiveness questions in the field of paediatric IMD. Such trials will contribute high-quality evidence to inform decision-making by patients and their family members, clinicians, and policy-makers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2327-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary Background Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. Methods We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included "biologics", "rheumatoid arthritis" and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. Findings The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1·31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·09–1·58) and high-dose biological drugs (1·90, 1·50–2·39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0·93, 0·65–1·33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs. Interpretation Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Funding Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

BACKGROUND The use of complementary and alternative medicine is high among children and youth with chronic illnesses, including patients with cardiac conditions. Our goal was to assess the prevalence and patterns of such use among patients presenting to academic pediatric cardiology clinics in Canada. METHODS A survey instrument was developed to inquire about current or previous use of complementary and alternative medicine products and practices, including indications, beliefs, sources of information and whether this use was discussed with physicians. Between February and July 2007, the survey was administered to patients (or their parents/guardians) presenting to 2 hospital-based cardiology clinics: the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario in Ottawa, Ontario. RESULTS At the Stollery Children's Hospital, 64.1% of the 145 respondents had used complementary and alternative medicine compared with 35.5% of the 31 respondents at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (p = 0.003). Overall, the most common products in current use were multivitamins (70.6%), vitamin C (22.1%), calcium (13.2%), unspecified "cold remedies" (11.8%) and fish oil or omega-3 fatty acids (11.8%). The most common practices in current use were massage (37.5%), faith healing (25.0%), chiropractic (20.0%), aromatherapy (15.0%) and Aboriginal healing (7.5%). Many patients (44.9%) used complementary and alternative medicine products at the same time as conventional prescription drugs. Concurrent use was discussed with physicians or pharmacists by 64.3% and 31.3% of respondents, respectively. INTERPRETATION Use of complementary and alternative medicine products and practices was high among patients seen in the pediatric cardiology clinics in our study. Most respondents believed that the use of these products and practices was helpful; few reported harms and many did not discuss this use with their physicians, increasing the potential for interactions with prescribed medications.

The aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence and patterns of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among pediatric patients with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders at academic clinics in Canada.The survey was carried out at 2 hospital-based gastroenterology clinics: the Stollery Children's Hospital in Edmonton and the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa.CAM use at the Stollery was 83% compared with 36% at CHEO (P 0.001). The most common reason for not using CAM was lack of knowledge about it. Most respondents felt comfortable discussing CAM in their clinic and wanted more information on CAM. The most common CAM products being taken were multivitamins (91%), calcium (35%), vitamin C (32%), probiotics (14%), and fish oil/omega-3 fatty acids (13%). The most common CAM practices being used were massage (43%), chiropractic (27%), faith healing (25%), and relaxation (18%). Most respondents believed that CAM was helpful, and most of the 23 reported adverse effects were minor. Seven were reported as moderate, and 3 were reported as severe. Many (42%) patients used CAM at the same time as prescription medicines, and of these patients, concurrent use was discussed with their physician (76%) or pharmacist (52%).CAM use is high among pediatric patients with GI disorders and is much greater among those in Edmonton than in Ottawa. Most respondents reported their CAM use as helpful, with little or no associated harm. Many patients fail to disclose their concurrent use of CAM and conventional medicines to their doctors, increasing the likelihood of interactions.

Background: Increasingly, healthcare decision makers demand quality evidence in a short timeframe to support urgent and emergent decisions related to procurement, clinical practice, and policy. Health technology assessment (HTA) producers are responding by developing innovative approaches to evidence synthesis that can be executed more quickly than traditional systematic review. These approaches, and the broader implications they bring to bear on health decision making and policy development, however, are generally neither well-understood nor well-described. This study intends to contribute to an emerging literature around methodological approaches to rapid review in HTA by outlining those developed and implemented by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).Methods: Since 2005, CADTH has developed and implemented a rapid review approach that synthesizes evidence to support informed healthcare decisions and policy. Rapid Response reports are tailored to the identified needs of Canadian health decision makers, representing a range of options with regard to depth, breadth, and time-to-delivery.Results: Preliminary observations indicate that CADTH's approach to rapid evidence review is generally well-received by Canadian health decision makers; real-world case studies provide pragmatic examples of how health decision makers have used Rapid Response reports to support evidence-informed health decisions across Canada.Conclusions: Rapid review is becoming an increasingly important approach to evidence synthesis, both within and external to the field of HTA. Transparent reporting of the methods used to develop rapid review products will be critical to the assessment of their relevance, utility and effects in a range of contexts.

Objective: Emergency physicians (EPs) rarely find out what happens to patients after the patients leave their care, a process we call “outcome feedback.” Some suggest this hinders the practice of emergency medicine (EM); however, evidence is lacking. We sought to evaluate EPs' perception of the current and potential role of outcome feedback in EM. Methods: We surveyed practising French- and English-speaking EPs from emergency departments within 100 km of Ottawa, Ont., in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The main outcomes included the prevalence, role and effect of outcome feedback. Results: Of the 297 physicians surveyed, 231 (77.8%) responded. The sample contained good representation of language groups, practice settings, sexes and age groups. All participants indicated that knowing outcomes is “essential” (62.6%) or “beneficial” (37.4%) to gaining experience in EM. Participants reported currently receiving passive outcome feedback in 10.0% of all cases, and seeking out (active) outcome feedback in 7.5% of all cases. The great majority of participants (97.3%) stated that they would like to receive more outcome feedback and believed that this would improve diagnostic accuracy (97.3%), clinical efficiency (85.5%), treatment outcomes (95.6%) and job satisfaction (95.1%). When asked to indicate “any possible negative effects that might arise from increased outcome feedback,” 62.1% indicated none. However, 17.9% hypothesized negative emotional effects and 11.5% suggested increased time requirements. Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of EPs receive very little outcome feedback. Most would like more outcome feedback and believe it would improve the practice of EM.

Background To explore factors that influence and to identify initiatives to improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of device-related incidents. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews with 16 health professionals in two tertiary care hospitals were conducted. Purposive sampling was used to identify appropriate study participants. Transcribed interviews were read independently by one individual to identify, define and organize themes and verified by another reviewer. Results Themes related to incident recognition were the hospital staff’s knowledge and professional experience, medical device performance and clinical manifestations of patients, while incident reporting was influenced by error severity, personal attitudes of clinicians, feedback received on the error reported. Physicians often discontinued using medical devices if they malfunctioned. Education and training and the implementation of registries were discussed as important initiatives to improve medical device surveillance in clinical practice. Conclusions Results from the telephone interviews suggest that multiple factors that influence participation in medical device surveillance activities are consistent with results for medical errors as reported in previous studies. The study results helped to propose a conceptual framework for a medical device surveillance system in a hospital context that would enhance patient safety and health care delivery. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0886-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: Although triptans are widely used in the acute management of migraine, there is uncertainty around the comparative efficacy of triptans among each other and vs non-triptan migraine treatments. We conducted systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to compare the relative efficacy of triptans (alone or in combination with other drugs) for acute treatment of migraines compared with other triptan agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), acetaminophen, ergots, opioids, or anti-emetics. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared triptans (alone or in combination with other drugs) with placebo-controlled or active migraine treatments. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were completed independently by multiple reviewers. Outcome data were combined and analyzed using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. For each outcome, odds ratios, relative risks, and absolute probability of response were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 133 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Standard dose triptans relieved headaches within 2 hours in 42 to 76% of patients, and 2-hour sustained freedom from pain was achieved for 18 to 50% of patients. Standard dose triptans provided sustained headache relief at 24 hours in 29 to 50% of patients, and sustained freedom from pain in 18 to 33% of patients. Use of rescue medications ranged from 20 to 34%. For 2-hour headache relief, standard dose triptan achieved better outcomes (42 to 76% response) than ergots (38%); equal or better outcomes than NSAIDs, ASA, and acetaminophen (46 to 52%); and equal or slightly worse outcomes than combination therapy (62 to 80%). Among individual triptans, sumatriptan subcutaneous injection, rizatriptan ODT, zolmitriptan ODT, and eletriptan tablets were associated with the most favorable outcomes. INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS: Triptans are effective for migraine relief. Standard dose triptans are associated with better outcomes than ergots, and most triptans are associated with equal or better outcomes compared with NSAIDs, ASA, and acetaminophen. Use of triptans in combination with ASA or acetaminophen, or using alternative modes of administration such as injectables, may be associated with slightly better outcomes than standard dose triptan tablets. This research was supported by the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network. CC is a recipient of a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship through CIHR (Funding reference number – CGV 121171) and a trainee on the CIHR Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network Meta-Analysis team grant (Funding reference number – 116573).

© 2015 Cameron et al. Network meta-analysis is increasingly used to allow comparison of multiple treatment alternatives simultaneously, some of which may not have been compared directly in primary research studies. The majority of network meta-analyses published to date have incorporated data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only; however, inclusion of non-randomized studies may sometimes be considered. Non-randomized studies can complement RCTs or address some of their limitations, such as short follow-up time, small sample size, highly selected population, high cost, and ethical restrictions. In this paper, we discuss the challenges and opportunities of incorporating both RCTs and non-randomized comparative cohort studies into network meta-analysis for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments. Non-randomized studies with inadequate control of biases such as confounding may threaten the validity of the entire network meta-analysis. Therefore, identification and inclusion of non-randomized studies must balance their strengths with their limitations. Inclusion of both RCTs and non-randomized studies in network meta-analysis will likely increase in the future due to the growing need to assess multiple treatments simultaneously, the availability of higher quality non-randomized data and more valid methods, and the increased use of progressive licensing and product listing agreements requiring collection of data over the life cycle of medical products. Inappropriate inclusion of non-randomized studies could perpetuate the biases that are unknown, unmeasured, or uncontrolled. However, thoughtful integration of randomized and non-randomized studies may offer opportunities to provide more timely, comprehensive, and generalizable evidence about the comparative safety and effectiveness of medical treatments.

Objective Gastric decontamination with single-dose activated charcoal (SDAC) is a mainstay in emergency department (ED) treatment of ingestions. Guidelines updated in 2005 encourage practitioners to use SDAC only in toxic ingestions presenting within 1 hour. Despite these guidelines, adult studies demonstrate a significant lack of consensus. This study examined the proposed use of SDAC for gastric decontamination in common pediatric ingestion scenarios by emergency physicians working in Canadian pediatric EDs. Methods A standardized survey consisting of 5 clinical scenarios was mailed to all physicians with a primary clinical appointment to the ED at 9 Canadian children's hospitals. Results One hundred thirty-one physicians were surveyed, and 95 (72%) responded. The majority of respondents were pediatricians (68.1%) with a mean of 15.0 years of experience (SD, 6.8 years). Of those surveyed; 91 (97.8%) would use SDAC for a toxic ingestion presenting in less than 1 hour; 35 (36.8%) would use SDAC for a toxic ingestion presenting after 3 hours; 61 (64.9%) would use SDAC for a nontoxic exploratory ingestion presenting in less than 1 hour; and 29 (30.5%) would use SDAC for a mildly symptomatic intentional ingestion presenting at an unknown time. Eleven (11.7%) would use SDAC for an ingestion of a substance that does not adsorb to SDAC. Conclusions There is variation in the use of SDAC among emergency physicians working in Canadian pediatric EDs. This variation suggests that optimal management is not clear and that continued education and research are required.

Factors associated with full breastfeeding (FBF) at 1 week and at 6 months postpartum were examined in a cohort of 856 mother-infant dyads. Questionnaires were mailed at 4 time points over the first 6 months postpartum. At 1 week, 68% of infants were FBF; at 6 months, 23% were FBF. Factors significantly associated with FBF at 1 week were hospital of delivery, residing with a smoker, maternal shiftwork during pregnancy, and having no prior breast-feeding experience. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed that residing with a smoker, having consumed caffeine during pregnancy, reporting elevated maternal trait anxiety at 1 week postpartum, having been employed full-time outside the home prior to delivery, and having received anesthesia/analgesia during labor/delivery were associated with earlier cessation of FBF, whereas not having previous breastfeeding experience predicted its continuation. Although most mothers are breastfeeding early on, a number of factors adversely affect its successful continuation.

Aims: (1) To measure the prevalence of burnout, psychological morbidity, job satisfaction, job stress, and consideration of alternate work among multidisciplinary hospital based child and youth protection (CYP) professionals; (2) to understand the relations between these variables; and (3) to understand the reasons for leaving among former programme members. Methods: Mailed survey of current and former members of all Canadian academic hospital based CYP programmes. Surveys for current members contained validated measures of burnout, psychological morbidity, job satisfaction/stress, and questions about consideration of alternate work. Surveys for former members examined motivation(s) for leaving. Results: One hundred and twenty six of 165 current members (76.4%) and 13/14 (92.9%) former members responded. Over one third (34.1%) of respondents exhibited burnout while psychological morbidity was present in 13.5%. Job satisfaction was high, with 68.8% finding their job “extremely” or “quite” satisfying, whereas 26.2% found their job “extremely” or “quite” stressful. Psychological morbidity, job satisfaction, and job stress were not associated with any of the demographic variables measured, but burnout was most prevalent among non-physician programme members. Almost two thirds of current members indicated that they had seriously considered a change in work situation. Former members indicated that burnout and high levels of job stress were most responsible for their decision to leave and that increasing the number of programme staff and, consequently, reducing the number of hours worked would have influenced their decision to stay. Conclusions: Current levels of burnout and the large proportion of individuals who have contemplated leaving the service suggest a potential crisis in Canadian hospital based CYP services.

Objectives: Elbow injuries in children are a common presenting complaint to the emergency department. Although radiography is a valuable tool in the diagnosis of this injury, x-rays of the injured elbow are inherently difficult to interpret. As a result, comparison views of the uninjured arm have traditionally been recommended to provide an anatomically “normal” radiograph. Recent studies have questioned the use of comparison views in the pediatric emergency department. The primary objective of this study was to determine current practices of non-pediatric emergency physicians in the use of comparison views for the diagnosis of elbow injuries in children. Methods: A self-administered mail survey was sent to 300 randomly selected emergency physicians, using the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians database. Results: Two hundred and forty-two (81%) responses were received; 26 were excluded based on pre-determined criteria. Of eligible respondents, 95% ordered comparison views selectively and 64% of these physicians ordered comparison views infrequently. Eighty-eight percent found the comparison views to be “rarely” to “sometimes” useful. Forty-seven percent of respondents stated that they were only “somewhat” confident when interpreting x-rays of a child's elbow. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates that non-pediatric emergency physicians are using comparison views selectively for elbow injuries in children, despite being only “somewhat” confident in interpreting the x-rays.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. BACKGROUND: The use of network meta-analysis has increased dramatically in recent years. WinBUGS, a freely available Bayesian software package, has been the most widely used software package to conduct network meta-analyses. However, the learning curve for WinBUGS can be daunting, especially for new users. Furthermore, critical appraisal of network meta-analyses conducted in WinBUGS can be challenging given its limited data manipulation capabilities and the fact that generation of graphical output from network meta-analyses often relies on different software packages than the analyses themselves. METHODS: We developed a freely available Microsoft-Excel-based tool called NetMetaXL, programmed in Visual Basic for Applications, which provides an interface for conducting a Bayesian network meta-analysis using WinBUGS from within Microsoft Excel. . This tool allows the user to easily prepare and enter data, set model assumptions, and run the network meta-analysis, with results being automatically displayed in an Excel spreadsheet. It also contains macros that use NetMetaXL's interface to generate evidence network diagrams, forest plots, league tables of pairwise comparisons, probability plots (rankograms), and inconsistency plots within Microsoft Excel. All figures generated are publication quality, thereby increasing the efficiency of knowledge transfer and manuscript preparation. RESULTS: We demonstrate the application of NetMetaXL using data from a network meta-analysis published previously which compares combined resynchronization and implantable defibrillator therapy in left ventricular dysfunction. We replicate results from the previous publication while demonstrating result summaries generated by the software. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the freely available NetMetaXL successfully demonstrated its ability to make running network meta-analyses more accessible to novice WinBUGS users by allowing analyses to be conducted entirely within Microsoft Excel. NetMetaXL also allows for more efficient and transparent critical appraisal of network meta-analyses, enhanced standardization of reporting, and integration with health economic evaluations which are frequently Excel-based. CC is a recipient of a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (funding reference number—CGV 121171) and is a trainee on the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network team grant (funding reference number—116573). BH is funded by a New Investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. This research was partly supported by funding from CADTH as part of a project to develop Excel-based tools to support the conduct of health technology assessments. This research was also supported by Cornerstone Research Group.

International audience; Many anticoagulant strategies are available for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism, yet little guidance exists regarding which drug is most effective and safe. To summarize and compare the efficacy and safety outcomes associated with 8 anticoagulation options (unfractionated heparin [UFH], low-molecular-weight heparin [LMWH], or fondaparinux in combination with vitamin K antagonists); LMWH with dabigatran or edoxaban; rivaroxaban; apixaban; and LMWH alone) for treatment of venous thromboembolism. A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the evidence-based medicine reviews from inception through February 28, 2014. Eligible studies were randomized trials reporting rates of recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in patients with acute venous thromboembolism. Of the 1197 studies identified, 45 trials including 44,989 patients were included in the analyses. Two reviewers independently extracted trial-level data including number of patients, duration of follow-up, and outcomes. The data were pooled using network meta-analysis. The primary clinical and safety outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding, respectively. Compared with the LMWH-vitamin K antagonist combination, a treatment strategy using the UFH-vitamin K antagonist combination was associated with an increased risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.15-1.79). The proportion of patients experiencing recurrent venous thromboembolism during 3 months of treatment were 1.84% (95% CrI, 1.33%-2.51%) for the UFH-vitamin K antagonist combination and 1.30% (95% CrI, 1.02%-1.62%) for the LMWH-vitamin K antagonist combination. Rivaroxaban (HR, 0.55; 95% CrI, 0.35-0.89) and apixaban (HR, 0.31; 95% CrI, 0.15-0.62) were associated with a lower risk of bleeding than was the LMWH-vitamin K antagonist combination, with a lower proportion of patients experiencing a major bleeding event during 3 months of anticoagulation: 0.49% (95% CrI, 0.29%-0.85%) for rivaroxaban, 0.28% (95% CrI, 0.14%-0.50%) for apixaban, and 0.89% (95% CrI, 0.66%-1.16%) for the LMWH-vitamin K antagonist combination. Using meta-analytic pooling, there were no statistically significant differences for efficacy and safety associated with most treatment strategies used to treat acute venous thromboembolism compared with the LMWH-vitamin K antagonist combination. However, findings suggest that the UFH-vitamin K antagonist combination is associated with the least effective strategy and that rivaroxaban and apixaban may be associated with the lowest risk for bleeding.

Background Medical devices have improved the treatment of many medical conditions. Despite their benefit, the use of devices can lead to unintended incidents, potentially resulting in unnecessary harm, injury or complications to the patient, a complaint, loss or damage. Devices are used in hospitals on a routine basis. Research to date, however, has been primarily limited to describing incidents rates, so the optimal design of a hospital-based surveillance system remains unclear. Our research objectives were twofold: i) to explore factors that influence device-related incident recognition, reporting and resolution and ii) to investigate interventions or strategies to improve the recognition, reporting and resolution of medical device-related incidents. Methods We searched the bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PsycINFO database. Grey literature (literature that is not commercially available) was searched for studies on factors that influence incident recognition, reporting and resolution published and interventions or strategies for their improvement from 2003 to 2014. Although we focused on medical devices, other health technologies were eligible for inclusion. Results Thirty studies were included in our systematic review, but most studies were concentrated on other health technologies. The study findings indicate that fear of punishment, uncertainty of what should be reported and how incident reports will be used and time constraints to incident reporting are common barriers to incident recognition and reporting. Relevant studies on the resolution of medical errors were not found. Strategies to improve error reporting include the use of an electronic error reporting system, increased training and feedback to frontline clinicians about the reported error. Conclusions The available evidence on factors influencing medical device-related incident recognition, reporting and resolution by healthcare professionals can inform data collection and analysis in future studies. Since evidence gaps on medical device-related incidents exist, telephone interviews with frontline clinicians will be conducted to solicit information about their experiences with medical devices and suggested strategies for device surveillance improvement in a hospital context. Further research also should investigate the impact of human, system, organizational and education factors on the development and implementation of local medical device surveillance systems. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0028-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of antithrombotic treatments (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban and vitamin K antagonists (VKA) at a standard adjusted dose (target international normalised ratio 2.0-3.0), acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), ASA and clopidogrel) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation and among subpopulations. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: A systematic literature search strategy was designed and carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and the grey literature including the websites of regulatory agencies and health technology assessment organisations for trials published in English from 1988 to January 2014. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials were selected for inclusion if they were published in English, included at least one antithrombotic treatment and involved patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation eligible to receive anticoagulant therapy. Results: For stroke or systemic embolism, dabigatran 150 mg and apixaban twice daily were associated with reductions relative to standard adjusted dose VKA, whereas low-dose ASA and the combination of clopidogrel plus low-dose ASA were associated with increases. Absolute risk reductions ranged from 6 fewer events per 1000 patients treated for dabigatran 150 mg twice daily to 15 more events for clopidogrel plus ASA. For major bleeding, edoxaban 30 mg daily, apixaban, edoxaban 60 mg daily and dabigatran 110 mg twice daily were associated with reductions compared to standard adjusted dose VKA. Absolute risk reductions with these agents ranged from 18 fewer per 1000 patients treated each year for edoxaban 30 mg daily to 24 more for medium dose ASA. Conclusions: Compared with standard adjusted dose VKA, new oral anticoagulants were associated with modest reductions in the absolute risk of stroke and major bleeding. People on antiplatelet drugs experienced more strokes compared with anticoagulant drugs without any reduction in bleeding risk. To fully elucidate the comparative benefits and harms of antithrombotic agents across the various subpopulations, rigorously conducted comparative studies or network meta-regression analyses of patientlevel data are required. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO registry-CRD42012002721. This research was supported through a grant from the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (Funding reference number – 116573) and received financial support from the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. CC is a recipient of a Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship through CIHR (Funding reference number – CGV 121171) and has received funding from Canadian Network and Centre for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN). He is also a trainee on the CIHR Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network team grant (Funding reference number – 116573). MC is a recipient of a New Investigator Award from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and holds a T2 research chair in cancer and thrombosis from the University of Ottawa.

Background.The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is high among children and youths with chronic illnesses, including cancer. The objective of this study was to assess prevalence and patterns of CAM use among pediatric oncology outpatients in two academic clinics in Canada.Procedure.A survey was developed to ask patients (or their parents/guardians) presenting to oncology clinics at the Stollery Children’s Hospital in Edmonton and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in Ottawa about current or previous use of CAM products and practices.Results.Of the 137 families approached, 129 completed the survey. Overall CAM use was 60.5% and was not significantly different between the two hospitals. The most commonly reported reason for not using CAM was lack of knowledge about it. The most common CAM products ever used were multivitamins (86.5%), vitamin C (43.2%), cold remedies (28.4%), teething remedies (27.5%), and calcium (23.0%). The most common CAM practices ever used were faith healing (51.0%), massage (46.8%), chiropractic (27.7%), and relaxation (25.5%). Many patients (40.8%) used CAM products at the same time as prescription drugs.Conclusion.CAM use was high among patients at two academic pediatric oncology clinics. Although most respondents felt that their CAM use was helpful, many were not discussing it with their physicians.

Objective:Technological change accounts for approximately 25 percent of health expenditure growth. To date, limited research has been published on case studies of disinvestment and resource allocation decision making in clinical practice. Our research objective is to systematically review and catalogue the application of frameworks and tools for disinvestment and resource allocation decision making in health care.Methods:An electronic literature search was executed for studies on disinvestment, obsolete and ineffective technologies, and priority healthcare setting, published from January 1990 until January 2012. Databases searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and HEED.Results:Fourteen case studies on the application of frameworks and tools for disinvestment and resource allocation decisions were included. Most studies described the application of program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA), and two reports used health technology assessment (HTA) methods for coverage decisions in a national fee-for-service structure. Numerous healthcare technologies and services were covered across the studies. We describe the multiple criteria considered for decision making, and the strengths and limitations of these frameworks and tools are highlighted.Conclusions:Disinvestment and resource allocation decisions require evidence to ensure their transparency and objectivity. PBMA was used to assess resource allocation of health services and technologies in a fixed budget jurisdiction, while HTA reviews focused on specific technologies, principally in fee-for-service structures. Future research can review the data requirements and explore opportunities to increase the quantity of available evidence for disinvestment and resource allocation decisions.