Search

Background Of over 8,000 recorded randomised trials addressing COVID-19, around 80% were of treatments, and 17% have reported results. Approximately 1% were adaptive or platform trials, with 25 having results available, across 29 journal articles and 10 preprint articles. Methods We conducted an extensive literature review to address four questions about COVID-19 trials, particularly the role and impact of platform/adaptive trials and lessons learned. Results The key findings were: Q1. Social value in conducting trials and uptake into policy? COVID-19 drug treatments varied substantially and changed considerably, with drugs found effective in definitive clinical trials replacing unproven drugs. Dexamethasone has likely saved ½-2 million lives, and was cost effective across a range of countries and populations, whereas the cost effectiveness of remdesivir is uncertain. Published economic and health system impacts of COVID-19 treatments were infrequent. Q2. Issues with adaptive trial designs. Of the 77 platform trials registered, 6 major platform trials, with approximately 50 treatment arms, recruited ~135,000 participants with funding over $100 million. Q3. Models of good practice. Streamlined set-up processes such as flexible and fast-track funding, ethics, and governance approvals are vital. To facilitate recruitment, simple and streamlined research processes, and pre-existing research networks to coordinate trial planning, design, conduct and practice change are crucial to success. Q4. Potential conflicts to avoid? When treating patients through trials, balancing individual and collective rights and allocating scarce resources between healthcare and research are challenging. Tensions occur between commercial and non-commercial sectors, and academic and public health interests, such as publication and funding driven indicators and the public good. Conclusion There is a need to (i) reduce small, repetitive, single centre trials, (ii) increase coordination to ensure robust research conducted for treatments, and (iii) a wider adoption of adaptive/platform trial designs to respond to fast-evolving evidence landscape.

Background Many guidelines recommend non-drug interventions (NDIs) for managing common conditions in primary care. However, compared with drug interventions, NDIs are less widely known, promoted and used. We aim to (1) examine general practitioners’ (GPs’) knowledge, attitudes and practices for NDIs, including their use of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) Handbook of Non-Drug Interventions (HANDI), and (2) identify factors influencing their use of NDIs and HANDI.Methods We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey of practicing GP members in Australia during October–November 2022. The survey contained five sections: characteristics of GP; knowledge and use of NDIs; attitudes towards NDIs; barriers and enablers to using HANDI; and suggestions of NDIs and ideas to improve the uptake of NDIs in primary care.Results Of the 366 GPs who completed the survey, 242 (66%) were female, and 248 (74%) were ≥45 years old. One in three GPs reported that they regularly (‘always’) recommend NDIs to their patients when appropriate (34%), whereas one-third of GPs were unaware of HANDI (39%). GPs identified several factors that improve the uptake of HANDI, including ‘access and integration of HANDI in clinical practice’, ‘content and support to use in practice’ and ‘awareness and training’.Conclusions While many GPs are aware of the effectiveness of NDIs and often endorse their use, obstacles still prevent widespread adoption in primary care. The results of this survey can serve as a foundation for developing implementation strategies to improve the uptake of effective evidence-based NDIs in primary care.

Abstract Reporting of intervention research has been inadequate for many years. The development and promotion of freely available checklists aims to address this problem by providing researchers with a list of items that require reporting to enable study interpretation and replication. In this commentary, we present evidence from a recent systematic review of 51 randomised controlled trials published 2015–2020 that inadequate intervention reporting remains a widespread issue and that checklists are not being used to describe all intervention components. In 2022, we assessed the submission guidelines of 33 journals that published articles included in our review and found that just one at the time encouraged the use of reporting checklists for all intervention components. To drive progress, we contacted the editors of the other 32 journals and requested that they update their submission guidelines in response. We conclude by highlighting the waste associated with current practices and encourage journals from all fields to urgently review their submission guidelines. Only through collective action can we build an evidence base that is fit for purpose.

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of bar graph, pictograph and line graph compared with text-only, and to each other, for communicating prognosis to the public.Design Two online four-arm parallel-group randomised controlled trials. Statistical significance was set at p

Abstract Background Recent international health events have led to an increased proliferation of remotely delivered health interventions. Even with the pandemic seemingly coming under control, the experiences of the past year have fueled a growth in ideas and technology for increasing the scope of remote care delivery. Unfortunately, clinicians and health systems will have difficulty with the adoption and implementation of these interventions if ongoing and future clinical trials fail to report necessary details about execution, platforms, and infrastructure related to these interventions. The purpose was to develop guidance for reporting of telehealth interventions. Methods A working group from the US Pain Management Collaboratory developed guidance for complete reporting of telehealth interventions. The process went through 5-step process from conception to final checklist development with input for many stakeholders, to include all 11 primary investigators with trials in the Collaboratory. Results An extension focused on unique considerations relevant to telehealth interventions was developed for the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Conclusion The Telehealth Intervention guideline encourages use of the Template for the Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist as a valuable tool (TIDieR-Telehealth) to improve the quality of research through a reporting guide of relevant interventions that will help maximize reproducibility and implementation.

Abstract Background Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence‐based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed‐upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs. Objective To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs. Design A two‐round modified Delphi survey. Setting and participants A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys. Data collection We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback. Analysis Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion. Results Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence). Conclusion A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high‐quality PDAs. Patient contribution A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.

Abstract Background Understanding prognostic information can help patients know what may happen to their health over time and make informed decisions. However, communicating prognostic information well can be challenging. Purpose To conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesize research that has evaluated visual presentations that communicate quantitative prognostic information to patients or the public. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception to December 2020), and forward and backward citation search. Study selection Two authors independently screened search results and assessed eligibility. To be eligible, studies required a quantitative design and comparison of at least one visual presentation with another presentation of quantitative prognostic information. The primary outcome was comprehension of the presented information. Secondary outcomes were preferences for or satisfaction with the presentations viewed, and behavioral intentions. Data extraction Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data synthesis Eleven studies (all randomized trials) were identified. We grouped studies according to the presentation type evaluated. Bar graph versus pictograph (3 studies): no difference in comprehension between the groups. Survival vs mortality curves (2 studies): no difference in one study; higher comprehension in survival curve group in another study. Tabular format versus pictograph (4 studies): 2 studies reported similar comprehension between groups; 2 found higher comprehension in pictograph groups. Tabular versus free text (3 studies): 2 studies found no difference between groups; 1 found higher comprehension in a tabular group. Limitations Heterogeneity in the visual presentations and outcome measures, precluding meta-analysis. Conclusions No visual presentation appears to be consistently superior to communicate quantitative prognostic information.

Abstract Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to “unlearn” what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than ‘pre-print’, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’, “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating ‘Caution—Not Peer Reviewed’; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

Thromboembolic events are a common risk in adults with atrial fibrillation, those with previous cerebrovascular accidents and undergoing emergency or elective surgeries. The widespread availability of antithrombotic agents and differing guidelines contribute to practice variations and increased risk of complications and deaths. The objective of this review was to investigate the extent of overuse and underuse of antithrombotics for primary or secondary prevention as measured by deviation from prescribing guideline recommendations. We conducted a systematic review of Medline and EMBASE for quantitative articles published between 2000 and 2021 and used a modified version of the Hoy’s risk of bias assessment tool. Here we report evidence from the past decade about wide practice variations in hospitals and primary care, and discuss clinician and patient-driven determinants of non-adherence to guidelines. Finally, we summarise implications for practice, identify enhanced ways of measuring overuse and underuse, and propose potential solutions to the measurement challenges.

Abstract Background Clinicians frequently have questions about patient care. However, for more than half of the generated questions, answers are never pursued, and if they are, often not answered satisfactorily. We aimed to characterise the clinical questions asked and answers provided by general practitioners (GP) through posts to a popular professional social media network. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we analysed clinical questions and answers posted between January 20th and February 10th 2018 on a popular GP-restricted (Australia, New Zealand) Facebook group. Each clinical question was categorised according to ‘background’ or ‘foreground’ question; type (e.g. treatment, diagnosis); and the clinical topic (e.g. cardiovascular). Each answer provided in response to included questions was categorised into: (i) short answer (e.g. agree/disagree); (ii) provided an explanation to justify the answer; and (iii) referred to a published relevant evidence resource. Results Of 1060 new posts during the study period, 204 (19%) included a clinical question. GPs most commonly asked about treatment (n = 87; 43%) and diagnosis (n = 59; 29%). Five major topics (23% skin, 10% psychology, 9% cardiovascular, 8% female genital, and 7% musculoskeletal) accounted for 118 (58%) questions. Each question received on average 10 (SD = 9) answers: 42% were short; 51% provided an explanation; and only 6% referred to relevant research evidence. Only 3 answers referred to systematic reviews. Conclusions In this sample of Australian and New Zealand GPs, who were members of a GP social media group, GPs asked clinical questions that can be organised into a limited number of question types and topics. This might help guide the development of GP learning programs.

ObjectiveTo assess Australian physiotherapists' knowledge about, attitudes towards, and self-reported use of shared decision making, as well as perceived barriers to its implementation in practice.MethodsPhysiotherapists registered for a national Australian physiotherapy conference were invited via email and the conference app to complete a self-administered online questionnaire about shared decision making, including: a) knowledge, b) attitude to and reported approach in practice, c) behaviours used, d) barriers, e) previous training and future training interest. Responses were analysed descriptively and open-ended questions synthesised narratively.Results372 physiotherapists (71% female, mean age 45 years, mean experience 23 years) completed the survey. Respondents had a good level of knowledge on most questions, with correct responses ranging from 39.5% to 98.5% of participants, and a generally positive attitude towards shared decision making, believing it useful to most practice areas. Sixty percent indicated they make decisions with their patients and there was general agreement between how decisions should be made and how they are actually made. The behaviour with the lowest reported occurrence was explaining the relevant research evidence about the benefits and harms of the options. The main perceived barriers were patient knowledge and confidence, consequent fewer physiotherapy sessions, and time constraints. Most (79%) were keen to learn more about shared decision making.ConclusionsShared decision making is of growing importance to all health professions and rarely studied in physical therapy. This sample of Australian physiotherapists had a generally positive attitude to shared decision making and learning more about it. Opportunities for providing such skills training at the undergraduate level and in continuing professional development should be explored. This training should ensure that the communicating evidence component of shared decision making is addressed as well as debunking myths about perceived barriers to its implementation.

Introduction Mobility limitation is common and often results from neurological and musculoskeletal health conditions, ageing and/or physical inactivity. In consultation with consumers, clinicians and policymakers, we have developed two affordable and scalable intervention packages designed to enhance physical activity for adults with self-reported mobility limitations. Both are based on behaviour change theories and involve tailored advice from physiotherapists.Methods and analysis This pragmatic hybrid effectiveness-implementation type 1 randomised control trial (n=600) will be undertaken among adults with self-reported mobility limitations. It aims to estimate the effects on physical activity of: (1) an enhanced 6-month intervention package (one face-to-face physiotherapy assessment, tailored physical activity plan, physical activity phone coaching from a physiotherapist, informational/motivational resources and activity monitors) compared with a less intensive 6-month intervention package (single session of tailored phone advice from a physiotherapist, tailored physical activity plan, unidirectional text messages, informational/motivational resources); (2) the enhanced intervention package compared with no intervention (6-month waiting list control group); and (3) the less intensive intervention package compared with no intervention (waiting list control group). The primary outcome will be average steps per day, measured with the StepWatch Activity Monitor over a 1-week period, 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include other physical activity measures, measures of health and functioning, individualised mobility goal attainment, mental well-being, quality of life, rate of falls, health utilisation and intervention evaluation. The hybrid effectiveness-implementation design (type 1) will be used to enable the collection of secondary implementation outcomes at the same time as the primary effectiveness outcome. An economic analysis will estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the interventions compared with no intervention and to each other.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained by Sydney Local Health District, Royal Prince Alfred Zone. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences, newsletters, talks and meetings with health managers.Trial registration number ACTRN12618001983291.

BackgroundPlacebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions.Methods and findingsWe developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.ConclusionsWe encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Background: The management of acute respiratory infections (ARIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), and skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) should be guided by high quality evidence. Aim: To compare the quantity and quality of randomised placebo-controlled trials of antibiotics for ARIs, UTIs, and SSTIs. Design & setting: A scoping review of the literature was performed using comprehensive search strategies. Method: PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for published studies from inception until 17 April 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared participants in primary care or in the community who had uncomplicated acute ARI, UTI, or studies, and were randomised to antibiotic or placebo (or no active treatment), were eligible for inclusion. Two groups of researchers independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. Results: A total of 108 eligible studies were identified: 80 on ARI, eight on UTI, and 20 on SSTI. The quality of studies varied with unclear risk of bias (RoB) prevalent in many domains. There was a gradual improvement in the quality of trials investigating ARIs over time, which could not be assessed in SSTI and UTI studies. Conclusion: This review highlights a sparsity of trials assessing the effectiveness of antibiotics in people with UTIs and SSTIs, compared to trials targeting ARIs. This gap in the evidence needs to be addressed by conducting further high quality trials on the effects of antibiotics in patients with UTI and SSTI.

Background Hand and arm activity after stroke improves with evidence-based rehabilitation. Therapists face known barriers when providing evidence-based rehabilitation and require support to implement guidelines. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of two implementation packages on guideline adherence by occupational therapists and physiotherapists, and explore effect on patient upper limb outcomes.Method This was a non-randomised clustered feasibility study of occupational and physiotherapy rehabilitation services (n=3 inpatient and n=3 outpatient services). Services were allocated to one of three groups: (group A) facilitator-mediated implementation package, (group B) self-directed implementation package or (group C) usual care (control); we recruited n=1 inpatient and n=1 outpatient service per group. Outcomes of feasibility, adherence to guidelines (medical file audits) and patient upper limb impairment (Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity Assessment), activity (Box and Block Test) and practice (minutes/week) were collected at baseline and after 3 months of intervention.Results 29 therapists (8 in group A, 13 in groups B and 8 in group C) and 55 patients participated. Both the facilitator-mediated and the self-directed implementation packages were feasible to deliver in the rehabilitation setting. Therapists in group A improved with respect to guideline adherence (medical file audits; median within-group proportion difference of 0.29 (95% CI 0.22 to 0.36, p

Abstract Background Antibiotic resistance is a global problem, but the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance development and decay is not well understood. This knowledge is best provided by prospective studies, but to be useful they must be both conducted and reported well. Little is known about the reporting quality of these studies. This study aimed to assess the quality of reporting in prospective studies that investigated antibiotic resistance following antibiotic exposure in community-based individuals. Methods The quality of reporting of prospective studies (17 randomised trials, eight cohort studies) identified in a systematic review of the relationship between antibiotic use and resistance were assessed independently by two researchers using checklists (one for trials, one for cohort studies) developed from existing reporting guidelines for these designs and this field. Results The mean percentage (SD, minimum-maximum) of mandatory items that were adequately described by the included studies was 59% for trials (14%, 36–84%) and 52% for cohort studies (17%, 13–70%). Most studies adequately described the study background and rationale, the type, combination, and duration of the antibiotic intervention, and the sampling procedures followed to isolate resistant bacteria. Most studies did not report the incident numbers of resistant and susceptible isolates analysed at each time point. Blinding and sample size calculation was inadequately reported in almost half of the trials and all cohort studies. Conclusions The quality of reporting in prospective studies investigating the association between antibiotic exposure in the community and isolation of resistance isolates is variable. Some details were missing in more than half of the studies, which precludes a complete risk of bias assessment and accurate interpretation and synthesis of results.

Abstract Background Little research has examined whether shared decision making (SDM) occurs in consultations for acute respiratory infections (ARIs), including what, and how, antibiotic benefits and harms are discussed. We aimed to analyse the extent and nature of SDM in consultations between GPs and patients with ARIs, and explore communication with and without the use of patient decision aids. Methods This was an observational study in Australian general practices, nested within a cluster randomised trial of decision aids (for acute otitis media [AOM], sore throat, acute bronchitis) designed for general practitioners (GPs) to use with patients, compared with usual care (no decision aids). Audio-recordings of consultations of a convenience sample of consenting patients seeing a GP for an ARI were independently analysed by two raters using the OPTION-12 (observing patient involvement in decision making) scale (maximum score of 100) and 5 items (about communicating evidence) from the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool (maximum score of 5). Patients also self-completed a questionnaire post-consultation that contained items from CollaboRATE-5 (perceptions of involvement in the decision-making process), a decisional conflict scale, and a decision self-efficacy scale. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each measure. Results Thirty-six consultations, involving 13 GPs, were recorded (20 for bronchitis, 10 sore throat, 6 AOM). The mean (SD) total OPTION-12 score was 29.4 (12.5; range 4–54), with item 12 (need to review decision) the highest (mean = 3) and item 10 (eliciting patients’ preferred level of decision-making involvement) the lowest (mean = 0.1). The mean (SD) total ACEPP score was 2 (1.6), with the item about discussing benefits scoring highest. In consultations where a decision aid was used (15, 42%), compared to the 21 usual care consultations, mean observer-assessed SDM scores (OPTION-12, ACEPP scores) were higher and antibiotic harms mentioned in all (compared to only 1) consultations. Patients generally reported high decision involvement and self-efficacy, and low decisional conflict. Conclusions The extent of observer-assessed SDM between GPs and patients with ARIs was generally low. Balanced discussion of antibiotic benefits and harms occurred more often when decision aids were used.

Abstract Background Antibiotic resistance is an urgent global problem, but reversibility is poorly understood. We examined the development and decay of bacterial resistance in community patients after antibiotic use. Methods This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL (from inception to May 2017) were searched, with forward and backward citation searches of the identified studies. We contacted authors whose data were unclear, and of abstract-only reports, for further information. We considered controlled or times-series studies of patients in the community who were given antibiotics and where the subsequent prevalence of resistant bacteria was measured. Two authors extracted risk of bias and data. The meta-analysis used a fixed-effects model. Results Of 24,492 articles screened, five controlled and 20 time-series studies (total 16,353 children and 1461 adults) were eligible. Resistance in Streptococcus pneumoniae initially increased fourfold after penicillin-class antibiotic exposure [odds ratio (OR) 4.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5–5.4], but this fell after 1 month (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.1). After cephalosporin-class antibiotics, resistance increased (OR 2.2, 95%CI 1.7-2.9); and fell to (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.3) at 1 month. After macrolide-class antibiotics, resistance increased (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.9–7.6) and persisted for 1 month (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.6–10.3) and 3 months (OR 8.1, 95% CI 4.6–14.2, from controlled studies and OR 2.3, 95% CI 0.6–9.4, from time-series studies). Resistance in Haemophilus influenzae after penicillins was not significantly increased (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9–1.9) initially but was at 1 month (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.5–7.6), falling after 3 months (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.5–2.2). Data were sparse for cephalosporins and macrolides. Resistance in Enterobacter increased post-exposure (OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.9–10.8, from controlled studies and OR 7.1, 95% CI 4.2–12, from time-series studies], but was lower after 1 month (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9–3.6). Conclusions Resistance generally increased soon after antibiotic use. For some antibiotic classes and bacteria, it partially diminished after 1 and 3 months, but longer-term data are lacking and urgently needed. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42015025499.

Abstract Background Despite the established interest in evidence-based practice (EBP) as a core competence for clinicians, evidence for how best to teach and evaluate EBP remains weak. We sought to systematically assess coverage of the five EBP steps, review the outcome domains measured, and assess the properties of the instruments used in studies evaluating EBP educational interventions. Methods We conducted a systematic review of controlled studies (i.e. studies with a separate control group) which had investigated the effect of EBP educational interventions. We used citation analysis technique and tracked the forward and backward citations of the index articles (i.e. the systematic reviews and primary studies included in an overview of the effect of EBP teaching) using Web of Science until May 2017. We extracted information on intervention content (grouped into the five EBP steps), and the outcome domains assessed. We also searched the literature for published reliability and validity data of the EBP instruments used. Results Of 1831 records identified, 302 full-text articles were screened, and 85 included. Of these, 46 (54%) studies were randomised trials, 51 (60%) included postgraduate level participants, and 63 (75%) taught medical professionals. EBP Step 3 (critical appraisal) was the most frequently taught step (63 studies; 74%). Only 10 (12%) of the studies taught content which addressed all five EBP steps. Of the 85 studies, 52 (61%) evaluated EBP skills, 39 (46%) knowledge, 35 (41%) attitudes, 19 (22%) behaviours, 15 (18%) self-efficacy, and 7 (8%) measured reactions to EBP teaching delivery. Of the 24 instruments used in the included studies, 6 were high-quality (achieved ≥3 types of established validity evidence) and these were used in 14 (29%) of the 52 studies that measured EBP skills; 14 (41%) of the 39 studies that measured EBP knowledge; and 8 (26%) of the 35 studies that measured EBP attitude. Conclusions Most EBP educational interventions which have been evaluated in controlled studies focus on teaching only some of the EBP steps (predominantly critically appraisal of evidence) and did not use high-quality instruments to measure outcomes. Educational packages and instruments which address all EBP steps are needed to improve EBP teaching.

Abstract Background Citation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but not the Outcomes. Methods A convenience sample of 10 datasets, derived from the literature searches of completed systematic reviews, was used to test PICo-based title-only screening. Search terms for screening were generated from the inclusion criteria of each review, specifically the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions and Comparators. Synonyms for the PICo terms were sought, including alternatives for clinical conditions, trade names of generic drugs and abbreviations for clinical conditions, interventions and comparators. The MeSH database, Wikipedia, Google searches and online thesauri were used to assist generating terms. Title-only screening was performed by five reviewers independently in Endnote X7 reference management software using OR Boolean operator. Outcome measures were recall of included studies and the reduction in screening effort. Recall is the proportion of included studies retrieved using PICo title-only screening out of the total number of included studies in the original reviews. The percentage reduction in screening effort is the proportion of records not needing screening because the method eliminates them from the screen set. Results Across the 10 reviews, the reduction in screening effort ranged from 11 to 78% with a median reduction of 53%. In nine systematic reviews, the recall of included studies was 100%. In one review (oxygen therapy), four of five reviewers missed the same included study (median recall 67%). A post hoc analysis was performed on the dataset with the lowest reduction in screening effort (11%), and it was rescreened using only the intervention and comparator keywords and omitting keywords for participants. The reduction in screening effort increased to 57%, and the recall of included studies was maintained (100%). Conclusions In this sample of datasets, PICo-based title-only screening was able to expedite citation screening for scoping searches and rapid reviews by reducing the number of citations needed to screen but requires a thorough workup of the potential synonyms and alternative terms. Further research which evaluates the feasibility of this technique with heterogeneous datasets in different fields would be useful to inform the generalisability of this technique.

Abstract Background Clinicians are encouraged to use guidelines to assist in providing evidence-based secondary prevention to patients with coronary heart disease. However, the expanding number of publications providing guidance about exercise training may confuse cardiac rehabilitation clinicians. We therefore sought to explore the number, scope, publication characteristics, methodological quality, and clinical usefulness of published exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation guidance. Methods We included publications recommending physical activity, exercise or cardiac rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease. These included systematically developed clinical practice guidelines, as well as other publications intended to support clinician decision making, such as position papers or consensus statements. Publications were obtained via electronic searches of preventive cardiology societies, guideline databases and PubMed, to November 2016. Publication characteristics were extracted, and two independent assessors evaluated quality using the 23-item Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) tool. Results Fifty-four international publications from 1994 to 2016 were identified. Most were found on preventive cardiology association websites (n = 35; 65%) and were freely accessible (n = 50; 93%). Thirty (56%) publications contained only broad recommendations for physical activity and cardiac rehabilitation referral, while 24 (44%) contained the necessary detailed exercise training recommendations. Many were labelled as “guidelines”, however publications with other titles (e.g. scientific statements) were common (n = 24; 44%). This latter group of publications contained a significantly greater proportion of detailed exercise training recommendations than clinical guidelines (p = 0.017). Wide variation in quality also existed, with ‘applicability’ the worst scoring AGREE II domain for clinical guidelines (mean score 53%) and ‘rigour of development’ rated lowest for other guidance types (mean score 33%). Conclusions While a large number of guidance documents provide recommendations for exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, most have limitations in either methodological quality or clinical usefulness. The lack of rigorously developed guidelines which also contain necessary detail about exercise training remains a substantial problem for clinicians.

Abstract Background While the clinical benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation are well established, there is extensive variation in the interventions used within these trials. It is unknown whether variations in individual components of these exercise interventions provide different relative contributions to overall clinical outcomes. This study aims to systematically examine the relationship between individual components of the exercise intervention in cardiac rehabilitation (such as intensity and frequency) and clinical outcomes for people with coronary heart disease. Methods In this systematic review, eligible trials were identified via searches of databases (PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, EMBASE, PEDro, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, SPORTDiscus) from citation tracking and hand-searching. Studies were included if they were randomised trials of a structured exercise intervention (versus usual care) for participants with coronary heart disease and reported at least one of cardiovascular mortality, total mortality, myocardial infarction or revascularisation outcomes. Each included trial was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Authors were also contacted for missing intervention details or data. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate a summary risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the effect of exercise on outcomes. Random effects meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre-specified co-variates (exercise components or trial characteristics) and each clinical outcome. Results Sixty-nine trials were included, evaluating 72 interventions which differed markedly in terms of exercise components. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation was effective in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86), total mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99) and myocardial infarction (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.92). This effect generally demonstrated no significant differences across subgroups of patients who received various types of usual care, more or less than 150 min of exercise per week and of differing cardiac aetiologies. There was however some heterogeneity observed in the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation in reducing total mortality based on the presence of lipid lowering therapy (I 2 = 48%, p = 0.15 for subgroup treatment interaction effect). No single exercise component was identified through meta-regression as a significant predictor of mortality outcomes, although reductions in both total (RR 0.81, p = 0.042) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.72, p = 0.045) were observed in trials which reported high levels of participant exercise adherence, versus those which reported lower levels. A dose-response relationship was found between an increasing exercise session time and increasing risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.01, p = 0.011) and the highest intensity of exercise prescribed and an increasing risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (RR 1.05, p = 0.047). Conclusions Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation is effective at reducing important clinical outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease. While our analysis was constrained by the quality of included trials and missing information about intervention components, there appears to be little differential effect of variations in exercise intervention, particularly on mortality outcomes. Given the observed effect between higher adherence and improved outcomes, it may be more important to provide exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation programs which focus on achieving increased adherence to the exercise intervention.

IntroductionNudge-interventions aimed at health professionals are proposed to reduce the overuse and underuse of health services. However, little is known about their effectiveness at changing health professionals’ behaviours in relation to overuse or underuse of tests or treatments.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to systematically identify and synthesise the studies that have assessed the effect of nudge-interventions aimed at health professionals on the overuse or underuse of health services.Methods and analysisWe will perform a systematic review. All study designs that include a control comparison will be included. Any qualified health professional, across any specialty or setting, will be included. Only nudge-interventions aimed at altering the behaviour of health professionals will be included. We will examine the effect of choice architecture nudges (default options, active choice, framing effects, order effects) and social nudges (accountable justification and pre-commitment or publicly declared pledge/contract). Studies with outcomes relevant to overuse or underuse of health services will be included. Relevant studies will be identified by a computer-aided search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO databases. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility, extract data and perform the risk of bias assessment using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group. We will report our results in a structured synthesis format, as recommended by the Cochrane EPOC group.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this study. Results will be presented at relevant scientific conferences and in peer-reviewed literature.

ObjectiveThis study evaluated whether frequent (fortnightly) audit and feedback cycles over a sustained period of time (>12 months) increased clinician adherence to recommended guidelines in acquired brain injury rehabilitation.DesignA before and after study design.SettingA metropolitan inpatient brain injury rehabilitation unit.ParticipantsClinicians; medical, nursing and allied health staff.InterventionsFortnightly cycles of audit and feedback for 14 months. Each fortnight, medical file and observational audits were completed against 114 clinical indicators.Main outcome measureAdherence to guideline indicators before and after intervention, calculated by proportions, Mann-Whitney U and Chi square analysis.ResultsClinical and statistical significant improvements in median clinical indicator adherence were found immediately following the audit and feedback program from 38.8% (95% CI 34.3 to 44.4) to 83.6% (95% CI 81.8 to 88.5). Three months after cessation of the intervention, median adherence had decreased from 82.3% to 76.6% (95% CI 72.7 to 83.3, pConclusionA fortnightly audit and feedback program increased clinicians' adherence to guideline recommendations in an inpatient acquired brain injury rehabilitation setting. We propose future studies build on the evidence-based method used in the present study to determine effectiveness and develop an implementation toolkit for scale-up.

In a Perspective, Tammy Hoffmann and colleagues discuss medical decision making for elderly patients with multimorbidity.

People are frequently confronted with untrustworthy claims about the effects of treatments. Uncritical acceptance of these claims can lead to poor, and sometimes dangerous, treatment decisions, and wasted time and money. Resources to help people learn to think critically about treatment claims are scarce, and they are widely scattered. Furthermore, very few learning-resources have been assessed to see if they improve knowledge and behavior.Our objectives were to develop the Critical thinking and Appraisal Resource Library (CARL). This library was to be in the form of a database containing learning resources for those who are responsible for encouraging critical thinking about treatment claims, and was to be made available online. We wished to include resources for groups we identified as 'intermediaries' of knowledge, i.e. teachers of schoolchildren, undergraduates and graduates, for example those teaching evidence-based medicine, or those communicating treatment claims to the public. In selecting resources, we wished to draw particular attention to those resources that had been formally evaluated, for example, by the creators of the resource or independent research groups.CARL was populated with learning-resources identified from a variety of sources-two previously developed but unmaintained inventories; systematic reviews of learning-interventions; online and database searches; and recommendations by members of the project group and its advisors. The learning-resources in CARL were organised by 'Key Concepts' needed to judge the trustworthiness of treatment claims, and were made available online by the James Lind Initiative in Testing Treatments interactive (TTi) English (www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources).TTi English also incorporated the database of Key Concepts and the Claim Evaluation Tools developed through the Informed Healthcare Choices (IHC) project (informedhealthchoices.org).We have created a database of resources called CARL, which currently contains over 500 open-access learning-resources in a variety of formats: text, audio, video, webpages, cartoons, and lesson materials. These are aimed primarily at 'Intermediaries', that is, 'teachers', 'communicators', 'advisors', 'researchers', as well as for independent 'learners'. The resources included in CARL are currently accessible at www.testingtreatments.org/category/learning-resources.We hope that ready access to CARL will help to promote the critical thinking about treatment claims, needed to help improve healthcare choices.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The current paradigm of science is to accumulate as much research data as possible, with less thought given to navigation or synthesis of the resulting mass, which hampers locating and using the research. The aim here was to describe the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on exercise, and their journal sources, that have been indexed in PubMed over time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at Bond University, Australia. METHOD: To find RCTs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy" and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Exercise". To find SRs, a search was conducted in PubMed Clinical Queries, using the category "Therapy", the MeSH term "Exercise" and various methodological filters. RESULTS: Up until 2011, 9,354 RCTs about exercise were published in 1,250 journals and 1,262 SRs in 513 journals. Journals in the area of Sports Science published the greatest number of RCTs and journals categorized as belonging to "Other health professions" area (for example nursing or psychology) published the greatest number of SRs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the principal source for SRs, with 9.8% of the total, while the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research and Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise published 4.4% and 5.0% of the RCTs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid growth and resulting scatter of RCTs and SRs on exercise presents challenges for locating and using this research. Solutions for this issue need to be considered.