Search

Aims To examine the prevalence, temporal changes, and impact of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Sex as a Biological Variable (SABV) policy on sex and gender reporting and analysis in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) cohort studies. Methods and results We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science for cohort studies reporting the effectiveness and safety of CRT in heart failure patients from January 2000 to June 2020, with no language restrictions. Segmented regression analysis was used for policy analysis. We included 253 studies. Fourteen per cent considered sex in the study design. Outcome data disaggregated by sex were only reported in 17% of the studies. Of the studies with statistical models (n = 173), 57% were adjusted for sex. Sixty-eight per cent of those reported an effect size for sex on the outcome. Sex-stratified analyses were conducted in 13% of the studies. Temporal analysis shows an increase in sex reporting in background, statistical models, study design, and discussion. Besides statistical models, NIH SABV policy analysis showed no significant change in the reporting of sex in study sections. Gender was not reported or analysed in any study. Conclusions There is a need to improve the study design, analysis, and completeness of reporting of sex in CRT cohort studies. Inadequate sex integration in study design and analysis may potentially hinder progress in understanding sex disparities in CRT. Deficiencies in the integration of sex in studies could be overcome by implementing guidance that already exists.

Background and objective: To present a structured approach for assessing stakeholder perceptions and implementing the approach in guideline development. Methods: This work was carried out by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Equity and Stakeholder Engagement Project Groups through brainstorming and iterative frameworks, stakeholder engagement, pilot testing, refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes a GRADE conceptual article on implementation. Results: We introduce the FACE implementation criteria, feasibility, acceptability, cost, and equity; priority; and "intent to implement" criterion. We outline the implementation importance of networks and approaches to patient and other stakeholder engagement. Implementation is often highly contextual and can benefit from stakeholder engagement and other assessments. Our FACE approach provides stakeholder questions and language to inform guideline implementation and tools. Conclusion: The FACE criteria propose a series of knowledge translation questions to guide the assessment of implementation for evidence-based guidelines. It is desirable for guideline developers to use a conceptual approach, such as FACE, to tailor implementation and inform end of guideline dissemination and knowledge translation activities. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Sussex Archaeological Collections, 79, 131-167, THERE were in the possession of the Governors of Chichester Workhouse six volumes of Court Books, covering the period 1753 to 1847.1 These were, during the years 1926-9, made the subject of a series of detailed studies by members of the Special Method History Classes of the Bishop Otter Training College, under the supervision of Miss Stella Westaway. The fol1owing general account of the administration of the workhouse is compiled by M. E. Dangerfield, 0. Marshall, E. R. Stringer, and V. E. Welch from the first two volumes, which extend from 2 July 1753 to 19April1816, and will be found to throw valuable light upon the administration of the poor law during that period and to bring out points of both economic and human interest.

Background Randomised controlled trials can provide evidence relevant to assessing the equity impact of an intervention, but such information is often poorly reported. We describe a conceptual framework to identify health equity-relevant randomised trials with the aim of improving the design and reporting of such trials.Methods An interdisciplinary and international research team engaged in an iterative consensus building process to develop and refine the conceptual framework via face-to-face meetings, teleconferences and email correspondence, including findings from a validation exercise whereby two independent reviewers used the emerging framework to classify a sample of randomised trials.Results A randomised trial can usefully be classified as 'health equity relevant' if it assesses the effects of an intervention on the health or its determinants of either individuals or a population who experience ill health due to disadvantage defined across one or more social determinants of health. Health equity-relevant randomised trials can either exclusively focus on a single population or collect data potentially useful for assessing differential effects of the intervention across multiple populations experiencing different levels or types of social disadvantage. Trials that are not classified as 'health equity relevant' may nevertheless provide information that is indirectly relevant to assessing equity impact, including information about individual level variation unrelated to social disadvantage and potentially useful in secondary modelling studies.Conclusion The conceptual framework may be used to design and report randomised trials. The framework could also be used for other study designs to contribute to the evidence base for improved health equity.

Resumo Mensurações de indicadores de saúde raramente estão disponíveis para todas as populações e períodos de interesse, e os dados disponíveis podem não ser comparáveis. As Diretrizes para o Relato Transparente e Preciso de Estimativas de Saúde (Declaração GATHER) definem as melhores práticas para redação de estudos que calculam estimativas de saúde para várias populações, no tempo ou espaço, usando múltiplas fontes de informação. As estimativas de saúde que se enquadram no escopo da Declaração GATHER incluem todas as estimativas quantitativas de indicadores de saúde em nível populacional (estimativas globais, regionais, nacionais ou subnacionais), abrangendo indicadores da situação de saúde, da incidência e prevalência de doenças, lesões e incapacidades, e funcionalidades; e indicadores de determinantes da saúde, incluindo comportamentos e exposições de saúde. A Declaração GATHER compreende uma lista de 18 itens que são essenciais para as melhores práticas de redação. Um documento mais detalhado sobre a explicação e elaboração das diretrizes, que descreve a interpretação e a base lógica de cada item a ser relatado, juntamente com exemplos de boas redações, está disponível no site da Declaração GATHER (http://gather-statement.org).

Introduction The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is developing evidence-based guidance for voluntary screening, treatment and vaccine prevention of infectious diseases for newly arriving migrants to the European Union/European Economic Area. The objective of this systematic review protocol is to guide the identification, appraisal and synthesis of the best available evidence on prevention and assessment of the following priority infectious diseases: tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, poliomyelitis (polio), Haemophilus influenza disease, strongyloidiasis and schistosomiasis. Methods and analysis The search strategy will identify evidence from existing systematic reviews and then update the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence using prospective trials, economic evaluations and/or recently published systematic reviews. Interdisciplinary teams have designed logic models to help define study inclusion and exclusion criteria, guiding the search strategy and identifying relevant outcomes. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical or safety issues. We anticipate disseminating the findings through open-access publications, conference abstracts and presentations. We plan to publish technical syntheses as GRADEpro evidence summaries and the systematic reviews as part of a special edition open-access publication on refugee health. We are following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols reporting guideline. This protocol is registered in PROSPERO: CRD42016045798.

This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients' values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients' values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.