Anthea Sutton

Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques.

BACKGROUND Literature for a systematic review on the student experience of e-learning is located across a range of subject areas including health, education, social science, library and information science. OBJECTIVES To assess the merits and shortcomings of using different search techniques in retrieval of evidence in the social science literature. METHODS A conventional subject search was undertaken as the principal method of identifying the literature for the review. Four supplementary search methods were used including citation searching, reference list checking, contact with experts and pearl growing. RESULTS The conventional subject search identified 30 of 41 included references; retrieved from 10 different databases. References were missed by this method and a further 11 references were identified via citation searching, reference list checking and contact with experts. Pearl growing was suspended as the nominated pearls were dispersed across numerous databases, with no single database indexing more than four pearls. CONCLUSIONS Searching within the social sciences literature requires careful consideration. Conventional subject searching identified the majority of references, but additional search techniques were essential and located further high quality references.

Applying findings from a systematic review of workplace‐based e‐learning: implications for health information professionals

OBJECTIVES To systematically review the UK published literature on e-learning in the health workplace and to apply the findings to one of the most prolific UK e-learning initiatives in the health sector--the National Library for Health Facilitated Online Learning Interactive Opportunity (FOLIO) Programme. METHODS Sensitive searches were conducted across ASSIA, Australian Education Index, British Education Index, cinahl, CSA Abstracts, Dissertation Abstracts, Emerald, ERIC, IBSS, Index to Theses, LISA, MEDLINE, PSYCINFO and Social Science Citation Index. Additional citations were identified from reference lists of included studies and of relevant reviews; citation tracking and contact with experts. Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria and were coded and analysed using thematic analysis as described by Miles & Huberman (Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1984). RESULTS Five broad themes were identified from the 29 included studies: (i) peer communication; (ii) flexibility; (iii) support; (iv) knowledge validation; and (v) course presentation and design. These broad themes were supported by a total of eleven sub-themes. Components from the FOLIO Programme were analysed and existing and proposed developments were mapped against each sub-theme. This provides a valuable framework for ongoing course development. CONCLUSION Librarians involved in delivering and supporting e-learning can benefit from applying the findings from the systematic review to existing programmes, exemplified by the FOLIO Programme. The resultant framework can also be used in developing new e-learning programmes.

Involving the public in systematic reviews: a narrative review of organizational approaches and eight case examples

This paper reviews the recent literature on public involvement in the systematic review process. We examine how relevant organizations involve the public in their review processes and how the public are involved in individual reviews. We identified nine surveys or reports of public involvement in systematic reviews at an organizational level and eight examples of public involvement in individual reviews. The public was found to be involved in the following stages of the review process: topic prioritization; refining the scope of the review; suggesting, locating and appraising the literature; interpreting findings; and writing up the review. Numerous tensions, facilitating strategies and recommendations for good practice were identified. Future research directions are delineated.

Impact of prehospital transfer strategies in major trauma and head injury: systematic review, meta-analysis, and recommendations for study design.

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether trauma patients should be transferred initially to a trauma center or local hospital. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the evidence for direct transport to specialist centers (SCs) versus initial stabilization at non-SCs (NSCs) for major trauma or moderate-to-severe head injury. Nine databases were searched from 1988 to 2012. Limitations in the study design informed recommendations for future studies. RESULTS Of 19 major trauma studies, five (n = 19,910) included patients not transferred to SCs and adjusted for case mix. Meta-analysis showed no difference in mortality for initial triage to NSCs versus SCs (odds ratio [OR] 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–1.23). Within studies excluding patients not transferred to SCs, unadjusted analyses of mortality nonsignificantly favored transfer via NSCs (16 studies; n = 37,079; OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.68–1.01), whereas adjusted analysis nonsignificantly favored direct triage to SCs (9 studies; n = 34,266; OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.96–1.44). Of 11 head injury studies, all excluded patients not transferred to SCs and half were in remote locations. There was no significant mortality difference between initial triage to NSCs versus SCs within adjusted analyses (3 studies; n = 1,507; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.31–1.79) or unadjusted analyses (10 studies; n = 3,671; OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62–1.23). CONCLUSION This systematic review demonstrated no difference in outcomes for direct transport to a trauma center versus initial triage to a local hospital. Many studies had significant limitations in the design, and heterogeneity was high. Recommendations for future studies include the following: (i) inclusion of patients not transferred to SCs and those dying during transport; (ii) clear description of centers plus transport distances/times; (iii) adjustments for case mix; and (iv) assessment of morbidity and mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review, level IV.

Systematic review and economic modelling of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy among people with non-psychotic mental health disorders

BACKGROUND Mental health problems account for almost half of all ill health in people under 65 years. The majority are non-psychotic (e.g. depression, anxiety and phobias). For some people, art therapy may provide more profound and long-lasting healing than more standard forms of treatment, perhaps because it can provide an alternative means of expression and release from trauma. As yet, no formal evaluation of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders has been conducted. AIM This review aimed to evaluate evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of art therapy for non-psychotic mental health disorders. METHODS Comprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in major health-related and social science bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) from inception up to May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness, a qualitative review to explore the acceptability, relative benefits and potential harms, and a cost-utility analysis of studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of art therapy were conducted. RESULTS In the quantitative review, 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included (n = 777). Meta-analysis was not possible because of clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. A narrative synthesis reports that art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 10 out of the 15 studies. The control groups varied between studies but included wait-list/no treatment, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Four studies reported improvement from baseline but no significant difference between groups. One study reported that outcomes were more favourable in the control group. The quality of included RCTs was generally low. In the qualitative review, 12 cohort studies were included (n = 188 service users; n = 16 service providers). Themes relating to benefits of art therapy for service users included the relationship with the therapist, personal achievement and distraction. Areas of potential harms were related to the activation of emotions that were then unresolved, lack of skill of the art therapist and sudden termination of art therapy. The quality of included qualitative studies was generally low to moderate. In the cost-effectiveness review, a de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control, group art therapy with group verbal therapy, and individual art therapy versus control. Art therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty, although generalisability to the target population was unclear. Verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more clinically effective. The cost-effectiveness of individual art therapy was uncertain and dependent on assumptions regarding clinical benefit and duration of benefit. CONCLUSIONS From the limited available evidence, art therapy was associated with positive effects when compared with a control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles, and it was reported to be an acceptable treatment and was associated with a number of benefits. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective compared with wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding as well as evidence to inform future cost-effective analyses of art therapy versus other treatments. STUDY REGISTRATION The study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003957. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Systematic review and modelling of the cost-effectiveness of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging compared with current existing testing pathways in ischaemic cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is increasingly used to assess patients for myocardial viability prior to revascularisation. This is important to ensure that only those likely to benefit are subjected to the risk of revascularisation. OBJECTIVES To assess current evidence on the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of CMR to test patients prior to revascularisation in ischaemic cardiomyopathy; to develop an economic model to assess cost-effectiveness for different imaging strategies; and to identify areas for further primary research. DATA SOURCES Databases searched were: MEDLINE including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Initial searches were conducted in March 2011 in the following databases with dates: MEDLINE including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid (1946 to March 2011); Bioscience Information Service (BIOSIS) Previews via Web of Science (1969 to March 2011); EMBASE via Ovid (1974 to March 2011); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via The Cochrane Library (1996 to March 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via The Cochrane Library 1998 to March 2011; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via The Cochrane Library (1994 to March 2011); NHS Economic Evaluation Database via The Cochrane Library (1968 to March 2011); Health Technology Assessment Database via The Cochrane Library (1989 to March 2011); and the Science Citation Index via Web of Science (1900 to March 2011). Additional searches were conducted from October to November 2011 in the following databases with dates: MEDLINE including MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations via Ovid (1946 to November 2011); BIOSIS Previews via Web of Science (1969 to October 2011); EMBASE via Ovid (1974 to November 2011); Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via The Cochrane Library (1996 to November 2011); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials via The Cochrane Library (1998 to November 2011); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects via The Cochrane Library (1994 to November 2011); NHS Economic Evaluation Database via The Cochrane Library (1968 to November 2011); Health Technology Assessment Database via The Cochrane Library (1989 to November 2011); and the Science Citation Index via Web of Science (1900 to October 2011). Electronic databases were searched March-November 2011. REVIEW METHODS The systematic review selected studies that assessed the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CMR to establish the role of CMR in viability assessment compared with other imaging techniques: stress echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). Studies had to have an appropriate reference standard and contain accuracy data or sufficient details so that accuracy data could be calculated. Data were extracted by two reviewers and discrepancies resolved by discussion. Quality of studies was assessed using the QUADAS II tool (University of Bristol, Bristol, UK). A rigorous diagnostic accuracy systematic review assessed clinical and cost-effectiveness of CMR in viability assessment. A health economic model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued by diagnostic pathways for identifying patients with viable myocardium in ischaemic cardiomyopathy with a view to revascularisation. The pathways involved CMR, stress echocardiography, SPECT, PET alone or in combination. Strategies of no testing and revascularisation were included to determine the most cost-effective strategy. RESULTS Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. All were prospective. Participant numbers ranged from 8 to 52. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction in studies reporting this outcome was 24-62%. CMR approaches included stress CMR and late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CE CMR). Recovery following revascularisation was the reference standard. Twelve studies assessed diagnostic accuracy of stress CMR and 14 studies assessed CE CMR. A bivariate regression model was used to calculate the sensitivity and specificity of CMR. Summary sensitivity and specificity for stress CMR was 82.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.2% to 88.7%] and 87.1% (95% CI 80.4% to 91.7%) and for CE CMR was 95.5% (95% CI 94.1% to 96.7%) and 53% (95% CI 40.4% to 65.2%) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of PET, SPECT and stress echocardiography were calculated using data from 10 studies and systematic reviews. The sensitivity of PET was 94.7% (95% CI 90.3% to 97.2%), of SPECT was 85.1% (95% CI 78.1% to 90.2%) and of stress echocardiography was 77.6% (95% CI 70.7% to 83.3%). The specificity of PET was 68.8% (95% CI 50% to 82.9%), of SPECT was 62.1% (95% CI 52.7% to 70.7%) and of stress echocardiography was 69.6% (95% CI 62.4% to 75.9%). All currently used diagnostic strategies were cost-effective compared with no testing at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds. If the annual mortality rates for non-viable patients were assumed to be higher for revascularised patients, then testing with CE CMR was most cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000/QALY. The proportion of model runs in which each strategy was most cost-effective, at a threshold of £20,000/QALY, was 40% for CE CMR, 42% for PET and 16.5% for revascularising everyone. The expected value of perfect information at £20,000/QALY was £620 per patient. If all patients (viable or not) gained benefit from revascularisation, then it was most cost-effective to revascularise all patients. LIMITATIONS Definitions and techniques assessing viability were highly variable, making data extraction and comparisons difficult. Lack of evidence meant assumptions were made in the model leading to uncertainty; differing scenarios were generated around key assumptions. CONCLUSIONS All the diagnostic pathways are a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Given the uncertainty in the mortality rates, the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using a set of scenarios. The cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that CE CMR and revascularising everyone were the optimal strategies. Future research should look at implementation costs for this type of imaging service, provide guidance on consistent reporting of diagnostic testing data for viability assessment, and focus on the impact of revascularisation or best medical therapy in this group of high-risk patients. FUNDING The National Institute of Health Technology Assessment programme.

Public involvement in the design and conduct of clinical trials: a narrative review of case examples.

collection. Two main contributions that the public made to the conduct of trials were identified: scrutiny of the conduct of the trial through membership of the Trial Steering Committee; and delivering the trial protocol after completing relevant training. Four main tensions were identified with regard to involving the public in trial design and conduct: tensions between stakeholder groups when designing trials; public understanding of trial methodology; the added time, complexity and cost of public involvement; and the representativeness of the public involved. Four main facilitating strategies were identified with regard to involving the public in trial design and conduct: cultural sensitivity; clear explanation of trial methodology; independent facilitation of trial design planning meetings; and adequate funding for public involvement. Limitations Papers on public involvement in the design and conduct of clinical trials may have been overlooked due to the difficulty of searching for, and identifying, papers in this area. Only publications published in English were searched for and the review focused on evidence contained in peer-reviewed journal articles only. Conclusions The issues raised in this review should assist researchers in developing and conducting clinical trials with the involvement of the public.

Public Involvement in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials

Background: Public involvement is health research policy in the UK and internationally. There is a need to establish a robust evidence base on the impact of public involvement on research processes and outcomes. Purpose: To review examples of public involvement in the design and conduct of clinical trials, to synthesise the contributions of the public, as well as the identified tensions and facilitating strategies. Method: Systematic literature search and narrative review. Results: Nine papers were identified, covering the following topics: breast-feeding, antiretroviral and nutrition interventions; paediatric resuscitation; exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy; breast cancer; stroke; chronic suppurative otitis media; Pagets disease; and shared decision-making in patient consultations. Six papers reported on public involvement at the trial design stage, while three reported on public involvement at the design and conduct stages of clinical trials. It was found that the public contributed at the consultation, collaboration and publicly-led levels of involvement. Four main public contributions to trial design were identified: review of consent procedures and patient information sheets; suggestion of additional trial outcomes; review of trial data collection procedures; and recommendations on the timing and location of follow-up data collection. Two main contributions that the public made to the conduct of trials were identified: scrutiny of the conduct of the trial through membership of the Trial Steering Committee; and delivering the trial protocol after completing relevant training. Numerous tensions and facilitating strategies were identified. Limitations: Papers on public involvement in the design and conduct of clinical trials may have been overlooked due to the difficulty of searching for, and identifying, papers in this area. Only English publications were searched for and the review focused on evidence in peer-reviewed journal articles only. Conclusions: The issues raised here should assist researchers in developing and conducting clinical trials with the involvement of the public.

Measuring quality of life in children with speech and language difficulties: a systematic review of existing approaches

BACKGROUND Childrens and adolescents speech and language difficulties (SaLD) can affect various domains of quality of life (QoL), and speech and language therapy interventions are critical to improving QoL. Systematically measuring QoL outcomes in this population is highly complex due to factors such as heterogeneity in impairments and differing targets during intervention. However, measurements of QoL are increasingly required by healthcare commissioners and policy-makers to inform resource allocation. AIMS To review the use of QoL measures in research involving children (age ≤ 18 years) with SaLD. METHODS & PROCEDURES A systematic review was undertaken. A systematic search across various databases was performed. Information on the methodological details of each relevant study, along with descriptions of the QoL measures employed, were extracted into standardized data extraction forms. Findings were discussed in a narrative synthesis. OUTCOMES & RESULTS Twenty-one relevant studies were identified that deal with a range of subpopulations of children with SaLD. For the most part, generic QoL measures were used, although there was little convergence on the type of QoL measures employed throughout the literature. Five studies utilized preference-based QoL measures, including the 16D/17D, HUI3, EQ-5D and QWB-SA. Of these measures, the HUI3 demonstrated the most promising discriminant validity, although the preference weights for this measure were generated with adults. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS QoL among children with SaLD is not yet being captured in a systematic way. The HUI3 measure appears to show some promise for generating relevant preference-based QoL estimates, although further testing of the measure is required.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of group art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

BackgroundThe majority of mental health problems are non-psychotic (e.g., depression, anxiety, and phobias). For some people, art therapy may be a more acceptable alternative form of psychological therapy than standard forms of treatment, such as talking therapies. This study was part of a health technology assessment commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research, UK and aimed to systematically appraise the clinical and cost-effective evidence for art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental health disorders.MethodsComprehensive literature searches for studies examining art therapy in populations with non-psychotic mental health disorders were performed in May 2013. A quantitative systematic review of clinical effectiveness and a systematic review of studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy were conducted.ResultsEleven randomised controlled trials were included (533 patients). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity and insufficient comparable data on outcome measures across studies. The control groups varied between studies but included: no treatment/wait-list, attention placebo controls and psychological therapy comparators. Art therapy was associated with significant positive changes relative to the control group in mental health symptoms in 7 of the 11 studies. A de novo model was constructed and populated with data identified from the clinical review. Scenario analyses were conducted allowing comparisons of group art therapy with wait-list control and group art therapy with group verbal therapy. Group art-therapy appeared cost-effective compared with wait-list control with high certainty although generalisability to the target population was unclear; group verbal therapy appeared more cost-effective than art therapy but there was considerable uncertainty and a sizeable probability that art therapy was more cost effective.ConclusionsFrom the limited available evidence art therapy was associated with positive effects compared with control in a number of studies in patients with different clinical profiles. The included trials were generally of poor quality and are therefore likely to be at high risk of bias. Art therapy appeared to be cost-effective versus wait-list but further studies are needed to confirm this finding in the target population. There was insufficient evidence to make an informed comparison of the cost-effectiveness of group art therapy with group verbal therapy.Trial registrationHTA project no. 12/27/16; PROSPERO registration no. CRD42013003957.