Chantelle Garritty

Male erectile dysfunction following spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

Study design:Systematic review.Objective:To review sexuality in persons with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), and to report the effectiveness of erectile interventions.Methods:Reports from six databases (1966–2003), selected annual proceedings (1997–2002) and manufacturers information were screened against eligibility criteria. Included reports were abstracted and data pooled from case-series reports regarding intracavernous injections and sildenafil.Results:From 2127 unique reports evaluated, 49 were included. Male sexual dysfunction was addressed in these reports of several interventions (behavioural therapy, topical agents, intraurethral alprosatadil, intracavernous injections, vacuum tumescence devices, penile implants, sacral stimulators and oral medication). Penile injections resulted in successful erectile function in 90% (95% CI: 83%, 97%) of men. Sildenafil resulted in 79% (95% CI: 68%, 90%) success; the difference in efficacy was not statistically significant. Five case-series reports involving 363 participants with penile implants demonstrated a high satisfaction rate, but a 10% complication rate.Conclusions:A large body of evidence addressing sexuality in males focuses on erection. Penile injection, sildenafil and vacuum devices generally obviate the need for penile implants to address erectile dysfunction. Interventions may positively affect sexual activity in the short term. Long-term sexual adjustment and holistic approaches beyond erections remain to be studied. Rigorous study design and reporting, using common outcome measures, will facilitate higher quality research. This will positively impact patient care.Sponsorship:Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.

Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster

OBJECTIVE As part of a larger project on updating systematic reviews, we studied the currency of reviews at the time of publication to determine typical and achievable times to publication for systematic reviews published in journals, Health Technology Assessment technical reports or Cochrane Collaboration reviews, and examined differences in publication speed between these document types. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A cohort of systematic reviews of treatment interventions originally published between 1995 and 2005 and indexed in ACP Journal Club was assembled. Dates of search, manuscript submission, acceptance, publication and indexing in MEDLINE were extracted. RESULTS One hundred fifty-six reviews meet inclusion criteria. The median time from final search to publication was 61 weeks with an interquartile range of 33-87 weeks. Best (first quartile) performances were for the final search updated to occur within 10 weeks of submission, acceptance for publication within 11 weeks of submission, and publication, print or electronic, within 12 weeks of acceptance. CONCLUSION Efforts to reduce the time spent in production of systematic reviews can improve currency. Both authors and publishers can contribute to more rapid production of health care evidence syntheses.

Effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model for reducing the non-medical use of psychoactive substances: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundThere is a significant public health burden associated with substance use in Canada. The early detection and/or treatment of risky substance use has the potential to dramatically improve outcomes for those who experience harms from the non-medical use of psychoactive substances, particularly adolescents whose brains are still undergoing development. The Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment model is a comprehensive, integrated approach for the delivery of early intervention and treatment services for individuals experiencing substance use-related harms, as well as those who are at risk of experiencing such harm.MethodsThis article describes the protocol for a systematic review of the effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment model for reducing the non-medical use of psychoactive substances. Studies will be selected in which brief interventions target non-medical psychoactive substance use (excluding alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine) among those 12 years and older who are opportunistically screened and deemed at risk of harms related to psychoactive substance use. We will include one-on-one verbal interventions and exclude non-verbal brief interventions (for example, the provision of information such as a pamphlet or online interventions) and group interventions. Primary, secondary and adverse outcomes of interest are prespecified. Randomized controlled trials will be included; non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series designs will be considered in the absence of randomized controlled trials. We will search several bibliographic databases (for example, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CORK) and search sources for grey literature. We will meta-analyze studies where possible. We will conduct subgroup analyses, if possible, according to drug class and intervention setting.DiscussionThis review will provide evidence on the effectiveness of brief interventions as part of the Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment protocol aimed at the non-medical use of psychoactive substances and may provide guidance as to where future research might be most beneficial.

Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear. Methodology/Principal Findings The objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community. Conclusions/Significance Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective.

An evaluation of the completeness of safety reporting in reports of complementary and alternative medicine trials

BackgroundAdequate reporting of safety in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is a pre-requisite for accurate and comprehensive profile evaluation of conventional as well as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments. Clear and concise information on the definition, frequency, and severity of adverse events (AEs) is necessary for assessing the benefit-harm ratio of any intervention. The objectives of this study are to assess the quality of safety reporting in CAM RCTs; to explore the influence of different trial characteristics on the quality of safety reporting.MethodsSurvey of safety reporting in RCTs published in 2009 across 15 widely used CAM interventions identified from the Cochrane Collaborations CAM Field specialized register of trials. Primary outcome measures, the adequacy of reporting of AEs; was defined and categorized according to the CONSORT for harms extension; the percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the entire report and in the results section.ResultsTwo-hundred and five trials were included in the review. Of these, 15% (31/205) reported that no harms were observed during the trial period. Of the remaining 174 trials reporting any safety information, only 21% (36/174) had adequate safety reporting.For all trials, the median percentage of words devoted to the reporting of safety in the results section was 2.6. Moreover, 69% (n = 141) of all trials devoted a lesser or equal percentage of words to safety compared to author affiliations. Of the predictor variables used in regression analysis, multicenter trials had more words devoted to safety in the results section than single centre trials (P = 0.045).ConclusionsAn evaluation of safety reporting in the reports of CAM RCTs across 15 different CAM interventions demonstrated that the reporting of harms was largely inadequate. The quality of reporting safety information in primary reports of CAM randomized trials requires improvement.

Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods

BackgroundHealth care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs.MethodsWe contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs.ResultsTwenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor.ConclusionsOur study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of ‘rapid’ by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.

Oral sildenafil citrate (viagra) for erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of harms.

OBJECTIVES To summarize and compare evidence on harms in sildenafil- and placebo-treated men with erectile dysfunction (ED) in a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS Randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified using an electronic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Cochrane CENTRAL. The rates of any adverse events (AEs), most commonly reported AEs, withdrawals because of adverse events, and serious adverse events were ascertained and compared between sildenafil and placebo groups. The results of men with ED were stratified by clinical condition(s). Statistical heterogeneity was explored. Meta-analyses based on random-effects model were also performed. RESULTS A total of 49 RCTs were included. Sildenafil-treated men had a higher risk for all-cause AEs (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 1.38, 1.76), headache, flushing, dyspepsia, and visual disturbances compared with placebo-treated men. The magnitude of excess risk was greater in fixed- than in flexible-dose trials. The rates of serious adverse events and withdrawals because of adverse events did not differ in sildenafil vs placebo groups. A higher dose of sildenafil corresponded to a greater risk of AEs. The increased risk of harms was observed within and across clinically defined specific groups of patients. CONCLUSIONS There was a lack of RCTs reporting long-term (>6 months) harms data. In short-term trials, men with ED randomized to sildenafil had an increased risk of all-cause any AEs, headache, flushing, dyspepsia, and visual disturbances. The exploration of different modes of dose optimization of sildenafil may be warranted.

Many quality measurements, but few quality measures assessing the quality of breast cancer care in women: A systematic review

BackgroundBreast cancer in women is increasingly frequent, and care is complex, onerous and expensive, all of which lend urgency to improvements in care. Quality measurement is essential to monitor effectiveness and to guide improvements in healthcare.MethodsTen databases, including Medline, were searched electronically to identify measures assessing the quality of breast cancer care in women (diagnosis, treatment, followup, documentation of care). Eligible studies measured adherence to standards of breast cancer care in women diagnosed with, or in treatment for, any histological type of adenocarcinoma of the breast. Reference lists of studies, review articles, web sites, and files of experts were searched manually. Evidence appraisal entailed dual independent assessments of data (e.g., indicators used in quality measurement). The extent of each quality indicators scientific validation as a measure was assessed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) was asked to contribute quality measures under development.ResultsSixty relevant reports identified 58 studies with 143 indicators assessing adherence to quality breast cancer care. A paucity of validated indicators (n = 12), most of which assessed quality of life, only permitted a qualitative data synthesis. Most quality indicators evaluated processes of care.ConclusionWhile some studies revealed patterns of under-use of care, all adherence data require confirmation using validated quality measures. ASCOs current development of a set of quality measures relating to breast cancer care may hold the key to conducting definitive studies.

Updating comparative effectiveness reviews: Current efforts in AHRQ's Effective Health Care Program

OBJECTIVES To review the current knowledge and efforts on updating systematic reviews (SRs) as applied to comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING This article outlines considerations for updating CERs by including a definition of the updating process, describing issues around assessing whether to update, and providing general guidelines for the update process. Key points to consider include (1) identifying when to update CERs, (2) how to update CERs, and (3) how to present, report, and interpret updated results in CERs. RESULTS Currently, there is little information about what proportion of SRs needs updating. Similarly, there is no consensus on when to initiate updating and how best to carry it out. CONCLUSION CERs need to be regularly updated as new evidence is produced. Lack of attention to updating may lead to outdated and sometimes misleading conclusions that compromise health care and policy decisions. The article outlines several specific goals for future research, one of them being the development of efficient guideline for updating CERs applicable across evidence-based practice centers.

Effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment for Healthcare Workers Caring for Patients with Filovirus Disease: A Rapid Review.

Background A rapid review, guided by a protocol, was conducted to inform development of the World Health Organization’s guideline on personal protective equipment in the context of the ongoing (2013–present) Western African filovirus disease outbreak, with a focus on health care workers directly caring for patients with Ebola or Marburg virus diseases. Methods Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched. Eligibility criteria initially included comparative studies on Ebola and Marburg virus diseases reported in English or French, but criteria were expanded to studies on other viral hemorrhagic fevers and non-comparative designs due to the paucity of studies. After title and abstract screening (two people to exclude), full-text reports of potentially relevant articles were assessed in duplicate. Fifty-seven percent of extraction information was verified. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to inform the quality of evidence assessments. Results Thirty non-comparative studies (8 related to Ebola virus disease) were located, and 27 provided data on viral transmission. Reporting of personal protective equipment components and infection prevention and control protocols was generally poor. Conclusions Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of various types of personal protective equipment. Additional research is urgently needed to determine optimal PPE for health care workers caring for patients with filovirus.