Erin Lillie

Setting Research Priorities for Patients on or Nearing Dialysis

With increasing emphasis among health care providers and funders on patient-centered care, it follows that patients and their caregivers should be included when priorities for research are being established. This study sought to identify the most important unanswered questions about the management of kidney failure from the perspective of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and the health care professionals who care for these patients. Research uncertainties were identified through a national Canadian survey of adult patients on or nearing dialysis, their caregivers, and health care professionals. Uncertainties were refined by a steering committee that included patients, caregivers, researchers, and clinicians to assemble a short-list of the top 30 uncertainties. Thirty-four people (11 patients; five caregivers; eight physicians; six nurses; and one social worker, pharmacist, physiotherapist, and dietitian each) from across Canada subsequently participated in a workshop to determine the top 10 research questions. In total, 1570 usable research uncertainties were received from 317 respondents to the survey. Among these, 259 unique uncertainties were identified; after ranking, these were reduced to a short-list of 30 uncertainties. During the in-person workshop, the top 10 research uncertainties were identified, which included questions about enhanced communication among patients and providers, dialysis modality options, itching, access to kidney transplantation, heart health, dietary restrictions, depression, and vascular access. These can be used alongside the results of other research priority-setting exercises to guide researchers in designing future studies and inform health care funders.

What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review

BackgroundA knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool.MethodsWe will search relevant electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and discipline-based listservs. The scoping review will consider all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding economic analysis or clinical practice guideline development), and identify knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction forms, and will independently screen the literature and abstract the data. A three-step synthesis process will be used to map the literature to our objectives.DiscussionThis project represents the first attempt to broadly and systematically identify, define and classify knowledge synthesis methods (i.e., less traditional knowledge synthesis methods). We anticipate that our results will lead to an accepted taxonomy for less traditional knowledge synthesis methods, and to the development and implementation of a methods manual for these reviews which will be relevant to a wide range of knowledge users, including researchers, funders, and journal editors.

Harassment and discrimination in medical training: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose Harassment and discrimination include a wide range of behaviors that medical trainees perceive as being humiliating, hostile, or abusive. To understand the significance of such mistreatment and to explore potential preventive strategies, the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the prevalence, risk factors, and sources of harassment and discrimination among medical trainees. Method In 2011, the authors identified relevant studies by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE, scanning reference lists of relevant studies, and contacting experts. They included studies that reported the prevalence, risk factors, and sources of harassment and discrimination among medical trainees. Two reviewers independently screened all articles and abstracted study and participant characteristics and study results. The authors assessed the methodological quality in individual studies using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. They also conducted a meta-analysis. Results The authors included 57 cross-sectional and 2 cohort studies in their review. The meta-analysis of 51 studies demonstrated that 59.4% of medical trainees had experienced at least one form of harassment or discrimination during their training (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52.0%–66.7%). Verbal harassment was the most commonly cited form of harassment (prevalence: 63.0%; 95% CI: 54.8%–71.2%). Consultants were the most commonly cited source of harassment and discrimination, followed by patients or patients’ families (34.4% and 21.9%, respectively). Conclusions This review demonstrates the surprisingly high prevalence of harassment and discrimination among medical trainees that has not declined over time. The authors recommend both drafting policies and promoting cultural change within academic institutions to prevent future abuse.

Association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis

Background: It has been proposed by Zamboni and colleagues that multiple sclerosis is caused by chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, a term used to describe ultrasound-detectable abnormalities in the anatomy and flow of intra- and extracerebral veins. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that reported the frequency of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency among patients with and those without multiple sclerosis. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as bibliographies of relevant articles for eligible studies. We included studies if they used ultrasound to diagnose chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and compared the frequency of the venous abnormalities among patients with and those without multiple sclerosis. Results: We identified eight eligible studies: all included healthy controls, and four of them also included a control group of patients with neurologic diseases other than multiple sclerosis. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency was more frequent among patients with multiple sclerosis than among the healthy controls (odds ratio [OR] 13.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6–71.4), but there was extensive unexplained heterogeneity among the studies. The association remained significant in the most conservative sensitivity analysis (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.2–11.0), in which we removed the initial study by Zamboni and colleagues and added a study that did not find chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in any patient. Although chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency was also more frequent among patients with multiple sclerosis than among controls with other neurologic diseases (OR 32.5, 95% CI 0.6–1775.7), the association was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was wide, and the OR was less extreme after removal of the study by Zamboni and colleagues (OR 3.5, 95% 0.8–15.8). Interpretation: Our findings showed a positive association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. However, poor reporting of the success of blinding and marked heterogeneity among the studies included in our review precluded definitive conclusions.

A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method

OBJECTIVES To systematically identify, define, and classify emerging knowledge synthesis methods through a scoping review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Social Sciences Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Philosophers Index, and Education Resources Information Center were searched to identify articles reporting emerging knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for each article. RESULTS In total, 409 articles reporting on 25 knowledge synthesis methods were included after screening of 17,962 titles and abstracts and 1,010 potentially relevant full-text articles. Most of the included articles were an application of the method (83.9%); only 3.7% were seminal articles that fully described the method (i.e., operationalized the steps). Most of the included articles were published after 2005. The methods were most commonly used across the fields of nursing, health care science and services, and health policy. CONCLUSION We found a lack of guidance on how to select a knowledge synthesis method. We propose convening an international group of leaders in the knowledge synthesis field to help clarify emerging approaches to knowledge synthesis.

Efficacy of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's disease: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BackgroundApproximately 35 million people world-wide have Alzheimer’s disease and this is projected to nearly double by 2030. Cognitive enhancers, including cholinesterase inhibitors (for example, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine) and memantine (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid (NMDA) receptor antagonist) have been approved for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease in many countries. Our objective is to evaluate the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer’s disease through a systematic review.Methods/designStudies examining the efficacy, safety, and cost of cognitive enhancers compared to placebo, supportive care, and other cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer’s patients will be included. The primary outcome is cognition and secondary outcomes include function, behavior, quality of life, safety, and cost. Experimental studies (randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials), quasi-experimental studies (controlled before-after, interrupted time series), and observational studies (cohort, case–control studies) will be eligible for inclusion. Inclusion will not be limited by publication status, time period or language of dissemination.We will search electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ageline) from inception onwards. The electronic database search will be supplemented by searching for grey literature (for example, conference proceedings, searches in Google and relevant organization websites). Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for inclusion using the eligibility criteria established a priori and independently extract data. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for experimental and quasi-experimental studies and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for observational studies. If deemed appropriate, meta-analysis and network (that is, indirect comparisons) meta-analysis will be conducted.DiscussionOur systematic review will inform the decision of healthcare providers, policy-makers, Alzheimer’s patients and family members about the use of cognitive enhancers, by improving their understanding of the costs, benefits and harms that are associated with these agents.PROSPERO registry numberCRD42012001948

Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps

OBJECTIVES To describe and compare, through a scoping review, emerging knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence in health care, in terms of expertise required, similarities, differences, strengths, limitations, and steps involved in using the methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were searched, and two reviewers independently selected studies and abstracted data for qualitative analysis. RESULTS In total, 121 articles reporting seven knowledge synthesis methods (critical interpretive synthesis, integrative review, meta-narrative review, meta-summary, mixed studies review, narrative synthesis, and realist review) were included after screening of 17,962 citations and 1,010 full-text articles. Common similarities among methods related to the entire synthesis process, while common differences related to the research question and eligibility criteria. The most common strength was a comprehensive synthesis providing rich contextual data, whereas the most common weakness was a highly subjective method that was not reproducible. For critical interpretive synthesis, meta-narrative review, meta-summary, and narrative synthesis, guidance was not provided for some steps of the review process. CONCLUSION Some of the knowledge synthesis methods provided guidance on all steps, whereas other methods were missing guidance on the synthesis process. Further work is needed to clarify these emerging knowledge synthesis methods.

Determining the research priorities for patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis

Background The importance of engaging key stakeholders, and patients in particular, in determining research priorities has been recognized. We sought to identify the top 10 research priorities for patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care. Methods We used the four-step James Lind Alliance process to establish the top 10 research priorities. A national survey of patients with non-dialysis CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care was conducted to identify research uncertainties. A Steering Group of patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers combined and reduced these uncertainties to 30 through a series of iterations. Finally, a workshop with participants from across Canada (12 patients, 6 caregivers, 3 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist and 1 policy-maker) was held to determine the top 10 research priorities, using a nominal group technique. Results Overall, 439 individuals responded to the survey and identified 1811 uncertainties, from which the steering group determined the top 30 uncertainties to be considered at the workshop. The top 10 research uncertainties prioritized at the workshop included questions about treatments to prevent progression of kidney disease (including diet) and to treat symptoms of CKD, provider- and patient-targeted strategies for managing CKD, the impact of lifestyle on disease progression, harmful effects of medications on disease progression, optimal strategies for treatment of cardiovascular disease in CKD and for early identification of kidney disease, and strategies for equitable access to care for patients with CKD. Conclusions We identified the top 10 research priorities for patients with CKD that can be used to guide researchers, as well as inform funders of health-care research.

Utility of social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review protocol

Introduction Adverse events associated with medications are under-reported in postmarketing surveillance systems. A systematic review of published data from 37 studies worldwide (including Canada) found the median under-reporting rate of adverse events to be 94% in spontaneous reporting systems. This scoping review aims to assess the utility of social media and crowd-sourced data to detect and monitor adverse events related to health products including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. Methods and analysis Our review conduct will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 13 May 2016. Additional sources included searches of study registries, conference abstracts, dissertations, as well as websites of international regulatory authorities (eg, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the WHO, European Medicines Agency). Search results will be supplemented by scanning the references of relevant reviews. We will include all publication types including published articles, editorials, websites and book sections that describe use of social media and crowd-sourced data for surveillance of adverse events associated with health products. Two reviewers will perform study selection and data abstraction independently, and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. Data analysis will involve quantitative (eg, frequencies) and qualitative (eg, content analysis) methods. Dissemination The summary of results will be sent to Health Canada, who commissioned the review, and other relevant policymakers involved with the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. We will compile and circulate a 1-page policy brief and host a 1-day stakeholder meeting to discuss the implications, key messages and finalise the knowledge translation strategy. Findings from this review will ultimately inform the design and development of a data analytics platform for social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance in Canada and internationally. Registration details Our protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kv9hu/).

Impact of H1N1 on socially disadvantaged populations: systematic review.

Background The burden of H1N1 among socially disadvantaged populations is unclear. We aimed to synthesize hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality data associated with pandemic A/H1N1/2009 among socially disadvantaged populations. Methods/Principal Findings Studies were identified through searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, scanning reference lists, and contacting experts. Studies reporting hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality attributable to laboratory-confirmed 2009 H1N1 pandemic among socially disadvantaged populations (e.g., ethnic minorities, low-income or lower-middle-income economy countries [LIC/LMIC]) were included. Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal (Newcastle Ottawa Scale). Random effects meta-analysis was conducted using SAS and Review Manager. Conclusions/Significance Sixty-two studies including 44,777 patients were included after screening 787 citations and 164 full-text articles. The prevalence of hospitalization for H1N1 ranged from 17–87% in high-income economy countries (HIC) and 11–45% in LIC/LMIC. Of those hospitalized, the prevalence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality was 6–76% and 1–25% in HIC; and 30% and 8–15%, in LIC/LMIC, respectively. There were significantly more hospitalizations among ethnic minorities versus non-ethnic minorities in two studies conducted in North America (1,313 patients, OR 2.26 [95% CI: 1.53–3.32]). There were no differences in ICU admissions (n = 8 studies, 15,352 patients, OR 0.84 [0.69–1.02]) or deaths (n = 6 studies, 14,757 patients, OR 0.85 [95% CI: 0.73–1.01]) among hospitalized patients in HIC. Sub-group analysis indicated that the meta-analysis results were not likely affected by confounding. Overall, the prevalence of hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality due to H1N1 was high for ethnic minorities in HIC and individuals from LIC/LMIC. However, our results suggest that there were little differences in the proportion of hospitalization, severe illness, and mortality between ethnic minorities and non-ethnic minorities living in HIC.