Johanna Anderson

Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance

OBJECTIVES As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. METHODS A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. RESULTS Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review.

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

BackgroundAn exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development.MethodsWe searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions.ResultsThere was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews.ConclusionsThere remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews

BackgroundThere is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews.MethodsInterviews were conducted with key informants representing: guideline developers (n = 3), health care providers/health system organizations (n = 3), research funders (n = 1), and payers/health insurers (n = 1). We elicited perspectives on important characteristics of systematic reviews, acceptable methods to streamline reviews, and uses of rapid products. We analyzed content of the interview transcripts and identified themes and subthemes.ResultsKey informants identified the following as critical features of evidence reviews: (1) originating from a reliable source (i.e., conducted by experienced reviewers from an established research organization), (2) addressing clinically relevant questions, and (3) trusted relationship between the user and producer. Key informants expressed strong preference for the following review methods and characteristics: use of evidence tables, quality rating of studies, assessments of total evidence quality/strength, and use of summary tables for results and conclusions. Most acceptable trade-offs to increase efficiencies were limiting the literature search (e.g., limiting search dates or language) and performing single screening of citations and full texts for relevance. Key informants perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or guideline, direction for future research). Most key informants indicated that evidence analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence assessments were important for decision-making. They reported that rapid reviews in particular were useful for guideline development on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision-making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and decisions about coverage by payers/health insurers. Rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems; whereas, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review.ConclusionsKey informants interviewed in our study indicated that evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews have utility in specific decisions and contexts. They indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product. Our findings are limited by the sample size which may have been too small to reach saturation for the themes described.

Health Disparities in Veterans: A Map of the Evidence

Background: Goals for improving the quality of care for all Veterans and eliminating health disparities are outlined in the Veterans Health Administration Blueprint for Excellence, but the degree to which disparities in utilization, health outcomes, and quality of care affect Veterans is not well understood. Objectives: To characterize the research on health care disparities in the Veterans Health Administration by means of a map of the evidence. Research Design: We conducted a systematic search for research studies published from 2006 to February 2016 in MEDLINE and other data sources. We included studies of Veteran populations that examined disparities in 3 outcome categories: utilization, quality of health care, and patient health. Measures: We abstracted data on study design, setting, population, clinical area, outcomes, mediators, and presence of disparity for each outcome category. We grouped the data by population characteristics including race, disability status, mental illness, demographics (age, era of service, rural location, and distance from care), sex identity, socioeconomic status, and homelessness, and created maps illustrating the evidence. Results: We reviewed 4249 citations and abstracted data from 351 studies which met inclusion criteria. Studies examining disparities by race/ethnicity comprised by far the vast majority of the literature, followed by studies examining disparities by sex, and mental health condition. Very few studies examined disparities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity or homelessness. Disparities findings vary widely by population and outcome. Conclusions: Our evidence maps provide a “lay of the land” and identify important gaps in knowledge about health disparities experienced by different Veteran populations.

Defining the benefits and challenges of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews

License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. Permissions beyond the scope of the License are administered by Dove Medical Press Limited. Information on how to request permission may be found at: http://www.dovepress.com/permissions.php Comparative Effectiveness Research 2015:5 13–19 Comparative Effectiveness Research Dovepress

Mortality disparities in racial/ethnic minority groups in the veterans health administration: An evidence review and Map

Background Continued racial/ethnic health disparities were recently described as “the most serious and shameful health care issue of our time.” Although the 2014 US Affordable Care Act-mandated national insurance coverage expansion has led to significant improvements in health care coverage and access, its effects on life expectancy are not yet known. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest US integrated health care system, has a sustained commitment to health equity that addresses all 3 stages of health disparities research: detection, understanding determinants, and reduction or elimination. Despite this, racial disparities still exist in the VHA across a wide range of clinical areas and service types. Objectives To inform the health equity research agenda, we synthesized evidence on racial/ethnic mortality disparities in the VHA. Search Methods Our research librarian searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from October 2006 through February 2017 using terms for racial groups and disparities. Selection Criteria We included studies if they compared mortality between any racial/ethnic minority and nonminority veteran groups or between different minority groups in the VHA (PROSPERO# CRD42015015974). We made study selection decisions on the basis of prespecified eligibility criteria. They were first made by 1 reviewer and checked by a second and disagreements were resolved by consensus (sequential review). Data Collection and Analysis Two reviewers sequentially abstracted data on prespecified population, outcome, setting, and study design characteristics. Two reviewers sequentially graded the strength of evidence using prespecified criteria on the basis of 5 key domains: study limitations (study design and internal validity), consistency, directness, precision of the evidence, and reporting biases. We synthesized the evidence qualitatively by grouping studies first by racial/ethnic minority group and then by clinical area. For areas with multiple studies in the same population and outcome, we pooled their reported hazard ratios (HRs) using random effects models (StatsDirect version 2.8.0; StatsDirect Ltd., Altrincham, England). We created an evidence map using a bubble plot format to represent the evidence base in 5 dimensions: odds ratio or HR of mortality for racial/ethnic minority group versus Whites, clinical area, strength of evidence, statistical significance, and racial group. Main Results From 2840 citations, we included 25 studies. Studies were large (n ≥ 10 000) and involved nationally representative cohorts, and the majority were of fair quality. Most studies compared mortality between Black and White veterans and found similar or lower mortality for Black veterans. However, we found modest mortality disparities (HR or OR = 1.07, 1.52) for Black veterans with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, colon cancer, diabetes, HIV, rectal cancer, or stroke; for American Indian and Alaska Native veterans undergoing noncardiac major surgery; and for Hispanic veterans with HIV or traumatic brain injury (most low strength). Author’s Conclusions Although the VHA’s equal access health care system has reduced many racial/ethnic mortality disparities present in the private sector, our review identified mortality disparities that have persisted mainly for Black veterans in several clinical areas. However, because most mortality disparities were supported by single studies with imprecise findings, we could not draw strong conclusions about this evidence. More disparities research is needed for American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic veterans overall and for more of the largest life expectancy gaps. Public Health Implications Because of the relatively high prevalence of diabetes in Black veterans, further research to better understand and reduce this mortality disparity may be prioritized as having the greatest potential impact. However, other mortality disparities affect thousands of veterans and cannot be ignored.