Rita Banzi

Accuracy of human papillomavirus testing on self-collected versus clinician-collected samples: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is more effective in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer than screening using Pap smears. Moreover, HPV testing can be done on a vaginal sample self-taken by a woman, which offers an opportunity to improve screening coverage. However, the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples is not well-known. We assessed whether HPV testing on self-collected samples is equivalent to HPV testing on samples collected by clinicians. METHODS We identified relevant studies through a search of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled all of the following selection criteria: a cervical cell sample was self-collected by a woman followed by a sample taken by a clinician; a high-risk HPV test was done on the self-sample (index test) and HPV-testing or cytological interpretation was done on the specimen collected by the clinician (comparator tests); and the presence or absence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 (CIN2) or worse was verified by colposcopy and biopsy in all enrolled women or in women with one or more positive tests. The absolute accuracy for finding CIN2 or worse, or CIN grade 3 (CIN3) or worse of the index and comparator tests as well as the relative accuracy of the index versus the comparator tests were pooled using bivariate normal models and random effect models. FINDINGS We included data from 36 studies, which altogether enrolled 154 556 women. The absolute accuracy varied by clinical setting. In the context of screening, HPV testing on self-samples detected, on average, 76% (95% CI 69-82) of CIN2 or worse and 84% (72-92) of CIN3 or worse. The pooled absolute specificity to exclude CIN2 or worse was 86% (83-89) and 87% (84-90) to exclude CIN3 or worse. The variation of the relative accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with tests on clinician-taken samples was low across settings, enabling pooling of the relative accuracy over all studies. The pooled sensitivity of HPV testing on self-samples was lower than HPV testing on a clinician-taken sample (ratio 0·88 [95% CI 0·85-0·91] for CIN2 or worse and 0·89 [0·83-0·96] for CIN3 or worse). Also specificity was lower in self-samples versus clinician-taken samples (ratio 0·96 [0·95-0·97] for CIN2 or worse and 0·96 [0·93-0·99] for CIN3 or worse). HPV testing with signal-based assays on self-samples was less sensitive and specific than testing on clinician-based samples. By contrast, some PCR-based HPV tests generally showed similar sensitivity on both self-samples and clinician-based samples. INTERPRETATION In screening programmes using signal-based assays, sampling by a clinician should be recommended. However, HPV testing on a self-sample can be suggested as an additional strategy to reach women not participating in the regular screening programme. Some PCR-based HPV tests could be considered for routine screening after careful piloting assessing feasibility, logistics, population compliance, and costs. FUNDING The 7th Framework Programme of the European Commission, the Belgian Foundation against Cancer, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and the German Guideline Program in Oncology.

High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening.

This review elaborates on the accuracy and feasibility of human papillomavirus (HPV) self‐sampling, i.e., offering self‐sampling of (cervico‐)vaginal cell material by women themselves in nonclinical settings for high‐risk HPV (hrHPV) detection in the laboratory, for cervical screening. To that end a bibliographic database search (PubMed) was performed to identify studies (published between January 1992 and January 2012) that compared clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self‐sampled material with that of cytology or HPV testing on clinician‐taken samples, and studies comparing response to offering HPV self‐sampling with a recall invitation. Overall, hrHPV testing on self‐samples appeared to be at least as, if not more, sensitive for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) as cytology on clinician‐obtained cervical samples, though often less specific. In most studies, hrHPV testing on self‐ and clinician‐sampled specimens is similarly accurate with respect to CIN2+ detection. Variations in clinical performance likely reflect the use of different combinations of collection devices and HPV tests. Because it is known that underscreened women are at increased risk of cervical cancer, targeting non‐attendees of the screening program could improve the effectiveness of cervical screening. In developed countries offering self‐sampling has shown to be superior to a recall invitation for cytology in re‐attracting original non‐attendees into the screening program. Additionally, self‐testing has shown to facilitate access to cervical screening for women in low resource areas. This updated review of the literature suggests that HPV self‐sampling could be an additional strategy that can improve screening performance compared to current cytology‐based call‐recall programs.

Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Biennial screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBts) has been found to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are superior to guaiac faecal occult blood tests (G-FOBts) due to their improved sensitivity and specificity. However the effectiveness of a screening programme depends highly on participation rates. The aim of this study was to review studies comparing guaiac faecal occult blood tests and faecal immunochemical tests, in terms of participation rates. METHODS We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2000-September 2011) to identify randomised control trials comparing guaiac faecal occult blood test with faecal immunochemical test participation rates. One author screened the titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction which was then checked by the other authors. Risk of bias in the included studies was also assessed. RESULTS Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were entered into a meta-analysis. Participation rates were significantly higher for individuals offered faecal immunochemical tests compared to those offered a guaiac faecal occult blood test (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09-1.33). Potential factors that could have influenced participation were discussed. CONCLUSIONS Colorectal cancer screening programmes currently using guaiac faecal occult blood tests could improve participation rates by converting to faecal immunochemical tests. More research examining the acceptability of faecal immunochemical tests, from a patient perspective, is warranted.

A Review of Online Evidence-based Practice Point-of-Care Information Summary Providers

Background Busy clinicians need easy access to evidence-based information to inform their clinical practice. Publishers and organizations have designed specific tools to meet doctors’ needs at the point of care. Objective The aim of this study was to describe online point-of-care summaries and evaluate their breadth, content development, and editorial policy against their claims of being “evidence-based.” Methods We searched Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and information conference proceedings from January to December 2008. We included English Web-based point-of-care summaries designed to deliver predigested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, periodically updated, evidence-based information to clinicians. Two investigators independently extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of summaries. We assessed and ranked point-of-care products according to: (1) coverage (volume) of medical conditions, (2) editorial quality, and (3) evidence-based methodology. We explored how these factors were associated. Results We retrieved 30 eligible summaries. Of these products, 18 met our inclusion criteria and were qualitatively described, and 16 provided sufficient data for quantitative evaluation. The median volume of medical conditions covered was 80.6% (interquartile range, 68.9% - 84.2%) and varied for the different products. Similarly, differences emerged for editorial policy (median 8.0, interquartile range 5.8 - 10.3) and evidence-based methodology scores (median 10.0, interquartile range 1.0 - 12.8) on a 15-point scale. None of these dimensions turned out to be significantly associated with the other dimensions (editorial quality and volume, Spearman rank correlation r = -0.001, P = .99; evidence-based methodology and volume, r = -0.19, P = .48; editorial and evidence-based methodology, r = 0.43, P =.09). Conclusions Publishers are moving to develop point-of-care summary products. Some of these have better profiles than others, and there is room for improved reporting of the strengths and weaknesses of these products.

Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: Prospective cohort analysis

Objective To evaluate the ability of international point of care information summaries to update evidence relevant to medical practice. Design Prospective cohort bibliometric analysis. Setting Top five point of care information summaries (Clinical Evidence, EBMGuidelines, eMedicine, Dynamed, UpToDate) ranked for coverage of medical conditions, editorial quality, and evidence based methodology. Main outcome measures From June 2009 to May 2010 we measured the incidence of research findings relating to potentially eligible newsworthy evidence. As samples, we chose systematic reviews rated as relevant by international research networks (such as, Evidence-Based Medicine, ACP Journal Club, and the Cochrane Collaboration). Every month we assessed whether each sampled review was cited in at least one chapter of the five summaries. The cumulative updating rate was analysed with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results From April to December 2009, 128 reviews were retrieved; 53% (68) from the literature surveillance journals and 47% (60) from the Cochrane Library. At nine months, Dynamed had cited 87% of the sampled reviews, while the other summaries had cited less than 50%. The updating speed of Dynamed clearly led the others. For instance, the hazard ratios for citations in EBM Guidelines and Clinical Evidence versus the top performer were 0.22 (95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.29) and 0.03 (0.01 to 0.05). Conclusions Point of care information summaries include evidence relevant to practice at different speeds. A qualitative analysis of updating mechanisms is needed to determine whether greater speed corresponds to more appropriate incorporation of new information.

Evidence-based clinical practice: Overview of threats to the validity of evidence and how to minimise them

Using the best quality of clinical research evidence is essential for choosing the right treatment for patients. How to identify the best research evidence is, however, difficult. In this narrative review we summarise these threats and describe how to minimise them. Pertinent literature was considered through literature searches combined with personal files. Treatments should generally not be chosen based only on evidence from observational studies or single randomised clinical trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of all identifiable randomised clinical trials with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment represent the highest level of evidence. Even though systematic reviews are trust worthier than other types of evidence, all levels of the evidence hierarchy are under threats from systematic errors (bias); design errors (abuse of surrogate outcomes, composite outcomes, etc.); and random errors (play of chance). Clinical research infrastructures may help in providing larger and better conducted trials. Trial Sequential Analysis may help in deciding when there is sufficient evidence in meta-analyses. If threats to the validity of clinical research are carefully considered and minimised, research results will be more valid and this will benefit patients and heath care systems.

Approvals of drugs with uncertain benefit–risk profiles in Europe

PURPOSE This paper examines conditional approvals that allow the marketing of medicines with unsettled benefit-risk profiles in the European Union. METHODS We identified medicines that had received conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency in the period January 2006-June 2015. We searched the reasons and bases for approvals, the median time to address the specific obligations imposed in order to cover the information gap and allow regular authorisations, and their extent of fulfilment. RESULTS Of the 26 products conditionally authorised two were withdrawn for commercial reasons, ten were switched to regular approval, and 14 are still under conditional approval. Conditional approval was granted mainly to medicinal products intended for seriously debilitating disease or life-threatening disease. The median time to address the specific obligations was four years (range 0.2 to 7.7). There were delays or discrepancies in the fulfilment of these obligations in more than one third of the authorisation procedures. CONCLUSIONS In most cases there was limited evidence supporting the positive benefit-risk balance at the time of approval. Delays or discrepancies in the fulfilment of obligations allow medicinal products with unsettled benefit-risk profiles onto the market for several years. This should be taken into account when further early or step-wise licensing strategies are considered.

Telerehabilitation and recovery of motor function: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary Recent advances in telecommunication technologies have boosted the possibility to deliver rehabilitation via the internet (i.e. telerehabilitation). Several studies have shown that telerehabilitation is effective to improve clinical outcomes in disabling conditions. The aim of this review was to determine whether telerehabilitation was more effective than other modes of delivering rehabilitation to regain motor function, in different populations of patients. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library retrieving 2360 records. Twelve studies were included involving different populations (i.e. neurological, total knee arthroplasty (TKA), cardiac) of patients. Inconclusive finding were found on the effect of telerehabilitation for neurological patients (SMD = 0.08, CI 95% = −0.13, 0.29), while both for cardiac (SMD = 0.24, CI 95% = 0.04, 0.43) and TKA patients (Timed Up and Go test: MD = −5.17, CI 95% = −9.79, −0.55) the results were in favour of telerehabilitation. Conclusive evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation for treatment of motor function, regardless of pathology, was not reached. Nevertheless, a strong positive effect was found for patients following orthopaedic surgery, suggesting that the increased intensity provided by telerehabilitation is a promising option to be offered to patients. More and higher quality research is needed in this field especially with neurological patients.

Haematological anticancer drugs in Europe: any added value at the time of approval?

ObjectiveCurrent European regulations only require drugs to be safe and effective, although there is heavy demand for comparative efficacy data to demonstrate the added value of new drugs. The objective of the analysis reported here was to assess the added value of new anticancer drugs for haematological malignancies that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) based on the clinical data provided at the time of submission.MethodsInformation on the evidence supporting the approval was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Documents were surveyed for new applications and for subsequent extensions between January 1995, when the EMEA was set up, and May 2006. The added value of newly approved drugs was assessed by an algorithm that evaluates the strength of evidence based on methodological appropriateness (randomised comparison) and the importance of clinical advantage (in terms of the magnitude of benefit, hardness of outcome measures, adequacy of comparator).ResultsEleven anticancer drugs were analysed. Of 17 indications, nine (53%) were approved on the basis of single-arm trials (SATs), and eight (47%) were approved on the basis of randomised controlled (clinical) trials (RCTs). The most frequently used endpoint was response rate (12 of 17 indications, 70%). On the basis of our criteria, only four of the 11 drugs show a consistent added value.ConclusionWe were unable to establish an added value for about two thirds of the drugs evaluated in this study, primarily due to methodological aspects related to study design and endpoint robustness.

Providing Doctors With High-Quality Information: An Updated Evaluation of Web-Based Point-of-Care Information Summaries

Background The complexity of modern practice requires health professionals to be active information-seekers. Objective Our aim was to review the quality and progress of point-of-care information summaries—Web-based medical compendia that are specifically designed to deliver pre-digested, rapidly accessible, comprehensive, and periodically updated information to health care providers. We aimed to evaluate product claims of being evidence-based. Methods We updated our previous evaluations by searching Medline, Google, librarian association websites, and conference proceedings from August 2012 to December 2014. We included Web-based, regularly updated point-of-care information summaries with claims of being evidence-based. We extracted data on the general characteristics and content presentation of products, and we quantitatively assessed their breadth of disease coverage, editorial quality, and evidence-based methodology. We assessed potential relationships between these dimensions and compared them with our 2008 assessment. Results We screened 58 products; 26 met our inclusion criteria. Nearly a quarter (6/26, 23%) were newly identified in 2014. We accessed and analyzed 23 products for content presentation and quantitative dimensions. Most summaries were developed by major publishers in the United States and the United Kingdom; no products derived from low- and middle-income countries. The main target audience remained physicians, although nurses and physiotherapists were increasingly represented. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions. The majority of products did not excel across all dimensions: we found only a moderate positive correlation between editorial quality and evidence-based methodology (r=.41, P=.0496). However, all dimensions improved from 2008: editorial quality (P=.01), evidence-based methodology (P=.015), and volume of diseases and medical conditions (P<.001). Conclusions Medical and scientific publishers are investing substantial resources towards the development and maintenance of point-of-care summaries. The number of these products has increased since 2008 along with their quality. Best Practice, Dynamed, and UptoDate scored the highest across all dimensions, while others that were marketed as evidence-based were less reliable. Individuals and institutions should regularly assess the value of point-of-care summaries as their quality changes rapidly over time.