Ursula Griebler

Socioeconomic inequalities in non-communicable diseases and their risk factors: an overview of systematic reviews

BackgroundNon-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the largest cause of premature death worldwide. Socioeconomic inequalities contribute to a disparity in the burden of NCDs among disadvantaged and advantaged populations in low (LIC), middle (MIC), and high income countries (HIC). We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to systematically and objectively assess the available evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in relation to morbidity and mortality of NCDs and their risk factors.MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Global Health, and Business Source Complete for relevant systematic reviews published between 2003 and December 2013. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews.ResultsWe screened 3302 abstracts, 173 full-text publications and ultimately included 22 systematic reviews. Most reviews had major methodological shortcomings; however, our synthesis showed that having low socioeconomic status (SES) and/or living in low and middle income countries (LMIC) increased the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), lung and gastric cancer, type 2 diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Furthermore, low SES increased the risk of mortality from lung cancer, COPD, and reduced breast cancer survival in HIC. Reviews included here indicated that lower SES is a risk factor for obesity in HIC, but this association varied by SES measure. Early case fatalities of stroke were lower and survival of retinoblastoma was higher in MIC compared to LIC.ConclusionsThe current evidence supports an association between socioeconomic inequalities and NCDs and risk factors for NCDs. However, this evidence is incomplete and limited by the fairly low methodological quality of the systematic reviews, including shortcomings in the study selection and quality assessment process.

Sentinel lymph node dissection only versus complete axillary lymph node dissection in early invasive breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The Z0011-study, a landmark randomised controlled trial (RCT) challenged the benefits of complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) compared with sentinel lymph node dissection only (SLND) in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes. The study, however, has been criticised for lack of power and low applicability. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of ALND versus SLND for sentinel node positive breast cancer patients. METHODS We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from January 2006 to August 2011. We dually reviewed the literature and rated the risk of bias of each study. For effectiveness, we included RCTs and observational studies of at least 1 year follow-up. In addition, we considered studies conducted in sentinel node-negative women to assess the risk of harms. If data were sufficient, we conducted random effects meta-analysis of outcomes of interest. RESULTS Meta-analysis of three studies with 50,120 patients indicated similar 5-year survival and regional recurrence rates between patients treated with ALND or SLND, although prognostic tumour characteristics varied among the 3 study-populations. Results from 6 studies on more than 11,500 patients reported a higher risk for harms for ALND than SLND. Long-term evidence on pertinent health outcomes is missing. CONCLUSION The available evidence indicates that for some women with early invasive breast cancer SLND appears to be a justifiable alternative to ALND. Surgeons need to discuss advantages and disadvantages of both approaches with their patients.

Extended-release opioids in the management of cancer pain: a systematic review of efficacy and safety.

Despite the increased availability of strong analgesics and evidence‐based recommendations for pain management, under‐treatment of cancer‐related pain is still common. Extended‐release (ER) opioids, in contrast to immediate‐release opioids, provide prolonged analgesia. In this review, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ER opioid analgesics in managing moderate‐to‐severe pain in patients with cancer. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies that compared ER opioids in cancer pain by searching several databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Two independent reviewers screened and evaluated retrieved records to select relevant studies. We dually assessed the risk of bias for included studies and evaluated the overall strength of evidence for six critical outcomes using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation level of evidence. A total of three double‐blind RCTs (comparative efficacy and adverse events), two non‐blinded RCTs and four observational studies (comparative adverse events) were included in this review. All randomized trials and one observational study were of high risk of bias, and three observational studies of unclear risk of bias. The level of evidence for the selected efficacy and safety outcomes was low and very low. We synthesized the findings qualitatively because of the paucity of relevant studies as well as variable study design and quality. This systematic review indicates no substantial differences in efficacy and frequent adverse events among ER opioids for cancer pain. The body of evidence, however, is limited to few comparisons and fraught with methodological shortcomings.

Barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias: thematic analysis of scholarly articles and stakeholder interviews

BackgroundWhen the nature and direction of research results affect their chances of publication, a distortion of the evidence base – termed publication bias – results. Despite considerable recent efforts to implement measures to reduce the non-publication of trials, publication bias is still a major problem in medical research. The objective of our study was to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to prevent or reduce publication bias.MethodsWe systematically reviewed the scholarly literature and extracted data from articles. Further, we performed semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. We performed an inductive thematic analysis to identify barriers to and facilitators of interventions to counter publication bias.ResultsThe systematic review identified 39 articles. Thirty-four of 89 invited interview partners agreed to be interviewed. We clustered interventions into four categories: prospective trial registration, incentives for reporting in peer-reviewed journals or research reports, public availability of individual patient-level data, and peer-review/editorial processes. Barriers we identified included economic and personal interests, lack of financial resources for a global comprehensive trial registry, and different legal systems. Facilitators identified included: raising awareness of the effects of publication bias, providing incentives to make data publically available, and implementing laws to enforce prospective registration and reporting of clinical trial results.ConclusionsPublication bias is a complex problem that reflects the complex system in which it occurs. The cooperation amongst stakeholders to increase public awareness of the problem, better tailoring of incentives to publish, and ultimately legislative regulations have the greatest potential for reducing publication bias.

Taxation of sugar‐sweetened beverages for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) on SSB consumption, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population.

Facilitating evidence uptake: development and user testing of a systematic review summary format to inform public health decision-making in German-speaking countries

BackgroundSystematic reviews are an important source of evidence for public health decision-making, but length and technical jargon tend to hinder their use. In non-English speaking countries, inaccessibility of information in the native language often represents an additional barrier. In line with our vision to strengthen evidence-based public health in the German-speaking world, we developed a German language summary format for systematic reviews of public health interventions and undertook user-testing with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.MethodsWe used several guiding principles and core elements identified from the literature to produce a prototype summary format and applied it to a Cochrane review on the impacts of changing portion and package sizes on selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco. Following a pre-test in each of the three countries, we carried out 18 user tests with public health decision-makers in Germany, Austria and Switzerland using the ‘think-aloud’ method. We analysed participants’ comments according to the facets credibility, usability, understandability, usefulness, desirability, findability, identification and accessibility. We also identified elements that hindered the facile and satisfying use of the summary format, and revised it based on participants’ feedback.ResultsThe summary format was well-received; participants particularly appreciated receiving information in their own language. They generally found the summary format useful and a credible source of information, but also signalled several barriers to a positive user experience such as an information-dense structure and difficulties with understanding statistical terms. Many of the identified challenges were addressed through modifications of the summary format, in particular by allowing for flexible length, placing more emphasis on key messages and relevance for public health practice, expanding the interpretation aid for statistical findings, providing a glossary of technical terms, and only including graphical GRADE ratings. Some barriers to uptake, notably the participants’ wish for actionable recommendations and contextual information, could not be addressed.ConclusionsParticipants welcomed the initiative, but user tests also revealed their problems with understanding and interpreting the findings summarised in our prototype format. The revised summary format will be used to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews of public health interventions.