Valerie Smith

Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions

BackgroundHundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need.MethodsThe methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished reviews systematically, drawing on our experiences and good practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews are described. The process of identifying and appraising all published reviews allows researchers to describe the quality of this evidence base, summarise and compare the reviews conclusions and discuss the strength of these conclusions.ResultsMethodological challenges and possible solutions are described within the context of (i) sources, (ii) study selection, (iii) quality assessment (i.e. the extent of searching undertaken for the reviews, description of study selection and inclusion criteria, comparability of included studies, assessment of publication bias and assessment of heterogeneity), (iv) presentation of results, and (v) implications for practice and research.ConclusionConducting a systematic review of reviews highlights the usefulness of bringing together a summary of reviews in one place, where there is more than one review on an important topic. The methods described here should help clinicians to review and appraise published reviews systematically, and aid evidence-based clinical decision-making.

A systematic review and quality assessment of systematic reviews of randomised trials of interventions for preventing and treating preterm birth

The aim of this paper is to identify reviews of interventions for preventing and treating preterm birth so that these could be appraised and the findings from good quality reviews highlighted. Reviews, rather than individual studies, are the basis for this systematic review because of the proliferation of reviews and the benefits of a single, consistent appraisal and assessment of evidence from these reviews rather than further attempts to find and appraise the many individual studies in the literature. Our systematic review consists of a description of five interventions for preventing and treating preterm birth; antibiotics, cervical cerclage, bed rest, progesterone, and tocolytic therapy, for which at least one relevant review was found. The scope and quality of the identified reviews are described, and their conclusions and the strength of these conclusions discussed. Potentially eligible reviews were sought primarily through searches of the electronic databases MEDLINE (1966-2008), EMBASE (1980-2008), CINHAL (1982-2008), Science Citation Index (1970-2008) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008). Thirty-seven reviews were identified of which 22 were included in this systematic review of reviews. This shows that antibiotics may significantly delay, but might not prevent, preterm birth for women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes; there is insufficient evidence to show the absolute efficacy of cerclage and bed rest in preventing preterm birth; the use of progesterone appears promising; and the possible benefits of certain tocolytics, such as beta-mimetics, need to be reliably measured against the possible adverse effects when used in preventing preterm birth.

A systematic review of systematic reviews on interventions for caregivers of people with chronic conditions

AIM To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to support caregivers of people with selected chronic conditions. BACKGROUND Informal caregivers provide millions of care hours each week contributing to significant healthcare savings. Despite much research evaluating a range of interventions for caregivers, their impact remains unclear. DESIGN A systematic review of systematic reviews of interventions to support caregivers of people with selected chronic conditions. DATA SOURCES The electronic databases of PubMed, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, Social Science Index (January 1990-May 2014) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, June 2014), were searched using Medical Subject Heading and index term combinations of the keywords caregiver, systematic review, intervention and named chronic conditions. REVIEW METHODS Papers were included if they reported a systematic review of interventions for caregivers of people with chronic conditions. The methodological quality of the included reviews was independently assessed by two reviewers using R-AMSTAR. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a pre-designed data extraction form. Narrative synthesis of review findings was used to present the results. RESULTS Eight systematic reviews were included. There was evidence that education and support programme interventions improved caregiver quality of life. Information-giving interventions improved caregiver knowledge for stroke caregivers. CONCLUSION Education, support and information-giving interventions warrant further investigation across caregiver groups. A large-scale funded programme for caregiver research is required to ensure that studies are of high quality to inform service development across settings.

SWAT 1 what effects do site visits by the principal investigator have on recruitment in a multicentre randomized trial

The SWAT (Study Within A Trial) programme has been established to develop a series of studies that would embed research within research, so as to resolve uncertainties about the effects of different ways of designing, conducting, analyzing and interpreting evaluations of health and social care. It was described in an Education piece in the Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine in 2012. We have now prepared the first example of the design summary for a SWAT, using the template that will be used for other SWAT. This is presented in this article.

Professionals’ views of fetal monitoring during labour: a systematic review and thematic analysis

BackgroundCurrent recommendations do not support the use of continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM) for low risk women during labour, yet EFM remains widespread in clinical practice. Consideration of the views, perspectives and experiences of individuals directly concerned with EFM application may be beneficial for identifying barriers to and facilitators for implementing evidence-based maternity care. The aim of this paper is to offer insight and understanding, through systematic review and thematic analysis, of research into professionals’ views on fetal heart rate monitoring during labour.MethodsAny study whose aim was to explore professional views of fetal monitoring during labour was considered eligible for inclusion. The electronic databases of MEDLINE (1966–2010), CINAHL (1980–2010), EMBASE (1974–2010) and Maternity and Infant Care: MIDIRS (1971–2010) were searched in January 2010 and an updated search was performed in March 2012. Quality appraisal of each included study was performed. Data extraction tables were developed to collect data. Data synthesis was by thematic analysis.ResultsEleven studies, including 1,194 participants, were identified and included in this review. Four themes emerged from the data: 1) reassurance, 2) technology, 3) communication/education and 4) midwife by proxy.ConclusionThis systematic review and thematic analysis offers insight into some of the views of professionals on fetal monitoring during labour. It provides evidence for the continuing use of EFM when caring for low-risk women, contrary to current research evidence. Further research to ascertain how some of these views might be addressed to ensure the provision of evidence-based care for women and their babies is recommended.

Clinician-centred interventions to increase vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC): a systematic review

BackgroundThe number of caesarean sections (CS) is increasing globally, and repeat CS after a previous CS is a significant contributor to the overall CS rate. Vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) can be seen as a real and viable option for most women with previous CS. To achieve success, however, women need the support of their clinicians (obstetricians and midwives). The aim of this study was to evaluate clinician-centred interventions designed to increase the rate of VBAC.MethodsThe bibliographic databases of The Cochrane Library, PubMed, PsychINFO and CINAHL were searched for randomised controlled trials, including cluster randomised trials that evaluated the effectiveness of any intervention targeted directly at clinicians aimed at increasing VBAC rates. Included studies were appraised independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted independently by three reviewers. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the quality assessment tool, ‘Effective Public Health Practice Project’. The primary outcome measure was VBAC rates.Results238 citations were screened, 255 were excluded by title and abstract. 11 full-text papers were reviewed; eight were excluded, resulting in three included papers. One study evaluated the effectiveness of antepartum x-ray pelvimetry (XRP) in 306 women with one previous CS. One study evaluated the effects of external peer review on CS birth in 45 hospitals, and the third evaluated opinion leader education and audit and feedback in 16 hospitals. The use of external peer review, audit and feedback had no significant effect on VBAC rates. An educational strategy delivered by an opinion leader significantly increased VBAC rates. The use of XRP significantly increased CS rates.ConclusionsThis systematic review indicates that few studies have evaluated the effects of clinician-centred interventions on VBAC rates, and interventions are of varying types which limited the ability to meta-analyse data. A further limitation is that the included studies were performed during the late 1980s-1990s. An opinion leader educational strategy confers benefit for increasing VBAC rates. This strategy should be further studied in different maternity care settings and with professionals other than physicians only.

Risk in Maternity Care: A Concept Analysis

AIM: To analyze the concept of risk in maternity care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966–2010), CINAHL (1980–2010), EMBASE (1980–2010), PsycINFO (1980–2010), and Social Science Citation Index were searched. Key text books were sourced. Media literature was reviewed by perusal of newspaper articles, health supplements, and popular Internet health care websites. REVIEW METHODS: The principle-based method of concept analysis was used to guide the analysis of risk in maternity care. RESULTS: The epistemological principle identified the ambiguous nature of the risk concept, with risk having diverse meanings for different individuals. The pragmatic principle demonstrated that the current systematic approach to risk assessment often fails to identify those who succumb to risk issues. The linguistic principle portrays the ambiguity of risk perception with “risk” considered according to past experiences, knowledge, and individual attitudes. The logical principle identified a strong link between safety and uncertainty revealing that the risk concept lacks integrity and may not “hold its own.” CONCLUSION: The concept of risk in maternity care is concerned with risk assessment, risk perception, and notions of safety and uncertainty. Risk in maternity care is diverse and dynamic. What constitutes as a risk today may not necessarily be viewed in the same light tomorrow.

SWAT-1: The effectiveness of a 'site visit' intervention on recruitment rates in a multi-centre randomised trial

BackgroundRecruitment rates in multi-centre randomised trials often fall below target recruitment rates, causing problems for study outcomes. The Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) Programme, established by the All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research in collaboration with the Medical Research Council Network of Hubs in the United Kingdom and others, is developing methods for evaluating aspects of trial methodology through the conduct of research within research. A recently published design for a SWAT-1 provides a protocol for evaluating the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator on recruitment in multi-centre trials.MethodsUsing the SWAT-1 design, the effect of a site visit, with the sole purpose of discussing trial recruitment, on recruitment rates in a large multicentre trial in the Republic of Ireland was evaluated. A controlled before and after intervention comparison was used, where the date of the site visit provides the time point for the intervention, and for the comparison to control sites. Site A received the intervention. Site B and Site C acted as the controls. Z-scores for proportions were calculated to determine within site recruitment differences. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine between site recruitment differences.ResultsRecruitment rates were increased in Site A post-intervention (17% and 14% percentage point increases at 1 and 3 months, respectively). No differences in recruitment occurred in Site B or in Site C. Comparing between site differences, at 3 months post-intervention, a statistically significant difference was detected in favour of higher recruitment in Site A (34% versus 25%; odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 2.26).ConclusionsThis is the first reported example of a study in the SWAT programme.. It provides evidence that a site visit, combined with a scheduled meeting, increases recruitment in a clinical trial. Using this example, other researchers might be encouraged to consider conducting a similar study, allowing the findings of future SWAT-1s to be compared and combined, so that higher level evidence on the effect of a site visit by the principal investigator can be obtained.The ADCAR trialISRCTN-96340041 (www.controlled-trials.com); date of registration: 25 March 2008.

Choosing Important Health Outcomes for Comparative Effectiveness Research: An Updated Review and Identification of Gaps

Background The COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative promotes the development and application of core outcome sets (COS), including relevant studies in an online database. In order to keep the database current, an annual search of the literature is undertaken. This study aimed to update a previous systematic review, in order to identify any further studies where a COS has been developed. Furthermore, no prioritization for COS development has previously been undertaken, therefore this study also aimed to identify COS relevant to the world’s most prevalent health conditions. Methods The methods used in this updated review followed the same approach used in the original review and the previous update. A survey was also sent to the corresponding authors of COS identified for inclusion in this review, to ascertain what lessons they had learnt from developing their COS. Additionally, the COMET database was searched to identify COS that might be relevant to the conditions with the highest global prevalence. Results Twenty-five reports relating to 22 new studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. Further improvements were identified in relation to the description of the scope of the COS, use of the Delphi technique, and the inclusion of patient participants within the development process. Additionally, 33 published and ongoing COS were identified for 13 of the world’s most prevalent conditions. Conclusion The development of a reporting guideline and minimum standards should contribute towards future improvements in development and reporting of COS. This study has also described a first approach to identifying gaps in existing COS, and to priority setting in this area. Important gaps have been identified, on the basis of global burden of disease, and the development and application of COS in these areas should be considered a priority.

Understanding nursing and healthcare research

What is research? The research process at a glance What are research problems, questions, hypotheses, aims and objectives? Searching and reviewing the literature Getting to grips with research designs Understanding sampling and sampling size Ethical and legal issues in research Rigour in research Data collection in research Gaining insight into data analysis How is research disseminated and implemented? Critically evaluating research studies