Dataset Information

Experts prioritize osteoarthritis non-surgical interventions from Cochrane systematic reviews for translation into "Evidence4Equity" summaries.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Osteoarthritis generates substantial health and socioeconomic burden, which is particularly marked in marginalized groups. It is imperative that practitioners have ready access to summaries of evidence-based interventions for osteoarthritis that incorporate equity considerations. Summaries of systematic reviews can provide this. The present study surveyed experts to prioritize a selection ofinterventions, from which equity focused summaries will be generated. Specifically, the prioritized interventions will be developed into Cochrane Evidence4Equity (E4E) summaries.

Methods

Twenty-seven systematic reviews of OA interventions were found. From these, twenty-nine non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis were identified, based on statistically significant findings for desired outcome variables or adverse events. Key findings from these studies were summarised and provided to 9 experts in the field of osteoarthritis.. Expert participants were asked to rate interventions based on feasibility, health system effects, universality, impact on inequities, and priority for translation into equity based E4E summaries. Expert participants were also encouraged to make comments to provide context for each rating. Free text responses were coded inductively and grouped into subthemes and themes.

Results

Expert participants rated the intervention home land-based exercise for knee OA highest for priority for translation into an E4E summaries, followed by the interventions individual land-based exercise for knee OA, class land-based exercise for knee OA, exercise for hand OA and land-based exercise for hip OA. Upon qualitative analysis of the expert participants' comments, fifteen subthemes were identified and grouped into three overall themes: (1) this intervention or an aspect of this intervention is unnecessary or unsafe; (2) this intervention or an aspect of this intervention may increase health inequities; and (3) experts noted difficulties completing rating exercise.

Conclusion

The list of priority interventions and corresponding expert commentary generated information that will be used to direct and support knowledge translation efforts.

SUBMITTER: Houlding-Braunberger E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8193871 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) are an important format to present high-quality healthcare evidence to patients with cancer and their families. They should be written in a way everyone can understand, since they serve as a tool in decision-making and present a bridge to overcome the gap between the healthcare users and professionals.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the language characteristics of PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison with corresponding Cochrane scientific abstracts (SAs).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we included all Cochrane PLSs and SAs of systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We assessed text readability, measured using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, and the prevalence of words related to different language tones (clout, authenticity, emotions and analytical tones). Two independent assessors categorized the conclusiveness of the efficacy of interventions into nine categories.ResultsThe overall median SMOG index for 275 PLSs was 13.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.8-13.3). Readability scores did not differ across Cochrane Review Groups. SAs had a higher readability index than the corresponding PLSs (median = 16.6, 95% CI = 16.4-16.8). Regarding linguistic characteristics, PLSs were shorter than SAs, with less use of analytical tone, but more use of a positive emotional tone and authenticity. Overall, the 'Unclear' category of conclusiveness was the most common among all PLSs. Also, PLSs with 'No evidence' conclusions were the shortest and had the lowest SMOG index.ConclusionPLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and most give unclear conclusions about the efficacy of interventions. PLSs should be simplified so that patients and their families can benefit from appropriate health information on evidence synthesis. Further research is needed into reasons for unclear language to describe evidence from oncology trials.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral factors are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB); therefore, various interventions might have the potential to influence it. Due to the large number of interventions that address PTB, the objective of this overview is to summarise evidence from Cochrane reviews regarding the effects and safety of these different interventions.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Included reviews should be based on randomised controlled trials comparing antenatal non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions that directly or indirectly address PTB with placebo/no treatment or routine care in pregnant women at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation without signs of threatened preterm labour. We considered PTB at less than 37 completed weeks of gestation as the primary outcome.ResultsWe included 56 Cochrane systematic reviews. Three interventions increased PTB risk significantly. Twelve interventions led to a statistically significant lower incidence of PTBs. However, this reduction was mostly observed in defined at-risk subgroups of pregnant women. The remaining antenatal interventions failed to prove a significant effect on PTB?<?37 weeks, but some of them at least showed a positive effect in secondary outcomes (e.g., reduction in early PTBs). As an unintended result of this review, we identified 28 additional Cochrane reviews which intended to report on PTB?<?37 weeks, but were not able to find any RCTs reporting appropriate data.ConclusionsThe possible effects of a diverse range of interventions on PTB have been evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews. Few interventions have been demonstrated to be effective and a small number have been found to be harmful. For around half of the interventions evaluated, the Cochrane review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to provide sound recommendations for clinical practice. No RCT evidence is available for a number of potentially relevant interventions.

Project description:Eating disorders are psychiatric conditions originated from and perpetuated by individual, family and sociocultural factors. The psychosocial approach to treatment and prevention of relapse is crucial. To present an overview of the scientific evidence on effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in treatment of eating disorders. All systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews - Cochrane Library on the topic were included. Afterwards, as from the least recent date of these reviews (2001), an additional search was conducted at PubMed with sensitive search strategy and with the same keywords used. A total of 101 primary studies and 30 systematic reviews (5 Cochrane systematic reviews), meta-analysis, guidelines or narrative reviews of literature were included. The main outcomes were: symptomatic remission, body image, cognitive distortion, psychiatric comorbidity, psychosocial functioning and patient satisfaction. The cognitive behavioral approach was the most effective treatment, especially for bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and the night eating syndrome. For anorexia nervosa, the family approach showed greater effectiveness. Other effective approaches were interpersonal psychotherapy, dialectic behavioral therapy, support therapy and self-help manuals. Moreover, there was an increasing number of preventive and promotional approaches that addressed individual, family and social risk factors, being promising for the development of positive self-image and self-efficacy. Further studies are required to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary approaches on all eating disorders, as well as the cost-effectiveness of some effective modalities, such as the cognitive behavioral therapy. RESUMO Transtornos alimentares são doenças psiquiátricas originadas de e perpetuadas por fatores individuais, familiares e socioculturais. A abordagem psicossocial é essencial para o tratamento e a prevenção de recaídas. Apresentar uma visão geral das evidências científicas sobre a efetividade das intervenções psicossociais no tratamento de transtornos alimentares. Foram incluídas todas as revisões sistemáticas publicadas no Banco de Dados de Revisões Sistemáticas da Cochrane Library. Posteriormente, a partir da data menos recente destas revisões (2001), realizou-se uma busca adicional no PubMed, com estratégia de busca sensibilizada e com os mesmos descritores utilizados antes. No total, foram incluídos 101 estudos primários e 30 revisões sistemáticas (5 revisões sistemáticas da Cochrane), metanálises, diretrizes ou revisões narrativas da literatura. Os principais desfechos foram remissão de sintomas, imagem corporal, distorção cognitiva, comorbidade psiquiátrica, funcionamento psicossocial e satisfação do paciente. A abordagem cognitivo-comportamental foi o tratamento mais efetivo, principalmente para bulimia nervosa, transtorno da compulsão alimentar periódica e síndrome do comer noturno. Para anorexia nervosa, a abordagem familiar demonstrou maior efetividade. Outras abordagens efetivas foram psicoterapia interpessoal, terapia comportamental dialética, terapia de apoio e manuais de autoajuda. Além disso, houve um número crescente de abordagens preventivas e promocionais que contemplaram fatores de risco individuais, familiares e sociais, sendo promissoras para o desenvolvimento da autoimagem positiva e autoeficácia. São necessários mais estudos que avaliem o impacto de abordagens multidisciplinares em todos transtornos alimentares, além da relação custo-efetividade de algumas modalidades efetivas, como a terapia cognitivo-comportamental.

Project description:BackgroundOne of the most important formats to disseminate the evidence in health to different populations are Cochrane Plain Language Summaries (PLSs). PLSs should be written in a simplified language, easily understandable and providing clear message for the consumer. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which PLSs are customized for lay persons, specifically by providing conclusive, comprehensible, and readable messages.MethodsThe study analyzed Cochrane PLSs of interventional studies (N = 4360) in the English language published from 1995 to 2019. We categorized the conclusiveness into one of the following categories: "positive", "positive inconclusive", "no evidence", "no opinion", "negative", "negative inconclusive", "unclear", "equal", "equal inconclusive". Language characteristics were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software. The level of readability was measured by SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) index, indicating the number of years of education required to read the text. For each PLS, we also collected the following data: Cochrane Review Network, year of publication and number of authors.ResultsMost of the PLSs (80%) did not have a conclusive message. In 53% PLSs there was no concluding opinion about the studied intervention or the conclusion was unclear. The most frequent conclusiveness category was "no opinion" (30%), and its frequency increased over time. The conclusiveness categories were similarly dispersed across Cochrane Networks. PLSs were written in an objective style, with high levels of analytical tone and clout above neutral, but a lower relation to authenticity and tone. The median number of years of non-specific education needed to read the PLSs was 14.9 (IQR 13.8 to 16.1), indicating that the person needs almost 15 years of general education to read the content with ease.ConclusionMost of the Cochrane PLSs provided no concluding opinion or unclear conclusion regarding the effects of analyzed intervention. Analysis of readability indicated that they may be difficult to read for the lay population without medical education. Our results indicate that PLSs may not be so plain, and that the writing of Cochrane PLSs requires more effort. Tools used in this study could improve PLSs and make them better suited for lay audiences.