Dataset Information

Interventions for physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Interventions targeting behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain have been introduced to combat the opioid crisis. Systematic reviews have evaluated effects of specific interventions (eg, prescriber education, prescription drug monitoring programmes) on patient and population health outcomes and prescriber behaviour. Integration of findings across intervention types is needed to better understand the effects of prescriber-targeted interventions.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct an overview of systematic reviews. Eligible systematic reviews will include primary studies that evaluated any intervention targeting the behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in an outpatient or mixed setting, compared with no intervention, usual practice or another active or control intervention. Eligible outcomes will pertain to the intervention effect on patient and population health or opioid prescribing behaviour. We will search MEDLINE, Embase and PsycInfo via Ovid; the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos from inception. We will also hand search reference lists for additional publications. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer. The risk of bias of included systematic reviews will be assessed in duplicate by two reviewers using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. Results will be synthesised narratively by intervention type and grouped by outcome. To assist with result interpretation, outcomes will be labelled as intended or unintended according to intervention objectives, and as positive, negative, evidence of no effect or inconclusive evidence according to effect on the population (for patient and population health outcomes) or intervention objectives (for prescriber outcomes).

Ethics and dissemination

As the proposed study will use published data, ethics approval is not required. Dissemination of results will be achieved through publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020156815.

SUBMITTER: Wennberg E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8971769 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions for physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Wennberg Erica E Windle Sarah B SB Filion Kristian B KB Gore Genevieve G Thombs Brett D BD Kudrina Irina I Paraskevopoulos Elena E Martel Marc O MO Kimmelman Jonathan J Johnson Sonia S Taylor Andrew A Eisenberg Mark J MJ

BMJ open 20220331 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Interventions targeting behaviours of physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain have been introduced to combat the opioid crisis. Systematic reviews have evaluated effects of specific interventions (eg, prescriber education, prescription drug monitoring programmes) on patient and population health outcomes and prescriber behaviour. Integration of findings across intervention types is needed to better understand the effects of prescriber-targeted interventi ...[more]

PMID: 35361655

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo synthesise current evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) regarding the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions to prevent and treat pain in newborn infants.DesignOverview of SRs.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wanfang Database, Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) and Google Scholar to identify all relevant SRs published in the last 5 years.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included SRs that evaluated the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for neonatal pain.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 and graded the evidence quality with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsA total of 29 SRs were included in this overview, of which 28 focused on procedural pain and only 1 focused on postoperative pain. Based on AMSTAR 2, seven reviews were found to be of 'high quality', eight of 'moderate quality', five of 'low quality' and nine of 'critically low quality'. The GRADE results suggested that facilitated tucking, kangaroo care, sweet solutions, familiar odour or combined non-pharmacological interventions, such as a combination of sucrose and non-nutritive sucking, were effective and safe in reducing pain from medical procedures in neonates. However, sucrose alone was less effective than local anaesthesia or a combination of the two during circumcision.ConclusionsFacilitated tucking, small volumes of sweet solutions, kangaroo care and familiar odour were recommended. Scientific implementation strategies should be developed to promote the clinical use of these effective non-pharmacological interventions. Meanwhile, further rigorous trials and SRs are needed to identify the best non-pharmacological approaches for pain from common surgery and illnesses in neonates.Prospero registration numberCRD42021292583.

Project description:IntroductionDry eye is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and economic and societal burden for patients and healthcare systems. There are several treatment options available for dry eye and high-quality systematic reviews synthesise the evidence for their effectiveness and potential harms.Methods and analysisWe will search the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite (CEV@US) database of eyes and vision systematic reviews for systematic reviews on interventions for dry eye. CEV@US conducted an initial search of PubMed and Embase to populate the CEV@US database of eyes and vision systematic reviews in 2007, which was updated most recently in August 2021. We will search the database for systematic reviews published since 1 January 2016 because systematic reviews more than 5 years are unlikely to be up to date. We will consider Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews eligible for inclusion. Two authors will independently screen articles. We will include studies that evaluate interventions for dry eye and/or meibomian gland dysfunction with no restriction on types of participants or review language. We will select reliable systematic reviews (ie, those meeting pre-established methodological criteria) for inclusion, assessed by one investigator and verified by a second investigator. We will extract ratings of the certainty of evidence from within each review. We will report the degree of overlap for systematic reviews that answer similar questions and include overlapping primary studies. We will present results of the overview in alignment with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Online Chapter 5: Overviews of Reviews), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and an overview of reviews quality and transparency checklist. The anticipated start and completion dates for this overview are 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, respectively.Ethics and disseminationThis overview will not require the approval of an Ethics Committee because it will use published studies. We will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021279880.

Project description:BackgroundNon-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available.ObjectivesAnalysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.DesignSystematic overview of systematic reviews.MethodsArticles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute's hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews.ResultsFrom 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established.ConclusionsHigher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence.Protocol registry numberCRD42013003538, PROSPERO.

Project description:IntroductionVarious interventions to prevent mother-to-child-transmission (MTCT) of HIV have been investigated and implemented. A number of systematic reviews assessing the efficacy of interventions for the prevention of MTCT of HIV reported antiretroviral prophylaxis, caesarean section before labour and before ruptured membranes, and complete avoidance of breastfeeding were efficacious for preventing MTCT of HIV. Recent WHO guidelines recommend lifelong antiretroviral therapy for all pregnant women for treatment of the woman's own HIV infection and for prevention of MTCT of HIV. Therefore, the objective of this overview is to evaluate the currently available systematic reviews of interventions for preventing MTCT of HIV, and to identify the current best evidence-based interventions for reducing the risk of MTCT of HIV.Methods and analysisWe will include only peer-reviewed systematic reviews of randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of interventions for preventing MTCT of HIV that target both HIV-infected women and children aged 2 years and younger born to HIV-infected women. We will search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE. We will assess review eligibility, the methodological quality of included systematic reviews using A Measurement Tool to Assess The Systematic Reviews and will extract data, comparing our results and resolving discrepancies by consensus. Finally, we will independently assess the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal and present at conferences, which will inform future research and will be useful for healthcare managers, administrators and policymakers to guide resource allocation decisions and optimisation of interventions to prevent the MTCT of HIV.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence of different smoking cessation interventions varies and has been assessed in many Cochrane reviews. We conducted an overview of these Cochrane reviews to summarize the effects of current interventions for smoking cessation.MethodsNine databases were searched from their inception to October 2024, with no restrictions on language. Two authors independently extracted data from the same studies simultaneously, double checking after extraction. A second round of examination was conducted on all the extracted contents by another author. We employed a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2) to evaluate the methodological rigor of the included systematic reviews (SRs), synthesized the GRADE results as reported, and conducted a narrative synthesis. The research protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023388884).ResultsSeventy-one Cochrane reviews involving 3022 trials were included in this comprehensive analysis. The two predominant smoking cessation interventions were pharmacotherapy (24 SRs) and non-pharmacological therapy (31SRs). Overall, the methodological quality of all the reviews was good. Compared with placebo, the point effect size for each Cochrane review on relative risk (RR) regarding pharmacotherapies for prolonged abstinence rate ranged from 1.11 to 3.34, demonstrating high- or moderate-certainty evidence; whereas for non-pharmacological therapies, it varied from 0.79 to 25.38, but substantial heterogeneity was observed in most meta-analysis (I2>50%). Four studies investigating pharmacotherapies as interventions, adverse events were reported but no significant differences in outcomes were observed.ConclusionsPharmacotherapy demonstrated some efficacy in promoting prolonged abstinence rate, while the effectiveness of different non-pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation varied widely, highlighting the need for further research on the integration of pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies.

Dataset Information

Interventions for physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Interventions for physician prescribers of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets