| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Dewidar, O., et al.
(författare)
-
Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0895-4356. ; 150, s. 142-153
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews. Study Design and Setting: This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team. Results: We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples. Conclusion: Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Wolfe, F, et al.
(författare)
-
Preliminary core set of domains and reporting requirements for longitudinal observational studies in rheumatology
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X. ; 26:2, s. 484-489
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Observational and longitudinal observational studies (LOS) provide essential information about the course and outcome of rheumatic disorders that cannot be provided by randomized controlled trials, and they constitute the major clinical scientific communication in rheumatology. There has been no consensus as to the full and appropriate content of LOS. This report defines a core set of domains and reporting requirements for LOS. At the 1998 OMERACT IV Conference a consensus process evaluated the literature of rheumatology in light of the constructs, variables, and outcomes of rheumatology by using introductory lectures, nominal groups, and plenary sessions. The result of this process was to identify 5 "core" domains that should be included in every LOS: Health Status, Disease Process, Damage, Mortality, and Toxicity/Adverse Reactions. Two additional domains, Work Disability and Costs, were recognized as important, but need not be used in all LOS. Eleven subdomains were identified that divided the domains into convenient clinical and conceptual units. A set of reporting requirements was also determined. The core recommendations, which follow on the WHO ICIDH-2 outline, are not disease-specific; the substitution of different "disease process" and "damage" measures make them suitable for many rheumatic disorders. The core set is intended to serve as a core for LOS in almost all rheumatic conditions.
|
|
| 6. |
- Zhang, W., et al.
(författare)
-
OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Part III : Changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009.
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. - : Elsevier BV. - 1063-4584. ; 18:4, s. 476-499
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009. Methods: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence. Results: Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36] in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3. g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo. Conclusion: Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Tugwell, Peter S., et al.
(författare)
-
Domains Selection for Patient-Reported Outcomes: Current Activities and Options for Future Methods
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rheumatology. - : The Journal of Rheumatology. - 0315-162X .- 1499-2752. ; 38:8, s. 1702-1710
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction. Over the years, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) has worked toward consensus on core sets for outcome measurement in specific rheumatologic diseases. OMERACT core sets refer to the minimum number of domains and instruments essential to address the desired outcomes in trials. "Domains" are the attributes of an activity or function. This article discusses the need for an open process for selecting domains, existing frameworks for choosing domains, and the importance of describing the methods for selecting domains. Methods. We reviewed the domains selection process of 3 OMERACT groups working on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). We categorized these methods in a hierarchy of comprehensiveness and examined the extent to which they address related issues. Results. There was agreement that a gold standard for domain selection would include 3 important aspects: following a framework, remaining true to the clinical question, and including the clinically relevant outcomes for both benefits and harms. Discussion. OMERACT participants agreed that a guide for the options for developing domains that meet the OMERACT Filter would be useful. More discussion and explanation is needed to outline outcomes related to the patient perspective that are not covered by the current version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and to explain the usefulness of the population/intervention/comparison/outcome (PICO) structure in domain selection. Future OMERACT work includes addressing these issues and developing a framework based on the ICF to support comprehensive outcome measurements. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1702-10; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110389)
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
