Broad syntheses related to this topic

loading
26 References (26 articles) loading Revert Studify

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews.

blocked
Journal Health research policy and systems
Year 2022
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 35 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (35 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination. METHODS: This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA). RESULTS: This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term. CONCLUSION: This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

blocked
Journal Interactive journal of medical research
Year 2022
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 81 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (81 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in healthcare, and primary care is no exception. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews (SR) using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SR. The inclusion criteria were: any primary care contexts; healthcare professionals and patients; any EPOC implementation strategies of specified knowledge products; any comparator; and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019, without any restriction. We searched the references of the included SR. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction was informed by EPOC taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results using a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 SR were included. Forty-seven SR involved healthcare professionals alone. Fifteen SR were of high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed one type of knowledge product (56/81), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56) or management, and behavioural or pharmacological health interventions (24/56). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81), predominantly educational-based (meetings in 60/81, materials distribution in 59/81, and academic detailing in 45/81), reminder (53/81) and audit and feedback (40/81) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seem to be more used when the population is composed of Healthcare professionals alone. The improvement of the adoption of knowledge products was the most commonly measured outcome (72/81). The evidence level was reported in 10/81 SR on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvement of adoption), of which 16 outcomes were of moderate or high level. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management, behavioural or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products through the mixed use of educational, reminders and audit and feedback strategies. There is need for a strong methodology for the SR of RCTs to explore their effectiveness and the whole cascade of implementation outcomes. CLINICALTRIAL: Not applicable.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

The effectiveness of dietary workplace interventions: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

blocked
Authors Schliemann D , Woodside JV
Journal Public health nutrition
Year 2019
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 21 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (21 references)

Loading references information
OBJECTIVE: To summarise findings of systematic reviews that distinctively report dietary intervention components and their effects on diet-, health- and economic-related outcomes in the workplace setting. DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched in December 2014 and the search was updated in August 2017. RESULTS: The search identified 1137 titles, of which nineteen systematic reviews from the initial search and two systematic reviews from the updated search met the inclusion criteria (twenty-one systematic reviews, published in twenty-two papers). Most systematic reviews were of moderate quality and focused on dietary behaviour change outcomes and some health-related biomarkers. Evidence was strongest for interventions to increase fruit and vegetable intake, reduce fat intake, aid weight loss and reduce cholesterol. Few reported workplace-related and evaluation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that workplace dietary interventions can positively influence diet and health outcomes. Suggestions for effective interventions components have been made.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Interventions for Neuropathic Pain: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

blocked
Journal Anesthesia and analgesia
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 97 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (97 references)

Loading references information
Numerous interventions for neuropathic pain (NeuP) are available, but its treatment remains unsatisfactory. We systematically summarized evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials on interventions for NeuP. Five electronic databases were searched up to March 2015. Study quality was analyzed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. The most common interventions in 97 included SRs were pharmacologic (59%) and surgical (15%). The majority of analyzed SRs were of medium quality. More than 50% of conclusions from abstracts on efficacy and approximately 80% on safety were inconclusive. Effective interventions were described for painful diabetic neuropathy (pregabalin, gabapentin, certain tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], opioids, antidepressants, and anticonvulsants), postherpetic neuralgia (gabapentin, pregabalin, certain TCAs, antidepressants and anticonvulsants, opioids, sodium valproate, topical capsaicin, and lidocaine), lumbar radicular pain (epidural corticosteroids, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation [rTMS], and discectomy), cervical radicular pain (rTMS), carpal tunnel syndrome (carpal tunnel release), cubital tunnel syndrome (simple decompression and ulnar nerve transposition), trigeminal neuralgia (carbamazepine, lamotrigine, and pimozide for refractory cases, rTMS), HIV-related neuropathy (topical capsaicin), and central NeuP (certain TCAs, pregabalin, cannabinoids, and rTMS). Evidence about interventions for NeuP is frequently inconclusive or completely lacking. New randomized controlled trials about interventions for NeuP are necessary; they should address safety and use clear diagnostic criteria.

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Effective treatment options for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A systematic overview of current evidence.

blocked
Journal PloS one
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 3 Primary studies Primary studies (3 references) 135 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (135 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Musculoskeletal pain, the most common cause of disability globally, is most frequently managed in primary care. People with musculoskeletal pain in different body regions share similar characteristics, prognosis, and may respond to similar treatments. This overview aims to summarise current best evidence on currently available treatment options for the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations (back, neck, shoulder, knee and multi-site pain) in primary care. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted. Initial searches identified clinical guidelines, clinical pathways and systematic reviews. Additional searches found recently published trials and those addressing gaps in the evidence base. Data on study populations, interventions, and outcomes of intervention on pain and function were extracted. Quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR, and strength of evidence rated using a modified GRADE approach. RESULTS: Moderate to strong evidence suggests that exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions are effective for relieving pain and improving function for musculoskeletal pain. NSAIDs and opioids reduce pain in the short-term, but the effect size is modest and the potential for adverse effects need careful consideration. Corticosteroid injections were found to be beneficial for short-term pain relief among patients with knee and shoulder pain. However, current evidence remains equivocal on optimal dose, intensity and frequency, or mode of application for most treatment options. CONCLUSION: This review presents a comprehensive summary and critical assessment of current evidence for the treatment of pain presentations in primary care. The evidence synthesis of interventions for common musculoskeletal pain presentations shows moderate-strong evidence for exercise therapy and psychosocial interventions, with short-term benefits only from pharmacological treatments. Future research into optimal dose and application of the most promising treatments is needed.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for fibromyalgia using both AMSTAR and ROBIS as quality assessment tools.

blocked
Journal Systematic reviews
Year 2017
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 14 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (14 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic, debilitating pain disorder. Dissatisfaction with conventional medicine can lead people with FM to turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Two previous overviews of systematic reviews of CAM for FM have been published, but they did not assessed for risk of bias in the review process. METHODS: Five databases Medline, Embase, AMED (via OVID), Web of Science and Central were searched from their inception to December 2015. Reference lists were hand-searched. We had two aims: the first was to provide an up-to-date and rigorously conducted synthesis of systematic reviews of CAM literature on FM; the second was to evaluate the quality of the available systematic review evidence using two different tools: AMSTAR (Shea et al. BMC Med Res Methodol 15; 7:10, 2007) and a more recently developed tool ROBIS (Whiting et al. J Clin Epidemiol 69:225-34, 2016) specifically designed to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews. Any review that assessed one of eight CAM therapies for participants diagnosed with FM was considered. The individual studies had to be randomised controlled trials where the intervention was compared to placebo, treatment as usual or waitlist controls to be included. The primary outcome measure was pain, and the secondary outcome measure was adverse events. RESULTS: We identified 15 reviews that met inclusion criteria. There was low-quality evidence that acupuncture improves pain compared to no treatment or standard treatment, but good evidence that it is no better than sham acupuncture. The evidence for homoeopathy, spinal manipulation and herbal medicine was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, five reviews scored 6 or above using the AMSTAR scale and the inter-rater agreement was good (83.6%), whereas seven reviews achieved a low risk of bias rating using ROBIS and the inter-rater agreement was fair (60.0%). No firm conclusions were drawn for efficacy of either spinal manipulation or homoeopathy for FM. There is limited evidence for topical Capsicum, but further research is required. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of acupuncture for FM, but further high-quality trials are needed to investigate its benefits, harms and mechanisms of action, compared with no or standard treatment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016035846 .

Broad synthesis

Unclassified

Noninvasive Treatments for Low Back Pain

blocked
Book AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
Year 2016
Links Pubmed

This article includes 126 Primary studies Primary studies (126 references) 16 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (16 references)

Loading references information
RESULTS: Of the 2,545 citations identified at the title and abstract level, a total of 156 publications were included. Most trials enrolled patients with pain symptoms of at least moderate intensity (e.g., >5 on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale for pain). Across interventions, pain intensity was the most commonly reported outcome, followed by back-specific function. When present, observed benefits for pain were generally in the small (5 to 10 points on a 0- to 100-point visual analog scale or 0.5 to 1.0 points on a 0- to 10-point numeric rating scale) to moderate (10 to 20 points) range. Effects on function were generally smaller than effects on pain; in some cases, there were positive effects on pain but no effects on function, and fewer studies measured function than pain. Benefits were mostly measured at short-term followup. For acute low back pain, evidence suggested that NSAIDs (strength of evidence [SOE]: low to moderate), skeletal muscle relaxants (SOE; moderate), opioids (SOE; low), exercise (SOE; low), and superficial heat (SOE; moderate) are more effective than placebo, no intervention, or usual care, and that acetaminophen (SOE; low) and systemic corticosteroids (SOE; low) are no more effective than placebo. For chronic low back pain, effective therapies versus placebo, sham, no treatment, usual care, or wait list are NSAIDs, opioids, tramadol, duloxetine, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, and exercise (SOE; moderate) and benzodiazepines, psychological therapies, massage, yoga, tai chi, and low-level laser therapy (SOE; low); spinal manipulation was as effective as other active interventions (SOE; moderate). Few trials evaluated the effectiveness of treatments for radicular low back pain, but the available evidence found that benzodiazepines, corticosteroids, traction, and spinal manipulation were not effective or were associated with small effects (SOE; low). Relatively few trials directly compared the effectiveness of different medications or different nonpharmacological therapies, or compared pharmacological versus nonpharmacological therapies, and they generally found no clear differences in effects. Pharmacological therapies were associated with increased risk of adverse events versus placebo (SOE; low to moderate). Trials were not designed or powered to detect serious harms from pharmacological therapies. Although rates appeared to be low and there was not an increased risk of serious harms versus placebo, this does not rule out significant risk from some treatments. For nonpharmacological therapies, assessment of harms was suboptimal, but serious harms appeared to be rare (SOE; low).

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Effectiveness of Homeopathy for Clinical Conditions: Evaluation of the Evidence

blocked
Authors Optum
Report Prepared for the National Health and Medical Research Council; Canberra
Year 2015
Links nhmrc.gov.au

This article includes 46 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (46 references)

Loading references information

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

A Systematic Overview of Reviews for Complementary and Alternative Therapies in the Treatment of the Fibromyalgia Syndrome

blocked
Journal Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article includes 24 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (24 references)

Loading references information
Objectives. This systematic overview of reviews aimed to summarize evidence and methodological quality from systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Methods. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were screened from their inception to Sept 2013 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of CAM interventions for FMS. Methodological quality of reviews was rated using the AMSTAR instrument. Results. Altogether 25 systematic reviews were found; they investigated the evidence of CAM in general, exercised-based CAM therapies, manipulative therapies, Mind/Body therapies, acupuncture, hydrotherapy, phytotherapy, and homeopathy. Methodological quality of reviews ranged from lowest to highest possible quality. Consistently positive results were found for tai chi, yoga, meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, hypnosis or guided imagery, electromyogram (EMG) biofeedback, and balneotherapy/hydrotherapy. Inconsistent results concerned qigong, acupuncture, chiropractic interventions, electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback, and nutritional supplements. Inconclusive results were found for homeopathy and phytotherapy. Major methodological flaws included missing details on data extraction process, included or excluded studies, study details, and adaption of conclusions based on quality assessment. Conclusions. Despite a growing body of scientific evidence of CAM therapies for the management of FMS systematic reviews still show methodological flaws limiting definite conclusions about their efficacy and safety.

Broad synthesis / Overview of systematic reviews

Unclassified

Job demand and control interventions: a stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis of systematic reviews on workplace disability.

Journal The international journal of occupational and environmental medicine
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI

This article includes 6 Systematic reviews Systematic reviews (6 references) 1 Primary study Primary studies (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Physical and psychological job demands in combination with the degree of control a worker has over task completion, play an important role in reducing stress. Occupational stress is an important, modifiable factor affecting work disability. However, the effectiveness of reducing job demands or increasing job control remains unclear, particularly for outcomes of interest to employers, such as absenteeism or productivity. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review reports on job demand and control interventions that impact absenteeism, productivity and financial outcomes. METHODS: A stakeholder-centered best-evidence synthesis was conducted with researcher and stakeholder collaboration throughout. Databases and grey literature were searched for systematic reviews between 2000 and 2012: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, TRIP, health-evidence.ca, Rehab+, National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), and Institute for Work and Health. Articles were assessed independently by two researchers for inclusion criteria and methodological quality. Differences were resolved through consensus. RESULTS: The search resulted in 3363 unique titles. After review of abstracts, 115 articles were retained for full-text review. 11 articles finally met the inclusion criteria and are summarized in this synthesis. The best level of evidence we found indicates that multimodal job demand reductions for either at-work or off-work workers will reduce disability-related absenteeism. CONCLUSION: In general, the impacts of interventions that aim to reduce job demands or increase job control can be positive for the organization in terms of reducing absenteeism, increasing productivity and cost-effectiveness. However, more high quality research is needed to further assess the relationships and quantify effect sizes for the interventions and outcomes reviewed in this study.