The feasibility of inpatient geriatric assessment for older adults receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia. Geriatric Assessment Improves Prediction of Surgical Outcomes in Older Adults Undergoing Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Prospective Cohort Study Decision aids for triage of patients with chest pain: a systematic review of field evaluation studies. Evaluation of geriatric assessment in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Results of the CLL9 trial of the German CLL study group Psychosocial interventions for people with dementia: An overview and commentary on recent developments Cumulative deficit model of geriatric assessment to predict the postoperative outcomes of older patients with solid abdominal cancer. Preoperative or postoperative therapy for resectable oesophageal cancer: an updated practice guideline. How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Geriatric assessment predicts survival for older adults receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia. Clinical practice guidelines for the care and treatment of breast cancer: 16. Locoregional post-mastectomy radiotherapy Prognostic factors for tumor recurrence in patients with clinical stage I seminoma undergoing surveillance—protocol for a systematic review Advanced reproductive age and fertility: no. 269, November 2011. Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult patients with critical illness across the continuum of recovery: an overview of systematic reviews protocol Biofeedback for treatment of awake and sleep bruxism in adults: systematic review protocol Development and evaluation of an instrument for the critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials of natural products Clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review. Screening for Breast Cancer in Average-Risk Women: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians The use of goal attainment scaling in a geriatric care setting. PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more Pre-operative evaluation of adults undergoing elective noncardiac surgery: Updated guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology.
OBJECTIVES To test the feasibility and utility of a bedside geriatric assessment ( GA ) to detect impairment in multiple geriatric domains in older adults initiating chemotherapy for acute myelogenous leukemia ( AML ) . DESIGN Prospect i ve observational cohort study . SETTING Single academic institution . PARTICIPANTS Individuals aged 60 and older with newly diagnosed AML and planned chemotherapy . MEASUREMENTS Bedside GA was performed during inpatient exmination for AML . GA measures included the modified Mini-Mental State Examination ; Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale ; Distress Thermometer , Pepper Assessment Tool for Disability ( includes self- reported activities of daily living ( ADLs ) , instrumental ADLs , and mobility questions ) ; Short Physical Performance Battery ( includes timed 4-m walk , chair st and s , st and ing balance ) ; grip strength , and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Comorbidity Index . RESULTS Of 54 participants ( mean age 70.8 ± 6.4 ) eligible for this analysis , 92.6 % completed the entire GA battery ( mean time 44.0 ± 14 minutes ) . The following impairments were detected : cognitive impairment , 31.5 % ; depression , 38.9 % ; distress , 53.7 % ; impairment in ADLs , 48.2 % ; impaired physical performance , 53.7 % ; and comorbidity , 46.3 % . Most were impaired in one ( 92.6 % ) or more ( 63 % ) functional domains . For the 38 participants rated as having good performance status according to st and ard oncologic assessment ( Eastern Cooperative Oncology Performance Scale score ≤1 ) , impairments in individual GA measures ranged from 23.7 % to 50 % . Significant variability in cognitive , emotional , and physical status was detected even after stratification according to tumor biology ( cytogenetic risk group classification ) . CONCLUSION Inpatient GA was feasible and added new information to st and ard oncology assessment , which may be important for stratifying therapeutic risk in older adults with AML Objective : To prospect ively evaluate the additional value of geriatric assessment ( GA ) for predicting surgical outcomes in a cohort of older patients undergoing a pancreaticoduodenectomy ( PD ) for pancreatic tumors . Background : Older patients are less often referred for possible PD . St and ard preoperative assessment s may underestimate the likelihood of significant adverse outcomes . The prospect i ve utility of vali date d GA has not been studied in this group . Methods : PD-eligible patients were enrolled in a prospect i ve outcome study . St and ard preoperative assessment s were recorded . Elements of vali date d GA were also measured , including components of Fried 's model of frailty , the Vulnerable Elders Survey ( VES-13 ) , and the Short Physical Performance Battery ( SPPB ) . All postoperative adverse events were recorded , systematic ally review ed , and grade d using the Clavien-Dindo system by a surgeon blinded to the GA results . Multivariate regression analyses were conducted . Results : Seventy-six older patients underwent a PD . Significant unrecognized vulnerability was identified at the baseline : Fried 's “ exhaustion ” ( 37.3 % ) , SPPB < 10 ( 28.5 % ) , and VES-13 > 3 ( 15.4 % ) . Within 30 days of PD , 46 % experienced a severe complication ( Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III ) . In regression analyses controlling for age , the body mass index , the American Society of Anesthesiologists score , and comorbidity burden , Fried 's “ exhaustion ” predicted major complications [ odds ratio ( OR ) = 4.06 ; P = 0.01 ] , longer hospital stays ( & bgr ; = 0.27 ; P = 0.02 ) , and surgical intensive care unit admissions ( OR = 4.30 ; P = 0.01 ) . Both SPPB ( OR = 0.61 ; P = 0.04 ) and older age predicted discharge to a rehabilitation facility ( OR = 1.1 ; P < 0.05 ) and age correlated with a lower likelihood of hospital readmission ( OR = 0.94 ; P = 0.02 ) . Conclusions : Controlling for st and ard preoperative assessment s , worse scores on GA prospect ively and independently predicted important adverse outcomes  . Geriatric assessment may help identify older patients at high risk for complications from PD We performed an overview of published controlled trials to assess the overall effectiveness of decision aids directed at improving triage of patients with acute chest pain . Search es of the Medline data base identified 11 r and omized or quasi-r and omized controlled trials testing various decision aids : risk stratification system ( n = 6 ) , practice guidelines ( n = 3 ) , and formalized protocol s of care ( n = 2 ) . Sensitivity , specificity of the decision aid and length of stay ( LOS ) in the intensive care unit ( ICU ) were the main outcomes . Decision aids slightly modified sensitivity and specificity ( available in 5 studies ) , but sensitivity was already high in reference groups . Among the 9 studies providing information on LOS , 7 showed a statistically significant difference favoring the decision aid . The level of evidence concerning the efficacy of decision aids in this domain is relatively low . Larger and appropriately design ed clinical trials are required to show an impact on acute cardiac ischaemia complications and mortality Abstract Multidimensional geriatric assessment ( GA ) has been demonstrated to predict outcomes in older patients with cancer . This study evaluated GA in a cohort of older patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia ( CLL ) . Seventy-five of 97 subjects with CLL who were enrolled in a clinical trial of the German CLL Study Group underwent GA prior to the start of study treatment ( low-dose chemotherapy with fludarabine ) . GA included  cumulative illness rating scale ( CIRS ) , timed-up- and -go ( TUG ) test , dementia detection ( DEMTECT ) test and instrumental activities of daily living ( IADL ) index . There was little correlation between CIRS , TUG , DEMTECT or IADL results and treatment toxicity , feasibility or efficacy in this study . CIRS and IADL had no statistically significant impact on overall prognosis . However , under-performance in TUG or DEMTECT test was strongly associated with poor survival . The latter findings provide a rationale to further investigate geriatric  assessment in CLL and in the context with other CLL treatments An influential review in 2010 concluded that non-pharmacological multi-component interventions have positive effects on cognitive functioning , activities of daily living , behaviour and mood of people with dementia . Our aim here is to provide an up-to- date overview of research into psychosocial interventions and their impact on psychosocial outcomes . We focused on r and omised controlled trials , controlled studies and review s published between October 2008 and August 2015 , since the earlier review . The search of PsychInfo , Medline and the Cochrane data base of systematic review s yielded 61 relevant articles , organised into four themes echoing key phases of the care pathway : Living at home with dementia ( five review s , eight studies ) , carer interventions ( three review s , four studies ) , interventions in residential care ( 16 review s , 12 studies ) and end-of-life care ( three review s , two studies ) , along with an additional group spanning community and institutional setting s ( six review s , two studies ) . Community findings suggested that appointment of dementia specialists and attention to case management can produce positive outcomes ;  physical therapies , cognitive training and modified cognitive behaviour therapy also had a range of benefits . There was more limited evidence of positive benefits for people with dementia through interventions with family carers . Thirty-two articles focused on the management of ‘ behavioural symptoms ’ through a range of interventions all of which had some evidence of benefit . Also a range of multi-component and specific interventions had benefits for cognitive , emotional and behavioural well-being of people with dementia in residential setting s , as well as for quality of life . Overall , interventions tended to be short term with impact only measured in the short term . We recommend further research on interventions to promote living well in the community post-diagnosis and to address end-of-life care . Development of psychosocial interventions would benefit from moving beyond the focus on control of behaviours to focus on wider aspects of life for people with dementia OBJECTIVE The geriatric assessment ( GA ) has proven to be of great value for clinicians treating older patients . However , a clear consensus on the optimal set of GA instruments is lacking , particularly for surgical patients . Therefore , the aim of this prospect i ve study was to compare the prevalence of frailty , depending on the number of incorporated GA domains , and to evaluate its accuracy in predicting postoperative outcome . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Seventy-five patients aged 65 years and older , qualified for abdominal surgery due to solid cancer , were enrolled . The GA included a wide variety of vali date d tools that evaluate functional , mobility , nutritional , co-morbidity , polypharmacy , and psychosocial domains .  RESULTS Depending on the number of incorporated GA domains the frequency of frailty was 23 - 97 % . The cumulative score rather than individual components of the GA , turned out to be an independent risk factor of 30-day postoperative morbidity . In predicting 30-day " any " and " major " morbidities , the area under the curve was 0.67 - 0.72 and 0.70 - 0.82 ( model including the severity of the surgery ) vs. 0.57 - 0.66 and 0.50 - 0.65 ( model not including the severity of the surgery ) , respectively . CONCLUSION The number of incorporated GA domains has a great influence on the prevalence of frailty and on adequate surgical risk assessment . The summary deficit score based on Pre-operative Assessment of Cancer in the Elderly ( PACE ) or the GA consisting of functional , mobility , cognitive , depression , nutritional , co-morbidity , polypharmacy , and social support assessment domains can predict 30-day postoperative morbidity . However , only models with addition of the severity of surgery show moderate to good predictive value AIMS Oesophageal cancer is an aggressive disease and the optimal therapy for patients with resectable tumours remains unclear . A systematic review and companion practice guideline were published in 2004 ; however , new evidence has become available since the publication of the original report . An up date of the literature search and a revision of the recommendations were undertaken to incorporate the new data . The following research question was addressed : should patients with resectable oesophageal cancer receive preoperative or postoperative therapy together with surgery ? The outcomes of interest were survival , adverse effects and quality of life . MATERIAL S AND METHODS The literature search of the original systematic review was up date d to April 2007 . MEDLINE , EMBASE , Cochrane Library and abstract s from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology were search ed for reports of r and omised controlled trials and meta-analyses comparing preoperative or postoperative therapy with surgery alone or other preoperative or postoperative therapy . After the completion of the draft systematic review and practice guideline , the report was distributed through a mailed survey to 133 health care providers in Ontario for review and feedback . RESULTS The up date d literature search yielded eight new r and omised controlled trial reports and seven new meta- analysis reports for consideration , together with the evidence review ed in the original review publication . Of the 31 practitioners who responded to the mailed survey , 80 % agreed with the draft recommendations as stated , 83 % agreed that the report should be approved as a practice guideline and 86 % indicated that they would probably use the guideline in their own practice . CONCLUSIONS Preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy plus radiotherapy is recommended as the preferred modality for the management of surgically resectable patients with oesophageal cancer .  Preoperative cisplatin-based chemotherapy alone is an alternative choice for the management of these patients Context Clinicians rely on systematic review s for current , evidence -based information . Contribution This survival analysis of 100 meta-analyses indexed in ACP Journal Club from 1995 to 2005 found that new evidence that substantively changed conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of therapies arose frequently and within relatively short time periods . The median survival time without substantive new evidence for the meta-analyses was 5.5 years . Significant new evidence was already available for 7 % of the review s at the time of publication and became available for 23 % within 2 years . Implication Clinical ly important evidence that alters conclusions about the effectiveness and harms of treatments can accumulate rapidly . The Editors Systematic review s have become increasingly common in recent years ( 1 ) and are recommended by many as the best sources of evidence to guide both clinical decisions ( 2 ) and health care policy ( 3 ) . For systematic review s to fulfill these roles , their findings must remain relatively stable for at least several years or effective mechanisms must exist for alerting end users to important changes in evidence . Yet , surprisingly little research has assessed the extent to which systematic review s become out of date or the rate at which this occurs ( 47 ) . Some organizations , such as the Cochrane Collaboration , recommend updating systematic review s every 2 years , but few empirical data guide this or other recommendations about updating . We sought to determine how quickly systematic review s meet explicitly defined criteria for changes in evidence of sufficient importance to warrant updating . We also sought to identify predictors of survival time , the time to such important changes in evidence . Survival time might vary depending on many factors , including the type of question posed by the original review ( for example , therapeutic or diagnostic ) , the types of studies included ( for example , r and omized trials or observational studies ) , and whether the systematic review provided quantitative synthesis . To limit such variation , we focused on systematic review s of r and omized , controlled trials that evaluated therapeutic benefit or harm by providing quantitative synthesis ( meta- analysis ) for at least 1 outcome . Methods Study Design and Sample We used a quasi-r and om process ( alphabetical sort order by author ) to select 100 systematic review s that were indexed in ACP Journal Club with an accompanying commentary between January 1995 and December 2005 ( with a search date no later than 31 December 2004 to ensure at least 1 full year for new evidence to appear ) . We chose this sampling frame because ACP Journal Club selects systematic review s that meet explicit quality st and ards and are deemed directly relevant to clinical practice ( 8) . We regarded the sample size of 100 as sufficiently large to achieve suitably narrow confidence intervals and to permit evaluation of up to 5 potential predictors of survival . Eligibility Criteria Eligible review s evaluated the benefit or harm of a specific drug , class of drug , device , or procedure ( invasive procedure or surgery ) and included r and omized or quasi-r and omized , controlled trials . We excluded evaluations of alternative and complementary medicines because the stability of review s of such therapies might differ substantially from review s of conventional therapies . We required that review s provide a point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for at least 1 outcome in the form of a relative risk , odds ratio , or absolute risk difference for binary outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes . We excluded meta-analyses of individual-patient data , meta-regressions , and indirect meta-analyses because of the difficulty of determining whether new data would alter previous quantitative results . Two team members independently assessed eligibility , with disagreements resolved by consensus involving a third review er . When more than 1 review on the same topic was identified , only the earliest was included . Search ing For each review , search es for new trials included identifying new systematic review s on the same topic , su bmi tting relevant content terms to the Clinical Queries function in Ovid , applying the Related Articles function in PubMed to the 3 largest and the 3 most recent trials in the original review ( up to 6 trials in total ) , and using Scopus ( www . scopus .com/ scopus /home.url ) to identify new r and omized trials that cited the original review . When these search strategies yielded no eligible new trials , we conducted more comprehensive electronic search es and review ed relevant chapters in such sources as Clinical Evidence and UpTo Date to ensure that we had not missed new trials . Team members who had background s in both medicine and clinical research screened citations retrieved by the preceding methods to identify trials that would have met the inclusion criteria in the original review . Retrieved articles were screened in chronological order to ascertain quantitative or qualitative signals for the need for updating . The review protocol stopped when any criteria for updating were met . Each systematic review was discussed in detail , with the final statussignal for updating was or was not detectedadjudicated by consensus ( Figure 1 ) . Figure 1 . Overall process for determining updating status . ACP Journal Club Signals for the Need to Up date Systematic Review s In design ing criteria for comparing new findings with those in a previous review , we adapted methods used by other investigators to address similar problems with comparing 2 sets of results relating to the same question ( 913 ) , such as r and omized and nonr and omized studies of the same intervention . These investigators identified conflicting findings among different publications using a combination of quantitative thresholds for differences in effect magnitude and qualitative judgments about the language used to describe the results . We have similarly conceptualized quantitative and qualitative signals of potential changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating previous systematic review s. Quantitative Signals Quantitative signals consisted of a change in statistical significance or relative change in effect magnitude of at least 50 % . We restricted these changes to those involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original review or any mortality outcome . We also ignored trivial changes in statistical significance when the original and up date d meta-analytic results both had P values between 0.04 and 0.06so that quantitative signals of changes in evidence would represent robust indicators of the need to up date previous review s. Quantitative signals were detected by combining data from eligible new trials with the previous results using a fixed-effects approach . Use of fixed-effect models allowed pooling of the new trials with the previous meta-analytic result , as opposed to having to obtain original data from all of the included trials in each of 100 systematic review s. Although r and om-effects models are usually preferred to avoid spurious precision in the face of heterogeneity , our goal was to detect potential changes in evidence that would warrant a formal up date , not produce exact estimates of the up date d results . Qualitative Signals Qualitative signals included new information about harm sufficient to affect clinical decision making , important caveats to the original results , emergence of a superior alternate therapy , and important changes in certainty or direction of effect . Qualitative signals were detected by using explicit criteria for comparing the language in the original review with descriptions of findings in new systematic review s that addressed the same topic , pivotal trials , clinical practice guidelines , or recent editions of major textbooks ( for example , UpTo Date ) . Pivotal trials were defined as trials that had a sample size at least 3 times larger than that of the previous largest trial or were published in 1 of the 5 highest-impact general medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Journal of the American Medical Association , Annals of Internal Medicine , and the British Medical Journal ) . We defined 2 levels of importance for qualitative signals : potentially invalidating changes in evidence , which would make one no longer want clinicians or policymakers to base decisions on the original findings ( such as a pivotal trial that characterized treatment effectiveness in terms opposite of those in the original systematic review ) , and major changes in evidence , which would affect clinical decision making in important ways without invalidating the previous results ( such as the identification of patient population s for whom treatment is more or less beneficial ) . Major changes also included differing characterizations of effectiveness that were less extreme than those for potentially invalidating signals but that would still affect clinical decision making ( for example , a change from possibly beneficial to definitely beneficial ) . Of importance , such characterizations as possibly effective , probably effective , and promising , were all categorized as possibly effective . Thus , qualitative signals for changes in evidence captured substantive differences in the characterization of treatment effects , not merely semantic differences . Full definitions for each of the specific signals can be found at www.ohri.ca/UpdatingSystRevs . Data Collection For each review , we characterized the clinical content area , eligibility criteria for included trials , definitions of reported outcomes , number of included trials and participants , meta-analytic result for each outcome , identification of statistical heterogeneity , and excerpted quotations of the authors ' characterizations of the main results . We also abstract ed whether a given outcome was explicitly identified as 1 of the primary or main outcomes . We discounted identification of more than 3 such outcomes as inconsistent with the OBJECTIVE Our aim was to present a summary of the 2010 version of the European Association of Urology ( EAU ) guidelines on the screening , diagnosis , and treatment of clinical ly localised cancer of the prostate ( PCa ) . METHODS The working panel performed a literature review of the new data emerging from 2007 to 2010 . The guidelines were up date d , and level of evidence and grade of recommendation were added to the text based on a systematic review of the literature , which included a search of online data bases and bibliographic review s. RESULTS A full version is available at the EAU office or Web site ( www.uroweb.org ) . Current evidence is insufficient to warrant widespread population -based screening by prostate-specific antigen ( PSA ) for PCa . A systematic prostate biopsy under ultrasound guidance and local anaesthesia is the preferred diagnostic method . Active surveillance represents a viable option in men with low-risk PCa and a long life expectancy .  PSA doubling time in <3 yr or a biopsy progression indicates the need for active intervention . In men with locally advanced PCa in whom local therapy is not m and atory , watchful waiting ( WW ) is a treatment alternative to and rogen-deprivation therapy ( ADT ) with equivalent oncologic efficacy . Active treatment is mostly recommended for patients with localised disease and a long life expectancy with radical prostatectomy ( RP ) shown to be superior to WW in a prospect i ve r and omised trial . Nerve-sparing RP represents the approach of choice in organ-confined disease ; neoadjuvant and rogen deprivation demonstrates no improvement of outcome variables . Radiation therapy should be performed with at least 74 Gy and 78 Gy in low-risk and intermediate/high-risk PCa , respectively . For locally advanced disease , adjuvant ADT for 3 yr results in superior disease-specific and overall survival rates and represents the treatment of choice . Follow-up after local therapy is largely based on PSA , and a disease-specific history with imaging is indicated only when symptoms occur . CONCLUSIONS The knowledge in the field of PCa is rapidly changing . These EAU guidelines on PCa summarise the most recent findings and put them into clinical practice We investigated the predictive value of geriatric assessment ( GA ) on overall survival ( OS ) for older adults with acute myelogenous leukemia ( AML ) . Consecutive patients ≥ 60 years with newly diagnosed AML and planned intensive chemotherapy were enrolled at a single institution . Pretreatment GA included evaluation of cognition , depression , distress , physical function ( PF ) ( self-reported and objective ly measured ) , and comorbidity . Objective PF was assessed using the Short Physical Performance Battery ( SPPB , timed 4-m walk , chair st and s , st and ing balance ) and grip strength . Cox proportional hazards models were fit for each GA measure as a predictor of OS . Among 74 patients , the mean age was 70 years , and 78.4 % had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ( ECOG ) score ≤ 1 . OS was significantly shorter for participants who screened positive for impairment in cognition and objective ly measured PF . Adjusting for age , gender , ECOG score , cytogenetic risk group , myelodysplastic syndrome , and hemoglobin , impaired cognition ( Modified Mini-Mental State Exam < 77 ) and impaired objective PF ( SPPB < 9 ) were associated with worse OS . GA methods , with a focus on cognitive and PF , improve risk stratification and may inform interventions to improve outcomes for older AML patients Objective : To provide information and recommendations to assist women with breast cancer and their physicians in making decisions regarding the use of locoregional post-mastectomy radiotherapy ( PMRT ) . Outcomes : Locoregional control , disease-free survival , overall survival and treatment-related toxicities . Evidence : This guideline is based on a review of all meta-analyses , consensus statements and other guidelines published between 1966 and November 2002 . Search es of MEDLINE and CANCERLIT for English- language r and omized controlled trials published between 1995 and November 2002 were also conducted to supplement the literature previously review ed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology ( ASCO ) Health Services Research Committee panel in its published guideline . A non systematic review of the literature was continued through June 2003 . Recommendations : Locoregional PMRT is recommended for women with an advanced primary tumour ( tumour size 5 cm or greater , or tumour invasion of the skin , pectoral muscle or chest wall ) . Locoregional PMRT is recommended for women with 4 or more positive axillary lymph nodes . The role of PMRT in women with 1 to 3 positive axillary lymph nodes is unclear . These women should be offered the opportunity to participate in clinical trials of PMRT . Locoregional PMRT is generally not recommended for women who have tumours that are less than 5 cm in diameter and who have negative axillary nodes . Other patient , tumour and treatment characteristics , including age , histologic grade , lymphovascular invasion , hormone receptor status , number of axillary nodes removed , axillary extracapsular extension and surgical margin status , may affect locoregional control , but their use in specifying additional indications for PMRT is currently unclear . PMRT should encompass the chest wall and the supraclavicular , infraclavicular and axillary apical lymph node areas . To reduce the risk of lymphedema , radiation of the entire axilla should not be used routinely after complete axillary dissection of level I and II lymph nodes . A definite recommendation regarding the inclusion of the internal mammary lymph nodes in PMRT can not be made because of limited and inconsistent data . The use of modern techniques in radiotherapy planning is recommended to minimize excessive normal tissue exposure , particularly to the cardiac and pulmonary structures . Common short-term side effects of PMRT , including fatigue and skin erythema , are generally tolerable and not dose-limiting . Severe long-term side effects , including lymphedema , cardiac and pulmonary toxicities , brachial plexopathy , rib fractures and secondary neoplasms , are relatively rare . The optimal sequencing of PMRT and systemic therapy is currently unclear . Regimens containing anthracyclines or taxanes should not be administered concurrently with radiotherapy because of the potential for increased toxicity . Validation : The authors ' original text was su bmi tted for review , revision and approval by the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer . Subsequently , feedback was provided by 11 oncologists from across Canada . The final document was approved by the steering committee . Sponsor : The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer was convened by Health Canada . Completion date : November 2003 Background Testicular cancer is primarily treated with the surgical removal of the affected testis . About 50 % of testicular cancer patients present with a stage I seminoma . If no chemo- or radiotherapy as adjuvant treatment is initiated after orchiectomy , 15–20 % of these patients will develop metastases . Although adjuvant treatment is effective in reducing the relapse risk , there is rising concern about overtreatment of these patients . Prognostic factors at primary diagnosis might have the potential to identify patients at higher risk of tumor relapse , allowing to guide individual therapy and to avoid overtreatment . Therefore , we aim to synthesize the available evidence on tumor or patient characteristics as possible prognostic factors for cancer recurrence in patients with clinical stage I seminoma . Methods / design We will conduct a broad systematic review to analyze what prognostic factors predict cancer recurrence in patients with a first time diagnosis of clinical stage I seminoma , who received no adjuvant chemo- or radiotherapy after orchiectomy .  The literature search will comprise MEDLINE , Web of Science , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL ) , and the conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology ( ASCO ) , American Urologic Association ( AUA ) , and European Urologic Association ( EAU ) Annual Meetings . Prospect i ve and retrospective longitudinal studies reporting on prognostic factors for cancer recurrence will be considered . We will consider the wealth of any c and i date clinical or pathological prognostic factor reported in the literature . Our outcome of interest will be tumor recurrence at a minimum of 2 years follow-up . Study screening , data extraction , and quality assessment will be done by two review ers independently . Hazard ratios will be used to measure the relationship between the potential prognostic factor and tumor recurrence . Meta-analyses will be conducted with sufficiently homogeneous studies and separately with respect to study design , by using the r and om-effects generic inverse variance model . Discussion Limitations and strengths will be discussed in our review , and the results will be put into context with other studies in this field . Our results will help to guide evidence -based decision-making on patients with clinical stage I seminoma , allowing a better adjustment of therapies with regard to the individual patient ’s risk . Our findings will furthermore help to formulate recommendations for future research . Systematic review registration PROSPERO OBJECTIVE To improve awareness of the natural age-related decline in female and male fertility with respect to natural fertility and assisted reproductive technologies ( ART ) and provide recommendations for their management , and to review investigations in the assessment of ovarian aging . OPTIONS This guideline review s options for the assessment of ovarian reserve and fertility treatments using ART with women of advanced reproductive age presenting with infertility . OUTCOMES The outcomes measured are the predictive value of ovarian reserve testing and pregnancy rates with natural and assisted fertility . EVIDENCE Published literature was retrieved through search es of PubMed or Medline , CINAHL , and The Cochrane Library in June 2010 , using appropriate key words ( ovarian aging , ovarian reserve , advanced maternal age , advanced paternal age , ART ) . Results were restricted to systematic review s , r and omized controlled trials/controlled clinical trials , and observational studies . There were no date or language restrictions . Search es were up date d on a regular basis and incorporated into the guideline to December 2010 . VALUES The quality of evidence was rated using the criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care . Recommendations for practice were ranked according to the method described in that report ( Table ) . BENEFITS , HARMS , AND COSTS Primary and specialist health care providers and women will be better informed about ovarian aging and the age-related decline in natural fertility and about options for assisted reproductive technology Background Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with critical illness often experience significant physical impairments , which typically persist for many years following resolution of the original illness . Physical rehabilitation interventions that enhance restoration of physical function have been evaluated across the continuum of recovery following critical illness including within the intensive care unit , following discharge to the ward and beyond hospital discharge . Multiple systematic review s have been published appraising the exp and ing evidence investigating these physical rehabilitation interventions , although there appears to be variability in review methodology and quality . We aim to conduct an overview of existing systematic review s of physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery . Methods / design This protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses Protocol ( PRISMA -P ) guidelines . We will search the Cochrane Systematic Review Data base , Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effectiveness , Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials , MEDLINE , Excerpta Medica Data base and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature data bases . We will include systematic review s of r and omised controlled trials of adult patients , admitted to the intensive care unit and who have received physical rehabilitation interventions at any time point during their recovery . Data extraction will include systematic review aims and rationale , study types , population s , interventions , comparators , outcomes and quality appraisal method . Primary outcomes of interest will focus on findings reflecting recovery of physical function . Quality of reporting and method ological quality will be appraised using the PRISMA checklist and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review s tool . Discussion We anticipate the findings from this novel overview of systematic review s will contribute to the synthesis and interpretation of existing evidence regarding physical rehabilitation interventions and physical recovery in post-critical illness patients across the continuum of recovery . Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015001068 Background Bruxism is a disorder of jaw-muscle activity characterised by repetitive clenching or grinding of the teeth which results in discomfort and damage to dentition . The two clinical manifestations of the condition ( sleep and awake bruxism ) are thought to have unrelated aetiologies but are palliated using similar techniques . The lack of a definitive treatment has prompted renewed interest in biofeedback , a behaviour change method that uses electronic detection to provide a stimulus whenever bruxism occurs . This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of research into biofeedback for bruxism ; to assess the efficacy and acceptability of  biofeedback therapy in management of awake bruxism and , separately , sleep bruxism in adults ; and to compare findings between the two variants . Methods A systematic review of published literature examining biofeedback as an intervention directed at controlling primary bruxism in adults . We will search electronic data bases and the grey literature using a predefined search strategy to identify r and omised and non-r and omised studies , technical reports and patents . Search es will not be restricted by language or date and will be exp and ed through contact with authors and experts , and by following up reference lists and citations . Two authors , working independently , will conduct screening of search results , study selection , data extraction and quality assessment and a third will resolve any disagreements . The primary outcomes of acceptability and effectiveness will be assessed using only r and omised studies , segregated by bruxism subtype . A meta- analysis of these data will be conducted only if pre-defined conditions for quality and heterogeneity are met , otherwise the data will be summarized in narrative form . Data from non-r and omised studies will be used to augment a narrative synthesis of the state of technical developments and any safety-related issues . PROSPERO registration number : CRD42013006880 . Discussion Biofeedback is not new , but its place in the clinical management of bruxism remains unclear . New research , and the availability of miniaturized consumer- grade devices , makes a systematic review timely to guide treatment decisions and inform future research Background The efficacy of natural products ( NPs ) is being evaluated using r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) with increasing frequency , yet a search of the literature did not identify a widely accepted critical appraisal instrument developed specifically for use with NPs . The purpose of this project was to develop and evaluate a critical appraisal instrument that is sufficiently rigorous to be used in evaluating RCTs of conventional medicines , and also has a section specific for use with single entity NPs , including herbs and natural source d chemicals . Methods Three phases of the project included : 1 ) using experts and a Delphi process to reach consensus on a list of items essential in describing the identity of an NP ; 2 ) compiling a list of non-NP items important for evaluating the quality of an RCT using systematic review methodology to identify published instruments and then compiling item categories that were part of a vali date d instrument and /or had empirical evidence to support their inclusion and 3 ) conducting a field test to compare the new instrument to a published instrument for usefulness in evaluating the quality of 3 RCTs of a NP and in applying results to practice . Results Two Delphi rounds result ed in a list of 15 items essential in describing NPs . Seventeen item categories fitting inclusion criteria were identified from published instruments for conventional medicines . The new assessment instrument was assembled based on content of the two lists and the addition of a Review er 's Conclusion section . The field test of the new instrument showed good criterion validity . Participants found it useful in translating evidence from RCTs to practice . Conclusion A new instrument for the critical appraisal of RCTs of NPs was developed and tested . The instrument is distinct from other available assessment instruments for RCTs of NPs in its systematic development and validation . The instrument is ready to be used by pharmacy students , health care practitioners and academics and will continue to be refined as required BACKGROUND Proton beam radiotherapy ( PBT ) is frequently shown to be dosimetrically superior to photon radiotherapy ( RT ) , though supporting data for clinical benefit are severely limited . Because of the potential for toxicity reduction in gastrointestinal ( GI ) malignancies , we systematic ally review ed the literature on clinical outcomes ( survival/toxicity ) of PBT . METHODS A systematic search of PubMed , EMBASE , abstract s from meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology , Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group , and American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted for publications from 2000 - 2015 . Thirty-eight original investigations were analyzed . RESULTS Although results of PBT are not directly comparable to historical data , outcomes roughly mirror previous data , generally with reduced toxicities  for PBT in some neoplasms . For esophageal cancer , PBT is associated with reduced toxicities , postoperative complications , and hospital stay as compared to photon radiation , while achieving comparable local control ( LC ) and overall survival ( OS ) . In pancreatic cancer , numerical survival for resected/unresected cases is also similar to existing photon data , whereas grade ≥3 nausea/emesis and post-operative complications are numerically lower than those reported with photon RT . The strongest data in support of PBT for HCC comes from phase II trials demonstrating very low toxicities , and a phase III trial of PBT versus transarterial chemoembolization demonstrating trends towards improved LC and progression-free survival ( PFS )  with PBT , along with fewer post-treatment hospitalizations . Survival and toxicity data for cholangiocarcinoma , liver metastases , and retroperitoneal sarcoma are also roughly equivalent to historical photon controls . There are two small reports for gastric cancer and three for anorectal cancer ; these are not addressed further . CONCLUSIONS Limited quality ( and quantity ) of data hamper direct comparisons and conclusions . However , the available data , despite the inherent caveats and limitations , suggest that PBT offers the potential to achieve significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities without compromising survival or LC for multiple GI malignancies . Several r and omized comparative trials are underway that will provide more definitive answers Breast cancer is the most common cancer type in women and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the United States ( 1 ) . The goal of screening is to reduce morbidity and mortality , both specific to breast cancer and overall , with acceptable tradeoffs ( 2 , 3 ) . The most commonly used screening test is mammography . Recommended strategies vary for breast cancer screening in average-risk women . Ages to start and discontinue mammography , screening intervals , the role of imaging methods other than mammography , and the role of clinical breast examination ( CBE ) have been points of disagreement among guideline developers . Purpose and Target Population The goal of this American College of Physicians ( ACP ) guidance statement is to critically review selected guidelines from around the world and their included evidence to assist clinicians in making decisions about breast cancer screening in asymptomatic women with average risk for breast cancer . Included screening methods are CBE and breast imaging ( that is , mammography , ultrasonography , magnetic resonance imaging [ MRI ] , and digital breast tomo synthesis [ DBT ] ) . This guidance statement does not address breast self-examination because no evaluated guideline recommends it for screening . The target population for this guidance statement is women with average risk for breast cancer . The target audience is all clinicians . Age is the single most important risk factor for breast cancer . Included guidelines generally define average-risk women as those who do not have a personal history of breast cancer or a previous diagnosis of a high-risk breast lesion , are not at high risk for breast cancer due to genetic mutations known to increase that risk ( such as BRCA1/2 gene mutation or another familial breast cancer syndrome ) , and were not exposed to radiation therapy to the chest in childhood ( 4 , 5 ) . However , definitions of average risk vary among guidelines . In addition , although risk factors ( including early menarche , late menopausal onset , oral contraceptive or menopausal hormone therapy , increased breast density on mammography , and a family member with a history of postmenopausal breast cancer ) may put a woman at greater risk for breast cancer than women without these factors , the evaluated guidelines generally include women with these factors under the umbrella of average risk . Therefore , our guidance statement applies to these women . Guidelines vary somewhat in target population s and screening methods addressed ( Table [ 411 ] and Appendix ) . Both the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force ( USPSTF ) and the World Health Organization ( WHO ) include women with dense breasts and those with a single family member with breast cancer in their guideline 's target population ( 5 , 6 ) . The Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care ( CTFPHC ) guideline also includes women with dense breasts ; however , it explicitly mentions that women with a first-degree relative with breast cancer are considered to be at increased risk and are thus excluded from the guideline ( 7 ) . Table . Summary of Included Recommendations in Assessed Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening of Average-Risk Women Methods The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee develops guidance statements on topics where several conflicting guidelines are available . Guidance statements rely on evidence presented or referenced in selected guidelines and accompanying evidence reports ; they do not include de novo review s or search es of the literature outside the body of evidence referenced by the guidelines . The goal of ACP guidance statements is to provide clinicians with a rigorous review of the available guidelines and their included evidence and to develop subsequent guidance based on an assessment of the benefits and harms reported by each guideline and its evidence . Unlike ACP guidelines , guidance statements are not derived from a systematic evidence review and hence do not use GRADE ( Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ) ( 12 ) to assess the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations . Data Sources and Guideline Selection We search ed the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the Guidelines International Network library for breast cancer screening guidelines from national organizations that addressed breast imaging ( that is , mammography , ultrasonography , MRI , or DBT ) and CBE in women and were published in English between 1 January 2013 and 15 November 2017 . We search ed Web sites housing the selected guidelines for up date s on 10 December 2018 . We excluded guidelines that addressed specific population s ( such as pregnant women and women at increased risk for breast cancer ) or were more than 5 years old ( thus considered inactive ) . We also excluded guidelines that directly endorsed another guideline , such as that of the American Academy of Family Physicians , which endorsed the USPSTF guideline . Our search yielded 3 guidelines , from the American College of Radiology ( published in 2017 ; literature search end date , February 2016 ) ( 9 ) , American Cancer Society ( ACS ) ( published in 2015 ; literature search end date , March 2014 ) ( 4 ) , and USPSTF ( published in 2016 ; literature search end date , June 2015 ) ( 5 ) . We also selected 3 guidelines not identified in either data base but commonly used in clinical practice , from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network ( NCCN ) ( published in 2018 ; literature search end date not reported ) ( 10 ) , WHO ( published in 2014 ; literature search end date , December 2012 ) ( 6 ) , and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ( published in 2017 ; literature search end date not applicable ) ( 8) . In addition , we selected the CTFPHC guideline , which was up date d after our initial search ( published in 2018 ; literature search end date , January 2017 ) ( 7 ) . The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guideline was based on guidelines from the ACS , NCCN , and USPSTF and supporting evidence review s. Critical Appraisal Five co authors independently review ed , assessed , and scored each guideline using the AGREE II ( Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II ) instrument ( 13 , 14 ) ( Appendix Table 1 ) . Appendix Table 1 . Scaled AGREE II Domain Scores for Each Guideline and Overall Assessment Clinician Peer Review The guidance statement was peer- review ed through Annals of Internal Medicine and by ACP Regents and Governors , who represent ACP members at the regional and international level . Public Member Review The development process for the guidance statement included participation by public members ( 2 of the Clinical Guidelines Committee and 7 of ACP 's Public Panel ) to share their perspectives , values , and preferences . Critical Appraisal of Evaluated Guidelines The major difference between high- and low-scoring guidelines ( Appendix Table 1 ) was methodology . Guidelines from ACS ( 4 ) , CTFPHC ( 7 ) , USPSTF ( 5 ) , and WHO ( 6 ) scored highest on the AGREE II instrument , whereas those from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ( 8) , American College of Radiology ( 9 ) , and NCCN ( 10 ) scored lowest . In addition to our review of each guideline , we examined the evidence supporting the 4 that scored highest ( ACS , CTFPHC , USPSTF , and WHO ) . We also considered recommendations for adoption or adaptation from these 4 guidelines when developing our own guidance . Several factors were important in considering guideline quality . The ACS , CTFPHC , USPSTF , and WHO guidelines best articulated benefits , harms , and strength of the evidence and how these link to recommendations . The lower-scoring guidelines often inadequately described how they considered these factors in developing the recommendations , or they relied on lower- quality evidence . The guidelines varied in the studies they reported , weighting of observational or modeling studies relative to r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) , and emphasis on relative versus absolute effects . The guidelines rarely addressed the small absolute effect on breast cancer mortality ; the long lead time to any reduction in this mortality , especially in women with estimated life expectancy less than 15 to 20 years ; and the low incidence of breast cancer for women younger than 60 years . Mammography Depending on the guideline , the recommended age to discuss initiating screening is 40 years ( 4 , 5 , 8) and the recommended age to start screening ranges from 40 ( 9 , 10 ) to 45 ( 4 ) to 50 ( 58 ) years . Most guidelines agree to screen average-risk women with  mammography  between ages 50 and 74 years . However , WHO and CTFPHC recommend that screening in women aged 50 to 69 years should include shared decision making because screening is conditional on a woman 's values and preferences . For women aged 70 to 75 years , WHO recommends screening only in the context of both rigorous research and shared decision making . Other areas of disagreement include screening in women aged 40 to 49 years , screening in women aged 75 years or older , and recommended screening intervals ( Table ) . Intervals range from annual ( particularly in women aged 40 to 49 years ) to biennial or triennial . Guidelines from ACS , USPSTF , and WHO conclude that a close balance exists between screening benefits and harms for women in their 40s ( for ACS , 40 to 44 years ) and that decisions are influenced by patient preferences . The WHO guideline suggests population -based screening programs in women aged 40 to 49 years only in the context of rigorous research , monitoring , and evaluation and if shared decision-making strategies are implemented . The CTFPHC conditionally recommends against screening in women aged 40 to 49 years ( without a first-degree family history of breast cancer ) ; however , it states that some women in this age group may wish to be screened and that clinicians should engage in shared decision making with women who express interest ( Appendix ) . Appendix Table 2 summarizes the available data from the 4 guidelines with the highest AGREE II scores ( ACS , CTFPHC , USPSTF , and WHO ) . Appendix Table 2 . Summary of Evidence on Screening OBJECTIVE  Goal attainment scaling ( GAS ) is a measurement approach used extensively in mental health . It accommo date s multiple individual patient goals , yet retains mathematical properties allowing comparisons between patients . This study was carried out to investigate the feasibility and measurement properties of GAS in a geriatric care setting . DESIGN Prospect i ve descriptive study . SETTING The geriatric restorative care service and geriatric assessment unit at Camp Hill Hospital , a 350-bed tertiary care facility in Halifax , Canada . PATIENTS Fifteen patients aged 65 to 94 who were consecutively admitted to the two geriatric services ( mean age 79 years , mean length of stay 37 days , 9 females ) . INTERVENTION Goal Attainment follow-up guides were developed independently for each patient by two geriatricians after a comprehensive assessment of the patient . These guides were later compared to assess level of agreement in goal setting and scale development . A single goal attainment follow-up guide was then developed for each patient by consensus of the two geriatricians . At the end of the follow-up , the guides were scored independently for each patient by one of the geriatricians and by the patient 's primary care nurse . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES  GAS scores were determined on admission and discharge . Each patient also received admission and discharge ratings on the Barthel Index as well as a global rating of outcome ( on a subjective 10-point scale ) by a geriatrician who was blinded to the Goal Attainment follow-up score . RESULTS GAS proved feasible , requiring 15 - 20 minutes to scale an average of six goals per patient . GAS also appears reliable . Of 87 goals , 71 ( 82 % ) were identified independently by two geriatricians , and the remainder were determined by consensus . This is also a measure of content validity . The physician-nurse inter-rater reliability was 0.87 ( intraclass correlation ) . Concurrent validity was assessed by correlation with the Barthel Index ( r = 0.86 ) and the global clinical outcome rating ( r = 0.82 ) . Content validity was also assessed by comparing our goal areas with those identified in recent consensus reports on geriatric assessment . Of these 13 assessment areas , 12 appeared to be reasonably well covered while one assessment area ( sexual problems ) was not identified for any of the 15 patients . CONCLUSIONS GAS appears to be a feasible method of goal setting and outcome evaluation in geriatric care setting s , with promising reliability and validity Prediction relates to estimating the probability of something currently unknown . In the context of medical research , prediction typically concerns either diagnosis ( probability of a certain condition being present but not yet detected ) or prognosis ( probability of an outcome developing in the future ) ( 13 ) . Prognosis applies not only to sick persons or those with an established diagnosis but also to , for example , pregnant women at risk for diabetes ( 4 ) . Prediction research includes predictor finding studies , prediction model studies ( development , validation , and extending or updating ) , and prediction model impact studies ( 1 ) . Predictor finding studies ( also known as risk factor or prognostic factor studies ) aim to identify which predictors ( such as age , disease stage , or biomarkers ) independently contribute to the prediction of a diagnostic or prognostic outcome ( 1 , 5 ) . Prediction model studies aim to develop , vali date , or up date ( for example , extend ) a multivariable prediction model . A prediction model uses multiple predictors in combination to estimate probabilities to inform and often guide individual care ( 2 , 6 , 7 ) . These models can predict an individual 's probability of either currently having a particular outcome or disease ( diagnostic prediction model ) or having a particular outcome in the future ( prognostic prediction model ) . Both types of model are widely used in various medical domains and setting s ( 810 ) , as evidence d by the large number of models developed in cancer ( 11 , 12 ) , neurology ( 13 , 14 ) , and cardiovascular disease ( 15 ) . Prediction models are sometimes described as  risk prediction models , predictive models , prediction indices or rules , or risk scores ( 2 , 7 ) . An example is QRISK2 for predicting cardiovascular risk ( 16 ) . Prediction model impact studies evaluate the effect of using a model to guide patient care compared with not using such a model . They use a comparative design , such as a r and omized trial , to study the model 's effect on clinical decision making , patient outcomes , or costs of care ( 1 ) . Systematic review s have a key role in evidence -based medicine and the development of clinical guidelines ( 1719 ) . They are considered to provide the most reliable form of evidence for the effects of an intervention or diagnostic test ( 20 , 21 ) . Systematic review s of prediction models are a relatively new and evolving area but are increasingly undertaken to systematic ally identify , appraise , and summarize evidence on the performance of prediction models ( 1 , 6 , 22 ) . Assessing the quality of included studies is a crucial step in any systematic review ( 20 , 21 ) . The QUIPS ( Quality In Prognosis Studies ) tool has been developed to assess risk of bias ( ROB ) in predictor finding ( prognostic factor ) studies ( 23 ) . Research ers can use the revised Cochrane ROB Tool ( ROB 2.0 ) ( 24 ) to investigate the method ological quality of prediction model impact studies that use a r and omized comparative design , or ROBINS-I ( Risk Of Bias In Nonr and omized Studies of Interventions ) for those that use a nonr and omized comparative design ( 25 ) . As more prediction model studies and systematic review s of such studies are used as evidence for clinical guidance , a tool facilitating quality assessment for individual prediction model studies is urgently needed . We present PROBAST ( Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool ) , a tool to assess the ROB and concerns regarding the applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST can be used to assess studies of model development and model validation , including those updating a prediction model ( Box 1 [ 26 ] ) . We refer to the accompanying explanation and elaboration document ( 27 ) , for detailed explanations of how to use PROBAST and how to judge ROB and applicability . Box 1 . Types of diagnostic and prognostic modeling studies or reports addressed by PROBAST . Adopted from the TRIPOD ( Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis ) and CHARMS ( CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Review s of prediction Modelling Studies ) guidance ( 7 , 26 ) . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Methods : Development of PROBAST Development of PROBAST was based on a 4-stage approach for developing health research reporting guidelines : define the scope , review the evidence base , use a Web-based Delphi procedure , and refine the tool through piloting ( 28 ) . Guidelines explicitly aim ed at the development of quality assessment tools were not available at the time ( 29 ) . Development Stage 1 : Scope and Definitions A steering group of 9 experts in prediction model studies and development of quality assessment tools agreed on key features of the desired scope of PROBAST . A panel of 38 experts with different background s further refined the scope during the Web-based Delphi procedure . PROBAST was design ed mainly to assess primary studies included in a systematic review . The group agreed that PROBAST would assess both risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of a study evaluating a multivariable prediction model to be used for individualized diagnosis or prognosis . A domain-based structure was adopted , similar to that used in other ROB tools , such as ROB 2.0 ( 24 ) , ROBINS-I ( 25 ) , QUADAS-2 ( Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 ) ( 30 ) , and ROBIS ( 31 ) . We agreed that PROBAST should cover primary studies that develop , vali date , or up date multivariable prediction models aim ing to make individualized predictions of a diagnostic or prognostic outcome ( Box 1 ) . Studies that use multivariable modeling techniques to identify predictors ( such as risk or prognostic factors ) associated with an outcome but do not attempt to develop , vali date , or up date a model for making individualized predictions are not covered by PROBAST ( 5 ) . Therefore , PROBAST is not intended for predictor finding studies or prediction model impact studies . Studies of diagnostic and prognostic models often use different terms for predictors and outcomes ( Box 2 ) . A multivariable prediction model is defined as any combination or equation of 2 or more predictors for estimating probability or risk for an individual ( 6 , 7 , 3234 ) . Box 2 . Differences between diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies . PROBAST = Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool . Development Stage 2 : Review of Evidence We used the following 3 approaches to build an evidence base to inform the development of PROBAST : identifying relevant method ological review s in the area of prediction model research ( November 2012 to January 2013 ) , asking members of the steering group to identify relevant method ological studies ( January 2013 to March 2013 ) , and using the Delphi procedure to ask members of the wider group to identify additional evidence ( February 2012 to July 2014 ) . Identified literature was used to guide the scope and produce an initial list of signaling questions to consider for inclusion in PROBAST ( 1 , 2 , 57 , 26 , 3340 ) . We grouped signaling questions into common themes to identify possible domains . Additional literature provided as part of the Web-based surveys informed development of the explanation and elaboration document . Development Stage 3 : Web-Based Delphi Procedure We used a modified Delphi process to gain feedback and agreement on the scope , structure , and content of PROBAST . Web-based surveys were developed to gather structured feedback for each round . The 38-member Delphi group comprised method ological experts in prediction model research and development of quality assessment tools , experienced systematic review ers , commissioners , and representatives of reimbursement agencies . We included various stakeholders to ensure that the views of end users , method ological experts , and decision makers were represented . The Delphi process consisted of 7 rounds . Round 1 asked about the scope of the tool , and participants agreed to focus on prediction model studies and follow a domain-based structure . Round 2 aim ed to identify relevant domains and agree on which to include . The signaling questions for domains were refined in rounds 3 to 5 . Respondents used a 1-to-5 Likert scale to rate each proposed signaling question for inclusion . They could also suggest rephrasing , provide supporting evidence ( such as references to relevant studies ) , and suggest missing signaling questions . Round 6 refined the domains and introduced further optional guidance for using PROBAST . In the last round , participants received the agreed draft version of PROBAST and had the opportunity to provide any final feedback . Development Stage 4 : Piloting and Refining the Tool We held 6 workshops on PROBAST at consecutive annual Cochrane Colloquia ( Quebec , Canada , 2013 ; Hyderabad , India , 2014 ; Vienna , Austria , 2015 ; Seoul , South Korea , 2016 ; Cape Town , South Africa , 2017 ; and Edinburgh , United Kingdom , 2018 ) . We also held numerous consecutive workshops with MSc and PhD students ( for example , the master 's program in epidemiology at Utrecht University [ Utrecht , the Netherl and s ] and the Evidence -Based Health Care program at Oxford University [ Oxford , United Kingdom ] ) . In these workshops , we piloted the then-current version of PROBAST to gather feedback on practical issues associated with using the tool so that we could further refine and subsequently vali date it . Finally , more than 50 review groups have already piloted PROBAST versions , including the final version , in their review s. Topics included cancer , cardiology , endocrinology , pulmonology , and orthopedics . All feedback received from these initiatives was used to further inform the content and structure of PROBAST , wording of the signaling questions , and content of the guidance documents ( 27 ) . Results : The PROBAST Tool What Does PROBAST Assess ? PROBAST assesses both risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability of primary studies that developed or vali date d multivariable prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis ( Boxes 1 and 2 ) Background Synthesis of multiple r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions . Filtering of search es is time consuming , and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy . Automation of systematic review s is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making . We developed Rayyan ( http://rayyan.qcri.org ) , a free web and mobile app , that helps expedite the initial screening of abstract s and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability . For the beta testing phase , we used two published Cochrane review s in which included studies had been selected manually . Their search es , with 1030 records and 273 records , were uploaded to Rayyan . Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two review s. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan ’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature . Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability , accuracy against manual methods , and the added value of the prediction feature . The “ taster ” review ( 273 records ) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability . The second review ( 1030 records ) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials . The “ suggestions ” and “ hints , ” based on the “ prediction model , ” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies . Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements . The survey respondents reported 40 % average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools , with 34 % of the respondents reporting more than 50 % time savings . In addition , around 75 % of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on review s to be the two most important features of Rayyan . As of November 2016 , Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of review s totaling more than 1.6 M citations . Feedback from users , obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey , has highlighted the ease in exploration of search es , the time saved , and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions . The strongest features of the app , identified and reported in user feedback , were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users . Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of review ers Three years ago , we founded this journal focusing on publishing systematic review s , systematic review protocol s , and associated method ological development papers . Systematic review s , which developed in the social sciences in the 1970s , began to gain rapid momentum during the 1990s in response to concerns by policymakers and clinicians about the scientific validity of the prevailing paradigm of traditional narrative review s written by authoritative experts . What distinguished systematic review s was the use of formal explicit methods , in other words pre-specification , of what exactly was the question to be answered , how evidence was search ed for and assessed , and how it was synthesized in order to reach the conclusion . Importantly , these formal methods were described as part of the review itself in a Methods section . In turn , these methods themselves became the subject of hypothesis-testing studies , as investigators sought how best to search for evidence , assess studies for quality or risk of bias , determine under what conditions meta- analysis was justified , and how to best determine and characterize our confidence in the conclusions . The results of these hypothesis-testing studies led over time to improvements in the methods we use for systematic review s. Thus , systematic review s and this journal are part of an ever-evolving process whose foundations are rooted in the scientific method . Today , new forms of review s are appearing . These have emerged in response to policymakers and other stakeholders ’ needs for information , sometimes emergently or urgently , for which the existing systematic review model does not quite fit . Hence , the rapid review , when time is of the essence ; the scoping review , when what is needed is not detailed answers to specific questions but rather an overview of a broad field ; the evidence map , a cousin of scoping review s that commonly has a specific visual presentation of the evidence across a broad field ; and the realist review , where the question of interest includes how and why complex social interventions work in certain situations , rather than assume they either do or do not work at all . As Editors , we regularly get contacted by prospect i ve authors asking whether realist review s , or scoping review s , etc . , are “ within the scope ” for Systematic Review s , and therefore we judge it an opportune time to state our position on this matter . It is our view that all of these new forms of review s are related to systematic review s , similar to the way that different biological Species within the same Family are related to each other . We consider “ systematic review s ” to be the Family and the different forms of review s to be the different species . Just as in the biological classification , where the related organisms must share certain characteristics , so too must the different types of review s share a common characteristic . In this case , what is shared is their foundation in the scientific method , with their methods articulated in advance in sufficient detail that the review can be reproduced by others . A further defining feature is that there are scholars devoted to improving the methods over time via hypothesis-testing studies . Systematic Review s has responded to these emerging techniques and already publishes papers reporting methods and findings from the systematic review family and has for example published an extremely popular series on rapid review s. We would like to consoli date this position and invite su bmi ssion of these new species of review s , as long as they meet the qualifications just listed . We expect this process of evolution to continue and to refine the methods such that in 10 years ’ time , there will appear new , as yet unimagined species of review s— and perhaps some current species of review will become extinct . Thus , it is with the scientific method , which we believe is the foundation that unites the Family of systematic review : The purpose of this up date of the European Society of Anaesthesiology ( ESA ) guidelines on the pre-operative evaluation of the adult undergoing noncardiac surgery is to present recommendations based on the available relevant clinical evidence . Well performed r and omised studies on the topic are limited and therefore many recommendations rely to a large extent on expert opinion and may need to be adapted specifically to the healthcare systems of individual countries . This article aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthesiologists all over Europe to integrate - wherever possible - this knowledge into daily patient care . The Guidelines Committee of the ESA formed a task force comprising members of the previous task force , members of ESA scientific subcommittees and an open call for volunteers was made to all individual active members of the ESA and national societies . Electronic data bases were search ed from July 2010 ( end of the literature search of the previous ESA guidelines on pre-operative evaluation ) to May 2016 without language restrictions . A total of 34 066 abtracts were screened from which 2536 were included for further analysis . Relevant systematic review s with meta-analyses , r and omised controlled trials , cohort studies , case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected . The Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ( GRADE ) system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations . The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members , individual or national ( thus including most European national anaesthesia societies ) . Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate . When the final draft was complete , the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines
Consistent with our previous review , several domains of GA are associated with adverse outcomes .
BACKGROUND Our previous systematic review of geriatric assessment ( GA ) in oncology included a literature search up to November 2010 .
However , the quickly evolving field warranted an up date .
Aims of this review : ( i ) provide an overview of all GA instruments developed and /or in use in the oncology setting ; ( ii ) evaluate effectiveness of GA in predicting/modifying outcomes ( e.g. treatment decision impact , treatment toxicity , mortality , use of care ) .