The impact of cash transfers on social determinants of health and health inequalities in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review protocol Symposium integrating evidence-based medicine into clinical practice. Can systematic reviews with sparse data be trusted? Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future Sources of evidence for systematic reviews of interventions in diabetes. The Effectiveness of Psychosocial Interventions as Adjuncts to Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review Protocol A systematic review protocol examining the effect of vitamin D supplementation on endothelial function Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: Methods of a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis Seeing the forests and the trees—innovative approaches to exploring heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions to enhance health system decision-making: a protocol Effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to support people with dementia living in the community: a systematic review Examining the theory‐effectiveness hypothesis: A systematic review of systematic reviews Effects of workplace-based dietary and/or physical activity interventions for weight management targeting healthcare professionals: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials Community pharmacy interventions for public health priorities: protocol for a systematic review of community pharmacy-delivered smoking, alcohol and weight management interventions Evidence‐based management of pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a PROSPECT review update Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables Protocol for a systematic review of time to antibiotics (TTA) in patients with fever and neutropenia during chemotherapy for cancer (FN) and interventions aiming to reduce TTA A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for family carers of palliative care patients Effect of vitamin D supplementation on inflammation: protocol for a systematic review A systematic appraisal of allegiance effect in randomized controlled trials of psychotherapy The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews
Background There is increasing pressure to address the social determinants of health ( SDoH ) and health inequities through the implementation of culturally acceptable interventions particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa ( SSA ) where health outcomes are generally poor . Available evaluation research on cash transfers ( CTs ) suggests that the programs may influence the wider determinants of health in SSA ; yet , there has been no attempt to synthesize the evidence regarding their contribution to tackling the SDoH and health inequalities . To date , nearly all the review s on CTs ' impact on health have predominantly featured evidence from Latin America with limited transferability to the social , cultural , and political environments in SSA . Therefore , the aim of this study is to undertake a systematic review to assess the role of CTs in tackling the wider determinants of health and health inequalities in SSA . Methods / design A systematic review of published and unpublished literature on CTs ’ impact on health and health determinants covering the period 2000–2016 will be undertaken . Studies will be considered for inclusion if they present quantitative or qualitative data , including all relevant study design s. The SDoH conceptual framework will be used to guide the data extraction process . EPPI Review er software will be used for data management and analysis . Studies included in the review will be analyzed by narrative synthesis and /or meta- analysis as appropriate for the nature of the data retrieved . Discussion This review will provide empirical evidence on the impact of CTs on SDoH to inform CT policy , implementation , and research in SSA . The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis Protocol s ( PRISMA -P ) . Systematic review registration This protocol has been registered with the PROSPERO international prospect i ve register of systematic review s , reference CRD42015025015 Evidence -based medicine represents the combination of the best available clinical research evidence with clinical experience and expertise and the needs and expectations of patients . Evidence -based medicine as a concept has been available for years , but it has become increasingly important over the last decade . Some evidence has suggested that it began as early as the ancient Chinese medicine practice s , while other evidence has indicated its origins were in postrevolutionary France with the systematic patient observations of Pierre Louis1 . Gordon Guyatt led a group at McMaster University in the early 1990s that introduced many of the current concepts of evidence -based medicine . This led to a major increase in interest in the area . One paper had been published in the literature in 1992 , but by 1998 over a thous and manuscripts had been published in the field1 . Evidence -based medicine utilizes the best available research evidence . In the hierarchy of medical evidence , systematic review s including meta-analyses represent the highest form of evidence if inclusion is limited to Level-I or II studies ( Table I ) . Systematic review s of Level-III or IV observational studies can be performed , but they represent Level-III or IV evidence . Frequently , in orthopaedics , systematic review s or meta-analyses may not be available and clinicians may need to rely upon r and omized controlled trials , cohorts , case-control studies , case series , or , in some areas , expert opinion . Orthopaedists may not yet recognize this hierarchy . During the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Orthopaedic Association ( AOA ) , the audience was asked the question : “ Findings from which type of study design are most likely to influence your clinical practice ? ” The responses indicated that a r and omized controlled study design was used by 49 % ; a systematic review and /or meta- analysis of Level-I studies , by 44 % ; expert opinion , by 5 % ; and case series , by 3 % . View this table : TABLE I Medical Evidence Hierarchy At a symposium Systematic review s are increasingly used to answer clinical questions . Their popularity is partly attributable to their apparent clinical superiority in providing quick summaries of evidence from the ever-growing medical literature ( more than 750,000 items annually [ 1 ] ) , but also thanks to the great impact of the Cochrane Collaboration in promoting the use of the systematic review [ 2 ] . We also note that many scientific journals favour systematic review s because they tend to contribute to higher journal impact factors . However , the rise of systematic review s should give cause for concern ; more than 8000 are being indexed in MEDLINE annually , reflecting a three-fold increase over the last decade [ 3 ] . We write ‘ concern ’ , because many of these review s across healthcare seem to fall short of essential requirements such as incorporating risk of bias assessment in meta-analyses ( only 16 % ) , search ing for unpublished data ( only 7 % ) , or not fully following a protocol ( only one-third [ 3 ] ) . A recent study of review s published in anaesthetic journals revealed similar shortfalls [ 4 ] . Further more , the quality of reporting is lower in some countries and in journals with lower impact factors [ 5 , 6 ] . The apparent poor quality of many published systematic review s greatly increases the risk of misleading conclusions , which ultimately could harm our patients [ 7 ] . Despite their veneer of sophistication , one has to bear in mind that systematic review s are , in essence , retrospective appraisal s of the evidence . Editors , writers and readers should exercise great caution when interpreting conclusions of review s that only include very few trials , even when they fulfill the required st and ards [ 3 ] . Despite great efforts to promote adequate quality of review s through international guidelines such as PRISMA , GRADE and the Cochrane H and book [ 8 ] , the majority of review s may suffer from threats to the validity of their findings due to risk of systematic errors ( bias ) , design errors ( i.e. , erroneous selection of patients , doses of medication , comparators , analyses , outcomes ) and r and om error ( play of chance ) [ 9 ] . In a previous publication in this journal , some of the method ological issues and requirements for authors and editors were thoroughly discussed [ 10 ] . But we believe that other issues need to be addressed , in particular the amount of information included in meta-analyses from systematic review s , with the power this brings Prognostic markers help to stratify patients for treatment by identifying patients with different risks of outcome ( e.g. recurrence of disease ) , and are important tools in the management of cancer and many other diseases . Systematic review and meta-analytical approaches to identifying the most valuable prognostic markers are needed because ( sometimes conflicting ) evidence relating to markers is often published across a number of studies . To investigate the practicality of this approach , an empirical investigation of a systematic review of  tumour markers for neuroblastoma was performed ; 260 studies of prognostic markers were identified , which considered 130 different markers . The reporting of these studies was often inadequate , in terms of both statistical analysis and presentation , and there was considerable heterogeneity for many important clinical /statistical factors . These problems restricted both the extraction of data and the meta- analysis of results from the primary studies , limiting feasibility of the evidence -based approach . Guidelines for reporting the results of primary prognostic marker studies in cancer , and other diseases , are given in order to facilitate both the interpretation of individual studies and the undertaking of systematic review s , meta- analysis and , ultimately , evidence -based practice . General availability of full individual patient data is a necessary step forward and would overcome the majority of problems encountered , including poorly reported summary statistics and variability in cutoff level , outcome assessed and adjustment factors used . It would also limit the problem of reporting bias , although publication bias will remain a concern until studies are prospect ively registered . Such changes in practice would help important evidence -based review s to be conducted in order to establish the most appropriate prognostic markers for clinical use , which should ultimately improve patient care AIMS To analyse the effect on systematic review s in diabetes interventions of including only trials that are indexed in medline , and to assess the impact of adding trials from other data bases and the grey literature . METHODS All systematic review s of diabetes interventions which included a meta- analysis of r and omized controlled trials , and were published since 1996 , were selected . The impact on the meta- analysis of including only those trials indexed in medline , and the effect of then adding trials from other sources , was assessed . Where possible this was measured quantitatively , by redoing the meta- analysis , otherwise a qualitative estimate was made . RESULTS Forty-four systematic review s met our inclusion criteria . There were 120 articles reporting trial data which were not indexed in medline . These came from 52 % of the review s. In 34 % of the review s , basing a meta- analysis on a search of only medline would miss trials that could affect the result . Sources of non- medline data which had the biggest effect on the meta-analyses were journal articles from central and embase ( mainly in Diabetes , Nutrition and Metabolism ) and unpublished data ( mainly from industry ) . The exceptions were journal articles on herbal medicine , mostly indexed in Chinese language data bases . CONCLUSIONS A search of only the medline data base is insufficient for systematic review s of diabetes , because in about 34 % of review s the missed trials could affect the results of the meta- analysis . It is recommended that central ( on the Cochrane Library ) also be search ed . Scanning meeting abstract s , and seeking unpublished data are also recommended if the intervention has only recently been introduced AIMS Pain and anxiety are commonly reported among those undergoing orthopaedic surgery . Improvement in anxiety and pain control might be achieved by supplementing st and ard care with psychological interventions . However , the effectiveness of adjunctive psychosocial interventions in anxiety and pain control have not been addressed sufficiently by previous systematic review s in orthopaedic surgeries . The present study aim ed to assess the effectiveness of adjunctive psychosocial techniques to improve perioperative clinical care in orthopaedic surgery , to identify the most effective intervention types and to evaluate potential moderators . METHODS We will perform a systematic review and meta- analysis to address the study aims . PubMed , PsycINFO , CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses will be search ed between 1980 and 2015 . Prospect i ve controlled clinical trials completed in adults , contrasting st and ard care and st and ard care supplemented with psychosocial methods  , will be eligible for inclusion . Effectiveness will be assessed through the outcomes of postoperative pain intensity , analgesic requirement , perioperative anxiety , quality of life and postoperative recovery . The results of a r and om-effect meta- analysis will be reported . To aid implementation of best practice , moderating effects of the type and timing of psychosocial intervention , type of surgical intervention and type of anaesthesia will be evaluated through meta-regression . Sensitivity analyses and subgroup contrasts will follow as necessary . DISCUSSION Recommendations will be made to improve medical care in orthopaedic procedures . The quality of evidence will be rated using GRADE criteria . Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons , Introduction Vitamin D has potential benefits for extraskeletal health . These could include an anti-inflammatory effect as well as a reduction in endothelial dysfunction . We aim to provide quality evidence for the hypothesis that supplementation with vitamin D will improve endothelial function ( EF ) , possibly through the abrogation of systemic inflammation . Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of all r and omised controlled trials on  vitamin D supplementation and EF lasting 12 weeks or more . The search will cover the period 2000–2015 and include studies that describe direct measures of EF  , markers of endothelial cell ( EC ) activation  and if concurrently reported , indicators of systemic inflammation  . Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) guidelines and study quality will be assessed by the Jadad score in addition to an evaluation of allocation concealment and data analysis . If sufficient data are available , a meta- analysis will be conducted . The effect sizes will be generated using Hedges ’ g score , for both fixed and r and om effect models . I2 statistics and Galbraith plots will be used to assess heterogeneity and identify their potential sources . Potential publication and small sample size bias will be assessed by visual inspections of funnel plots and also Egger 's test . Meta-regression analysis ( if feasible ) will be conducted with restricted maximum likelihood ( REML ) estimation method , controlling for potential confounders ( demographics , study methods , location , etc ) . A backward elimination process will be applied in the regression modelling procedure . Subgroup analysis , conditional on number of studies retrieved and their sample size , will be stratified on participant disease category , total dose administered , degree of 25(OH)D change and type of supplement used . Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as primary data will not be collected . The results will be disseminated through a peer- review ed publication , conference presentation and the popular press . Trial registration number International Prospect i ve Register for Systematic Review s ( PROSPERO ) number CRD42014013523 Introduction Systematic review er authors intending to include all r and omized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data . Objective The objective of this paper is to provide systematic review er authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of r and omized trials . Methods This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane h and book and published method ological research . The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered ‘ non-adherent to the protocol ’ but for whom data are available , and participants with missing data . Results Systematic review er authors should include data from ‘ non-adherent ’ participants excluded from the primary study authors ' analysis but for whom data are available . For missing , unavailable participant data , authors may conduct a complete case analysis ( excluding those with missing data ) as the primary analysis . Alternatively , they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data . When the primary analysis suggests important benefit , sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis . The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta- analysis . The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events . Conclusions This guide proposes methods for h and ling participants excluded from analyses of r and omized trials . These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta- analysis results OBJECTIVES The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to provide support for people living with dementia in the community . INCLUSION CRITERIA Types of participants Adult caregivers who provide support for people with dementia living in the community ( non-institutional care).Types of interventions Interventions design ed to support caregivers in their role such as skills training , education to assist in caring for a person living with dementia and support groups/programs . Interventions of formal approaches to care design ed to support caregivers in their role , care planning , case management and specially design ated members of the healthcare team - for example dementia nurse specialist or volunteers trained in caring for someone with dementia . Types of studies This review considered any meta-analyses , systematic review s , r and omised control trials , quasi-experimental studies , cohort studies , case control studies and observational studies without control groups that addressed the effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to provide support for people living with dementia in the community . SEARCH STRATEGY The search sought to identify published studies from 2000 to 2005 through the use of electronic data bases . Only studies in English were considered for inclusion . The initial search was conducted of the data bases , CINAHL , MEDLINE and PsychINFO using search strategies adapted from the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group . A second more extensive search was then conducted using the appropriate Medical Subject Headings ( MeSH ) and keywords for other available data bases . Finally , h and search ing of reference lists of articles retrieved and of core dementia , geriatric and psycho geriatric journals was undertaken . ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY Method ological quality of each of the articles was assessed by two independent review ers using appraisal checklist developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and based on the work of the Cochrane Collaboration and Centre for Review s and Dissemination . DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS St and ardised mean differences or weighted mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for each included study reported in the meta- analysis . Results from comparable groups of studies were pooled in statistical meta- analysis using Review Manager Software from the Cochrane Collaboration . Heterogeneity between combined studies was tested using st and ard chi-square test . Where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible , the findings are summarised in narrative form . RESULTS A comprehensive search of relevant data bases , h and search ing and cross referencing found 685 articles that were assessed for relevance to the review . Eighty-five papers appeared to meet the inclusion criteria based on title and abstract , and the full paper was retrieved . Of the 85 full papers review ed , 40 were accepted for inclusion , three were systematic review s , three were meta- analysis , and the remaining 34 were r and omised controlled trials . For the r and omised controlled trials that were able to be included in a meta- analysis , st and ardised mean differences or weighted mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for each . Results from comparable groups of studies were pooled in statistical meta- analysis using Review Manager Software and heterogeneity between combined studies was assessed by using the chi-square test . Where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible , the findings are summarised in narrative form . The results are discussed in two main sections . Firstly it was possible to assess the effectiveness of different types of caregiver interventions on the outcome categories of depression , health , subjective well-being , self-efficacy and burden . Secondly , results are reported by main outcome category . For each of these sections , meta- analysis was conducted where it was possible ; otherwise , a narrative summary describes the findings . EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTION TYPE Four categories of intervention were included in the review - psycho-educational , support , multi-component and other . Psycho-educational Thirteen studies used  psycho-educational interventions  , and all but one showed positive results across a range of outcomes . Eight studies were entered in a meta- analysis . No significant impact of psycho-educational interventions was found for the outcome categories of subjective well-being , self-efficacy or health . However , small but significant results were found for the categories of depression and burden . Support Seven studies discussed support only interventions and two of these showed significant results . These two studies were suitable for meta- analysis and demonstrated a small but significant improvement on caregiver burden . Multi-component Twelve of the studies report multi-component interventions and 10 of these report significant outcomes across a broad range of outcome measures including self-efficacy , depression , subjective well-being and burden . Unfortunately because of the heterogeneity of study design s and outcome measures , no meta- analysis was possible . Other interventions Other interventions included the use of exercise or nutrition which result ed in improvements in psychological distress and health benefits . Case management and a computer aided support intervention provided mixed results . One cognitive behavioural therapy study reported a reduction in anxiety and positive impacts on patient behaviour . EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERVENTIONS USING SPECIFIC OUTCOME CATEGORIES In addition to analysis by type of intervention it was possible to analyse results based on some outcome categories that were used across the studies . In particular the impact of interventions on caregiver depression was available for meta- analysis from eight studies . This indicated that multi-component and psycho-educational interventions showed a small but significant positive effect on caregiver depression . Five studies using the outcome category of caregiver burden  were entered into a meta- analysis and findings indicated that there were no significant effects of any of interventions . No meta- analysis was possible for the outcome categories of health , self-efficacy or subjective well-being . IMPLICATION S FOR PRACTICE From this review there is evidence to support the use of well- design ed psycho-educational or multi-component interventions for caregivers of people with dementia who live in the community . Factors that appear to positively contribute to effective interventions are those which : Factors which do not appear to have benefit in interventions are those which Background Computerized clinical decision support systems are information technology-based systems design ed to improve clinical decision-making . As with any healthcare intervention with cl aims to improve process of care or patient outcomes , decision support systems should be rigorously evaluated before widespread dissemination into clinical practice . Engaging healthcare providers and managers in the review process may facilitate knowledge translation and uptake . The objective of this research was to form a partnership of healthcare providers , managers , and research ers to review r and omized controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized decision support for six clinical application areas : primary preventive care , therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing , drug prescribing , chronic disease management , diagnostic test ordering and interpretation , and acute care management ; and to identify study characteristics that predict benefit . Methods The review was undertaken by the Health Information Research Unit , McMaster University , in partnership with Hamilton Health Sciences , the Hamilton , Niagara , Haldim and , and Brant Local Health Integration Network , and pertinent healthcare service teams . Following agreement on information needs and interests with decision-makers , our earlier systematic review was up date d by search ing Medline , EMBASE , EBM Review data bases , and Inspec , and review ing reference lists through 6 January 2010 . Data extraction items were exp and ed according to input from decision-makers . Authors of primary studies were contacted to confirm data and to provide additional information . Eligible trials were organized according to clinical area of application . We included r and omized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on practitioner performance or patient outcomes of patient care provided with a  computerized clinical decision support system compared with patient care without such a system . Results Data will be summarized using descriptive summary measures , including proportions for categorical variables and means for continuous variables . Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models will be used to investigate associations between outcomes of interest and study specific covariates . When reporting results from individual studies , we will cite the measures of association and p-values reported in the studies . If appropriate for groups of studies with similar features , we will conduct meta-analyses . Conclusion A decision-maker- research er partnership provides a model for systematic review s that may foster knowledge translation and uptake 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 Background To improve quality of care and patient outcomes , health system decision-makers need to identify and implement effective interventions . An increasing number of systematic review s document the effects of quality improvement programs to assist decision-makers in developing new initiatives . However , limitations in the reporting of primary studies and current meta- analysis methods ( including approaches for exploring heterogeneity ) reduce the utility of existing syntheses for health system decision-makers . This study will explore the role of innovative meta- analysis approaches and the added value of enriched and up date d data for increasing the utility of systematic review s of complex interventions . Methods / Design We will use the data set from our recent systematic review of 142 r and omized trials of diabetes quality improvement programs  to evaluate novel approaches for exploring heterogeneity . These will include exploratory methods , such as multivariate meta-regression analyses and all-subsets combinatorial meta- analysis . We will then up date our systematic review to include new trials and enrich the data set by surveying authors of all included trials . In doing so , we will explore the impact of variables not , reported in previous publications , such as details of study context , on the effectiveness of the intervention . We will use innovative analytical methods on the enriched and up date d data set to identify key success factors in the implementation of  quality improvement interventions  for diabetes . Decision-makers will be involved throughout to help identify and prioritize variables to be explored and to aid in the interpretation and dissemination of results . Discussion This study will inform future systematic review s of complex interventions and describe the value of enriching and updating data for exploring heterogeneity in meta- analysis . It will also result in an up date d comprehensive systematic review of diabetes quality improvement interventions that will be useful to health system decision-makers in developing interventions to improve outcomes for people with diabetes . Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. Objectives The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to provide support for people living with dementia in the community . Inclusion criteria Types of participants Adult caregivers who provide support for people with dementia living in the community ( non‐institutional care ) . Types of interventions Interventions design ed to support caregivers in their role such as skills training , education to assist in caring for a person living with dementia and support groups/programs . Interventions of formal approaches to care design ed to support caregivers in their role , care planning , case management and specially design ated members of the healthcare team ‐ for example dementia nurse specialist or volunteers trained in caring for someone with dementia . Types of studies This review considered any meta‐analyses , systematic review s , r and omised control trials , quasi‐experimental studies , cohort studies , case control studies and observational studies without control groups that addressed the effectiveness of interventions that assist caregivers to provide support for people living with dementia in the community . Search strategy The search sought to identify published studies from 2000 to 2005 through the use of electronic data bases . Only studies in English were considered for inclusion . The initial search was conducted of the data bases , CINAHL , MEDLINE and PsychINFO using search strategies adapted from the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group . A second more extensive search was then conducted using the appropriate Medical Subject Headings ( MeSH ) and keywords for other available data bases . Finally , h and search ing of reference lists of articles retrieved and of core dementia , geriatric and psycho geriatric journals was undertaken . Assessment of quality Method ological quality of each of the articles was assessed by two independent review ers using appraisal checklist developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and based on the work of the Cochrane Collaboration and Centre for Review s and Dissemination . Data collection and analysis St and ardised mean differences or weighted mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for each included study reported in the meta‐ analysis . Results from comparable groups of studies were pooled in statistical meta‐ analysis using Review Manager Software from the Cochrane Collaboration . Heterogeneity between combined studies was tested using st and ard chi‐square test . Where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible , the findings are summarised in narrative form . Results A comprehensive search of relevant data bases , h and search ing and cross referencing found 685 articles that were assessed for relevance to the review . Eighty‐five papers appeared to meet the inclusion criteria based on title and abstract , and the full paper was retrieved . Of the 85 full papers review ed , 40 were accepted for inclusion , three were systematic review s , three were meta‐ analysis , and the remaining 34 were r and omised controlled trials . For the r and omised controlled trials that were able to be included in a meta‐ analysis , st and ardised mean differences or weighted mean differences and their 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for each . Results from comparable groups of studies were pooled in statistical meta‐ analysis using Review Manager Software and heterogeneity between combined studies was assessed by using the chi‐square test . Where statistical pooling was not appropriate or possible , the findings are summarised in narrative form . The results are discussed in two main sections . Firstly it was possible to assess the effectiveness of different types of caregiver interventions on the outcome categories of depression , health , subjective well‐being , self‐efficacy and burden . Secondly , results are reported by main outcome category . For each of these sections , meta‐ analysis was conducted where it was possible ; otherwise , a narrative summary describes the findings . Effectiveness of intervention type Four categories of intervention were included in the review ‐ psycho‐educational , support , multi‐component and other . Psycho‐educational Thirteen studies used  psycho‐educational interventions , and all but one showed positive results across a range of outcomes . Eight studies were entered in a meta‐ analysis . No significant impact of psycho‐educational interventions was found for the outcome categories of subjective well‐being , self‐efficacy or health . However , small but significant results were found for the categories of depression and burden . Support Seven studies discussed support only interventions and two of these showed significant results . These two studies were suitable for meta‐ analysis and demonstrated a small but significant improvement on caregiver burden . Multi‐component Twelve of the studies report multi‐component interventions and 10 of these report significant outcomes across a broad range of outcome measures including self‐efficacy , depression , subjective well‐being and burden . Unfortunately because of the heterogeneity of study design s and outcome measures , no meta‐ analysis was possible . Other interventions Other interventions included the use of exercise or nutrition which result ed in improvements in psychological distress and health benefits .  Case management and a computer aided support intervention provided mixed results . One cognitive behavioural therapy study reported a reduction in anxiety and positive impacts on patient behaviour . Effectiveness of interventions using specific outcome categories In addition to analysis by type of intervention it was possible to analyse results based on some outcome categories that were used across the studies . In particular the impact of interventions on  caregiver depression was available for meta‐ analysis from eight studies . This indicated that multi‐component and psycho‐educational interventions showed a small but significant positive effect on caregiver depression . Five studies using the outcome category of caregiver burden  were entered into a meta‐ analysis and findings indicated that there were no significant effects of any of interventions . No meta‐ analysis was possible for the outcome categories of health , self‐efficacy or subjective well‐being . Implication s for practice From this review there is evidence to support the use of well‐ design ed psycho‐educational or multi‐component interventions for caregivers of people with dementia who live in the community . Factors that appear to positively contribute to effective interventions are those which : Provide opportunities within the intervention for the person with dementia as well as the caregiver to be involved Encourage active participation in educational interventions for caregivers Offer individualised programs rather than group sessions Provide information on an ongoing basis , with specific information about services and coaching regarding their new role Target the care recipient particularly by reduction in behaviours Factors which do not appear to have benefit in interventions are those which : Simply refer caregivers to support groups Only provide self help material s Only offer peer PURPOSE Health interventions based on theory may be more effective than those that are not . This review of review s synthesizes all published r and omized controlled trial ( RCT ) meta-analytic evidence from the last decade to examine whether theory-based interventions were found to be associated with more effective  adult health behaviour change interventions . METHODS Systematic review s including meta-analyses were identified by search ing Medline , CINAHL , PsycINFO , and CDSR . A narrative synthesis was used to summarize and analyse the evidence . Only review s including RCTs of health behaviour change interventions with adults aged 18 + published from 2007 to 2017 were included . RESULTS Of 8,659 articles , nine systematic review s met inclusion criteria . The majority of review s ( n = 8) suggested no increased effectiveness for theory-based compared to non-theory-based interventions for effectiveness of outcomes relating to health behaviour . Less than half of the RCTs included in the review s reported the use of theory ( 85/183 ) . Two review s suggested interventions based on control theory , motivational interviewing , or self-determination theory were associated with greater effectiveness for physical activity and /or dietary interventions and outcomes . Method ological and reporting issues limit the conclusions . CONCLUSIONS Theory-based interventions as currently operationalized in systematic review s were not found to be more effective than non-theory-based interventions . Method ological and reporting issues at study and review level may not reflect the true utility of theory use within health behaviour interventions . The promotion of theory use may benefit from using a multifaceted argument , rather than a narrow focus of increased effectiveness . Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject ? Theory use is regularly promoted by cl aim ing that it will lead to more effective behaviour change interventions . Theory use has been frequently linked to effectiveness within systematic review s of behaviour change interventions . The theory-effectiveness hypothesis has not been systematic ally examined at the systematic review level . What does this study add ? Theory use as operationalized by systematic review authors was not associated with increased effectiveness within systematic review s examining r and omized controlled trials of behaviour change interventions in adults . Interventions based on control theory , motivational interviewing , or self-determination theory were associated with greater effectiveness for physical activity and /or dietary interventions and outcomes . Theory use should be promoted using a multifaceted argument , and assertions for increased effectiveness of theory-based interventions should only be used in domains where specific evidence exists to support this cl aim Background The prevalence of overweight and obesity is high amongst healthcare professionals and there is growing interest in delivering weight loss interventions in the workplace . We conducted a systematic review to ( i ) examine the effectiveness of workplace-based diet and /or physical activity interventions aim ed at healthcare professionals and to ( ii ) identify and describe key components of effective interventions . Seven electronic data bases were systematic ally search ed . Results Thirteen r and omised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria , of which seven had data available for meta- analysis . Where meta- analysis was possible , studies were grouped according to length of follow-up ( < 12 months and ≥12 months ) and behavioural target ( diet only , physical activity only or diet and physical activity ) , with outcome data pooled using a weighted r and om effects model . Nine studies reported statistically significant ( between-group ) differences . Four studies reported being informed by a behaviour change theory . Meta- analysis of all trials reporting weight data demonstrated healthcare professionals allocated to dietary and physical activity interventions lost significantly more body weight ( −3.95 Kg , [ 95 % CI −4.96 to- 2.95 Kg ] ) than controls up to 12 months follow up . Conclusions Workplace diet and /or physical activity interventions targeting healthcare professionals are limited in number and are heterogeneous . To improve the evidence base , we recommend additional evaluations of theory-based interventions and adequate reporting of intervention content Background Community pharmacists can deliver health care advice at an opportunistic level , related to prescription or non-prescription medicines and as part of focused services design ed to reduce specific risks to health . Obesity , smoking and excessive alcohol intake are three of the most significant modifiable risk factors for morbidity and mortality in the UK , and interventions led by community pharmacists , aim ed at these three risk factors , have been identified by the government as public health priorities . In 2008 , the Department of Health for Engl and stated that ‘ a sound evidence base that demonstrates how pharmacy delivers effective , high quality and value for money services is needed ’ ; this systematic review aims to respond to this requirement . Methods / design We will search the data bases MEDLINE , Embase , CINAHL , PsycINFO , Social Sciences Citation Index , ASSIA , IBSS , Sociological Abstract s , Scopus and NHS Economic Evaluation Data base for studies that have evaluated interventions based on community pharmacies that aim to target weight management , smoking cessation and alcohol misuse . We will include all r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) , non-r and omised controlled trials ( N RCTs ) , controlled before-after studies ( CBAs ) and interrupted time series ( ITS ) and repeated measures studies . Data from included studies will be extracted by two independent review ers and will include study details methods , results , intervention implementation/costs and method ological quality . Meta- analysis will be conducted if appropriate ; if not , the synthesis will be restricted to a narrative overview of individual studies looking at the same question . Discussion The review aims to summarise the evidence base on the effectiveness of community pharmacy interventions on health and health behaviours in relation to weight management , smoking cessation and alcohol misuse . It will also explore if , and how , socio-economic status , gender , ethnicity and age moderate the effect of the interventions and will describe how the interventions included in the review have been organised , implemented and delivered , since context is an important factor governing the success of public health interventions . The findings from this review will have an impact on the commissioning of public health services aim ing to promote healthy weight , smoking cessation and prevent excessive alcohol consumption . Systematic review registration The review has been registered with PROSPERO ( registration no. CRD42013005943 ) . Available at : http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/ prospero /display_record.asp?ID = CRD42013005943 Background : Significant pain can be experienced after laparoscopic cholecystectomy . This systematic review aims to formulate PROSPECT ( PROcedure SPECific Postoperative Pain ManagemenT ) recommendations to reduce postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy . Methods : R and omised controlled trials published in the English language from January 2006 ( date of last PROSPECT review ) to December 2017 , assessing analgesic , anaesthetic , or operative interventions for laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adults , and reporting pain scores , were retrieved from MEDLINE and Cochrane data bases using PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta‐Analyses ) search protocol s. PROSPECT methodology was used , and recommendations were formulated after review and discussion by the PROSPECT group ( an international group of leading pain specialists and surgeons ) . Results : Of 1988 r and omised controlled trials identified , 258 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review . The studies were of mixed method ological quality , and quantitative analysis was not performed because of heterogeneous study design and how outcomes were reported . Conclusions : We recommend basic analgesic techniques : paracetamol + NSAID or cyclooxygenase‐2 specific inhibitor + surgical site local anaesthetic infiltration . Paracetamol and NSAID should be started before or during operation with dexamethasone ( GRADE A ) . Opioid should be reserved for rescue analgesia only ( GRADE B ) . Gabapentanoids , intraperitoneal local anaesthetic  , and  transversus abdominis plane blocks  are not recommended ( GRADE D ) unless basic analgesia is not possible . Surgically , we recommend low‐pressure pneumoperitoneum , postprocedure saline lavage , and aspiration of pneumoperitoneum ( GRADE A ) . Single‐port incision techniques are not recommended to reduce pain ( GRADE A ) This is the last in a series of four articles Prognostic studies include clinical studies of variables predictive of future events as well as epidemiological studies of aetiological risk factors . As multiple similar studies accumulate it becomes increasingly important to identify and evaluate all of the relevant studies to develop a more reliable overall assessment . For prognostic studies this is not straightforward . Box 1 summarises the clinical importance of information on prognostic factors . Many of the issues discussed are also relevant to aetiological studies , especially cohort ones . Some features of prognostic studies lead to particular difficulties for the systematic review er . Firstly , in most clinical prognostic studies the outcome of primary interest is the time to an event , often death . Meta- analysis of such studies is rather more difficult than that for binary data or continuous measurements . Secondly , in many context s the prognostic variable of interest is often one of several prognostic variables . When examining a variable of interest research ers should consider other prognostic variables with which it might be correlated . Thirdly , many prognostic factors are continuous variables , for which research ers use a wide variety of methods of analysis . # # # # Summary points Systematic review s are applicable to all types of research design , and studies of prognostic variables are an important additional area where appropriate methodology should be applied Prognostic variables should be evaluated in a representative sample of patients assembled at a common point in the course of their disease — ideally they should all have received the same medical treatment or been in a r and omised trial When examined critically , a high proportion of prognostic studies are found to be method ologically poor Meta- analysis of published data is hampered by difficulties in extraction of data and variation in the characteristics of the study and patients The poor quality of the published literature is a strong argument in favour Background Fever and  neutropenia ( FN ) is a common complication of chemotherapy for cancer . Prompt empiric broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy in FN is typically considered st and ard of care , but the definition of prompt is not clear . We seek to systematic ally review the available data on the association between time to antibiotics ( TTA ) administration and clinical outcomes in patients with FN being treated with chemotherapy .  There have been several efforts to reduce TTA in patients with FN , by implementing specific interventions , presuming there will be a beneficial effect on patient-important outcomes . This systematic review will also collect data on such interventions and their effect to reduce TTA and potentially change clinical outcomes . Methods / design The search will cover MEDLINE , MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations , EMBASE , CINAHL , CDSR , CENTRAL , and LILACS . A full- search strategy is provided . Lists of studies identified by references cited and forward citation search ing of included articles will also be review ed . Studies will be screened , and data extracted by one research er and independently checked by a second . Confounding biases and quality of studies will be assessed with the risk of bias in non-r and omised studies -of interventions ( ROBINS-I ) tool . Data will be presented in narrative and tabular forms ; in addition , if appropriate data is available , r and om effects meta- analysis will be used to examine TTA.A detailed analysis plan , including an assessment of heterogeneity and publication bias , is provided . Discussion This study aims to evaluate the association between TTA and patient-important clinical outcomes . Additionally , it will identify , critically appraise , and synthesis e information on performed interventions and its effect to reduce TTA as a way of gaining insight into the potential use of these approaches . This will provide better knowledge for an adjusted treatment approach of FN . Systematic review registration PROSPERO [ CRD42018092948 Background Being a family carer to a patient nearing the end of their life is a challenging and confronting experience . Studies show that caregiving can have negative consequences on the health of family carers including fatigue , sleep problems , depression , anxiety and burnout . One of the goals of palliative care is to provide psychosocial support to patients and families facing terminal illness . A systematic review of interventions for family carers of cancer and palliative care patients conducted at the start of this millennium demonstrated that there was a dearth of rigorous inquiry on this topic and consequently limited knowledge regarding the types of interventions likely to be effective in meeting the complex needs of family carers . We wanted to discern whether or not the evidence base to support family carers has improved . Furthermore , undertaking this review was acknowledged as one of the priorities for the International Palliative Care Family Carer Research Collaboration http://www.centreforpallcare.org . Methods A systematic review was undertaken in order to identify developments in family carer support that have occurred over the last decade . The focus of the review was on interventions that targeted improvements in the psychosocial support of family carers of palliative care patients . Studies were grade d to assess their quality . Results A total of fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria . The focus of interventions included  psycho-education , psychosocial support , carer coping , symptom management , sleep promotion and family meetings .  Five studies were r and omised controlled trials , three of which met the criteria for the highest quality evidence . There were two prospect i ve studies , five pre-test/post-test projects and two qualitative studies . Conclusions The systematic review identified a slight increase in the quality and quantity of psychosocial interventions conducted for family carers in the last decade . More rigorous intervention research is required in order to meet the supportive care needs of family carers of palliative care patients Introduction The extraskeletal role of vitamin D is being increasingly recognised . This has important clinical implication s , as vitamin D deficiency has reached epidemic proportions worldwide . Vitamin D has proposed anti-inflammatory properties , yet the role of vitamin D supplementation in reducing inflammation remains largely unknown . The purpose of this review is to investigate the impact of vitamin D supplementation on inflammation , and to identify relevant knowledge gaps in the field . Methods and analysis Medline , CINAHL , EMBASE and All EBM will be systematic ally search ed for r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) and systematic review s of RCTs , comparing vitamin D supplementation with placebo , usual care or other pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions . One review er will assess articles for eligibility according to prespecified selection criteria , after which 2 independent review ers will perform data extraction and quality appraisal . Meta-analyses will be conducted where appropriate . Ethics and dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data is collected . This systematic review will identify potential clinical implication s of vitamin D deficiency and supplementation , and will be disseminated through a peer- review ed publication and at conference meetings , to inform future research on the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation for inflammation and inflammatory diseases . PROSPERO registration number CRD42016037104 Background Experimenter ’s allegiance ( EA ) refers to a personal confidence of the superiority of a specific psychotherapy treatment . This factor has been linked with larger treatment effects in favor of the preferred treatment . However , various studies have displayed contradictory results between EA and the pattern of treatment effects . Aims Using a systematic approach followed by meta- analysis , we aim ed to evaluate the impact of an allegiance effect on the results of psychotherapeutic studies . Method We considered the meta-analyses of r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) of different types of psychotherapies in the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s. Eligible articles included meta-analyses of RCTs with at least one study showing evidence of EA ( i.e. , allegiant study ) . Effect sizes in allegiant RCTs were compared with non-allegiant using r and om and fixed models and a summary relative odds ratio ( ROR ) were calculated . Heterogeneity was quantified with the I2 metric . Results A total of 30 meta-analyses including 240 RCTs were analyzed . The summary ROR was 1.31 [ ( 95 % confidence interval ( CI : 1.03–1.66 ) P = 0.30 , I2 = 53 % ] indicating larger effects when allegiance exists . The impact of allegiance did not differ significantly ( P > 0.05 ) when we compared psychiatric versus medical outcomes . Allegiance effect was significant for all forms of psychotherapy except for cognitive behavioral therapy . Moreover , the impact of allegiance was significant only when the treatment integrity of delivered psychotherapy was not assessed . Allegiance effect was even stronger where the experimenter was also both the developer of the preferred treatment and supervised or trained the therapists . No significant differences were found between allegiant and non-allegiant studies in terms of overall quality of studies . Conclusions Experimenter ’s allegiance influences the effect sizes of psychotherapy RCTs and can be considered non-financial conflict of interest introducing a form of optimism bias , especially since blinding is problematic in this kind of research . A clear reporting of EA in every single study should be given an opportunity to investigators of minimizing its overestimation effects Objective To examine the prevalence of outcome reporting bias — the selection for publication of a subset of the original recorded outcome variables on the basis of the results — and its impact on Cochrane review s. Design A nine point classification system for missing outcome data in r and omised trials was developed and applied to the trials assessed in a large , unselected cohort of Cochrane systematic review s. Research ers who conducted the trials were contacted and the reason sought for the non-reporting of data . A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of outcome reporting bias on review s that included a single meta- analysis of the review primary outcome . Results More than half ( 157/283 ( 55 % ) ) the review s did not include full data for the review primary outcome of interest from all eligible trials . The median amount of review outcome data missing for any reason was 10 % , whereas 50 % or more of the potential data were missing in 70 ( 25 % ) review s. It was clear from the publications for 155 ( 6 % ) of the 2486 assessable trials that the research ers had measured and analysed the review primary outcome but did not report or only partially reported the results . For reports that did not mention the review primary outcome , our classification regarding the presence of outcome reporting bias was shown to have a sensitivity of 88 % ( 95 % CI 65 % to 100 % ) and specificity of 80 % ( 95 % CI 69 % to 90 % ) on the basis of responses from 62 trialists . A third of Cochrane review s ( 96/283 ( 34 % ) ) contained at least one trial with high suspicion of outcome reporting bias for the review primary outcome . In a sensitivity analysis undertaken for 81 review s with a single meta- analysis of the primary outcome of interest , the treatment effect estimate was reduced by 20 % or more in 19 ( 23 % ) . Of the 42 meta-analyses with a statistically significant result only , eight ( 19 % ) became non-significant after adjustment for outcome reporting bias and 11 ( 26 % ) would have overestimated the treatment effect by 20 % or more . Conclusions Outcome reporting bias is an under-recognised problem that affects the conclusions in a substantial proportion of Cochrane review s. Individuals conducting systematic review s need to address explicitly the issue of missing outcome data for their review to be considered a reliable source of evidence . Extra care is required during data extraction , review ers should identify when a trial reports that an outcome was measured but no results were reported or events observed , and contact with trialists should be encouraged
Less frequently reported were quality of life , patient satisfaction , self-care , and healthcare utilization .
Most care management modalities were carved out from primary care .
Conclusions Most care management programs for patients with type 2 diabetes are ' carved-out ' , accomplish limited effects on metabolic outcomes , and have unknown effects on patient important outcomes .
Background This systematic review and meta- analysis aims at assessing the composition and performance of care management models evaluated in the last decade and their impact on patient important outcomes .