The views of European clinicians on guidelines for long-term follow-up of childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND Evidence-based guidelines are needed to guide effective long-term follow-up (LTFU) of childhood cancer survivors (CCS) at risk of late adverse effects (LAEs). We aimed to ascertain the use of LTFU guidelines throughout Europe, and seek views on the need for pan-European LTFU guidelines. PROCEDURES One expert clinician from each of 44 European countries was invited to participate in an online survey. Information was sought regarding the use and content of LTFU guidelines in the respondent's centre and country, and their views about developing pan-European LTFU guidelines. RESULTS Thirty-one countries (70%) responded, including 24 of 26 full EU countries (92%). LTFU guidelines were implemented nationally in 17 countries (55%). All guidelines included recommendations about physical LAEs, specific risk groups and frequency of surveillance, and the majority about psychosocial LAEs (70%), and healthy lifestyle promotion (65%). A minority of guidelines described recommendations about transition to age-appropriate LTFU services (22%), where LTFU should be performed (22%) and by whom (30%). Most respondents (94%) agreed on the need for pan-European LTFU guidelines, specifically including recommendations about surveillance for specific physical LAEs (97%), action to be taken if a specific LAE is detected (90%), minimum requirements for LTFU (93%), transition and health promotion (both 87%). CONCLUSIONS Guidelines are not universally used throughout Europe. However, there is strong support for developing pan-European LTFU guidelines for CCS. PanCareSurFup (www.pancare.eu) will collaborate with partners to develop such guidelines, including recommendations for hitherto relatively neglected topics, such as minimum LTFU requirements, transition and health promotion.

Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines?

BACKGROUND PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines. METHODS Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated. RESULTS Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35). CONCLUSIONS Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens’ needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public’s health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

Cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: a systematic review focusing on guidelines, indications, and radiation dose risks.

PURPOSE The aim of the paper is to identify, review, analyze, and summarize available evidence in three areas on the use of cross-sectional imaging, specifically maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in pre- and postoperative dental implant therapy: (1) Available clinical use guidelines, (2) indications and contraindications for use, and (3) assessment of associated radiation dose risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS Three focused questions were developed to address the aims. A systematic literature review was performed using a PICO-based search strategy based on MeSH key words specific to each focused question of English-language publications indexed in the MEDLINE database retrospectively from October 31, 2012. These results were supplemented by a hand search and gray literature search. RESULTS Twelve publications were identified providing guidelines for the use of cross-sectional radiography, particularly CBCT imaging, for the pre- and/or postoperative assessment of potential dental implant sites. The publications discovered by the PICO strategy (43 articles), hand (12), and gray literature searches (1) for the second focus question regarding indications and contraindications for CBCT use in implant dentistry were either cohort or case-controlled studies. For the third question on the assessment of associated radiation dose risk, a total of 22 articles were included. Publication characteristics and themes were summarized in tabular format. CONCLUSIONS The reported indications for CBCT use in implant dentistry vary from preoperative analysis regarding specific anatomic considerations, site development using grafts, and computer-assisted treatment planning to postoperative evaluation focusing on complications due to damage of neurovascular structures. Effective doses for different CBCT devices exhibit a wide range with the lowest dose being almost 100 times less than the highest dose. Significant dose reduction can be achieved by adjusting operating parameters, including exposure factors and reducing the field of view (FOV) to the actual region of interest.

Management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction according to European and American guidelines.

AIMS To highlight differences between the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) on the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS ESC 2012 and ACCF/AHA 2013 guidelines on the management of STEMI were systematically reviewed for consistency. Recommendations were matched, directly compared in terms of class of recommendation and level of evidence, and classified as "identical", "overlapping", or "different". Out of 32 recommendations compared, 26 recommendations (81%) were classified as identical or overlapping, and six recommendations (19%) were classified as different. Most diverging recommendations were related to minor differences in class of recommendation between the two documents. This applies to recommendations for reperfusion therapy >12 hours after symptom onset, immediate transfer of all patients after fibrinolytic therapy, rescue PCI for patients with failed fibrinolysis, and intra-aortic balloon pump use in patients with cardiogenic shock. More substantial differences were observed with respect to the type of P2Y12 inhibitor and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS The majority of recommendations for the management of STEMI according to ESC and ACCF/AHA guidelines were identical or overlapping. Differences were explained by gaps in available evidence, in which case expert consensus differed between European and American guidelines due to divergence in interpretation, perception, and culture of medical practice. Systematic comparisons of European and American guidelines are valuable and indicate that interpretation of available evidence leads to agreement in the vast majority of topics. The latter is indirect support for the process of review and guideline preparation on both sides of the Atlantic.