Cochrane review summary for cancer nursing : influenza vaccination in children having chemotherapy for cancer

Background: Children having chemotherapy for cancer are prone to developing influenza infections. Influenza virus infection may lead to hospitalization/prolonged hospitalization, interruption of treatment, and other severe adverse outcomes such as death. Although clinical guidelines recommend children who are being treated for cancer be vaccinated against influenza, evidence supporting this recommendation is unclear.--------- Objectives: The objectives of this review were to (1) assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in stimulating immunologic response in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy, compared with other control groups; (2) assess the efficacy of influenza vaccination in preventing influenza infection; and (3) establish any adverse effects associated with influenza vaccines in children with cancer.

Cochrane review summary for cancer nursing : drug therapy for cancer-related fatigue

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of themost debilitating symptoms in patients with cancer. It is prevalent at the time of diagnosis and during and after antineoplastic treatment and in patients with advanced disease. The multifactorial and complex nature of CRF makes it challenging for health professionals to identify a clear underlying mechanism and manage this symptom effectively. Often, the management plan for CRF (whether pharmacological or nonpharmacological) can be further complicated by the coexistence of other symptoms. This systematic review1 is therefore important in informing health professionals on the effectiveness of pharmacological management for CRF.

Which components of heart failure programs are effective? A meta-analysis of the outcomes of structured telephone support or telemonitoring as the primary component of heart failure management in 9,560 patients (Abridged Cochrane Review)

Aims--Telemonitoring (TM) and structured telephone support (STS) have the potential to deliver specialised management to more patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), but their efficacy is still to be proven. Objectives To review randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of TM or STS on all- cause mortality and all-cause and CHF-related hospitalisations in patients with CHF, as a non-invasive remote model of specialised disease-management intervention.--Methods and Results--Data sources:We searched 15 electronic databases and hand-searched bibliographies of relevant studies, systematic reviews, and meeting abstracts. Two reviewers independently extracted all data. Study eligibility and participants: We included any randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing TM or STS to usual care of patients with CHF. Studies that included intensified management with additional home or clinic visits were excluded. Synthesis: Primary outcomes (mortality and hospitalisations) were analysed; secondary outcomes (cost, length of stay, quality of life) were tabulated.--Results: Thirty RCTs of STS and TM were identified (25 peer-reviewed publications (n=8,323) and five abstracts (n=1,482)). Of the 25 peer-reviewed studies, 11 evaluated TM (2,710 participants), 16 evaluated STS (5,613 participants) and two tested both interventions. TM reduced all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR 0•66 [95% CI 0•54-0•81], p<0•0001) and STS showed similar trends (RR 0•88 [95% CI 0•76-1•01], p=0•08). Both TM (RR 0•79 [95% CI 0•67-0•94], p=0•008) and STS (RR 0•77 [95% CI 0•68-0•87], p<0•0001) reduced CHF-related hospitalisations. Both interventions improved quality of life, reduced costs, and were acceptable to patients. Improvements in prescribing, patient-knowledge and self-care, and functional class were observed.--Conclusion: TM and STS both appear effective interventions to improve outcomes in patients with CHF.

A Cochrane review on the effects of end-of-life care pathways : do they improve patient outcomes?

Clinical pathways for end-of-life care management are used widely around the world and have been regarded as the gold standard. The aim of this review was to assess the effects of end-of-life care pathways (EOLCP), compared with usual care (no pathway) or with care guided by a different end-of-life care pathway, across all healthcare settings (e.g. hospitals, residential aged care facilities, community). We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Review group specialised register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, review articles and reference lists of relevant articles. The search was carried out in September 2009. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised trials or high quality controlled before and after studies comparing use versus non-use of an EOLCP in caring for the dying were considered for inclusion. The search identified 920 potentially relevant titles, but no studies met criteria for inclusion in the review. Without further available evidence, recommendations for the use of end-of-life pathways in caring for the dying cannot be made. There are now recent concerns regarding the big scale roll-out of EOLCP despite the lack of evidence, nurses should report any safety concerns or adverse effects associated with such pathways.

Two decades of exceptional achievements : does the evidence support nurses to favour Cochrane systematic reviews over other systematic reviews?

Systematic reviews (SRs) are increasingly recognised as the standard approach in summarising health research and influence clinical nursing practice and health care decisions (Coster and Norman, 2009, Grimshaw and Russell, 1993 and Griffiths and Norman, 2005). High quality SRs should have a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies; an explicit reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies; the assessment of risk of bias; and a systematic presentation and synthesis of the characteristics of findings of the included study (Higgins and Green, 2011). Although SRs are highly regarded and are expected to be rigorous, just as other research, their quality may vary (Choi et al., 2001 and Hoving et al., 2001)...

Managing the production of a Cochrane systematic review

Undertaking a Cochrane systematic review can be an incredibly rewarding experience. It is however a challenging and time-consuming task. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions1 provides an essential resource to help reviewers navigate the often complex methodological issues of systematic review research. Additional guidelines have been developed for those undertaking reviews of public health topics,2 and Cochrane Centres throughout the world offer invaluable training opportunities. This emphasis on training and methodological rigour has helped Cochrane reviews become one of the most respected sources of synthesized research available. Even with the assistance available, however, many authors with good intentions register titles and prepare protocols but fail to publish the completed review. Data extracted from Cochrane’s Information Management System (Archie) in June 2010 showed that there were 1,301 titles registered more than two years ago that have not been published as a full review.3 Of these registered titles, 697 have had protocols published (25 are no longer active) while 604 have not even progressed to this stage (154 are no longer active). There are also 146 protocols that have been published for more than two years without being converted into completed reviews. These registered titles and protocols that have not yet progressed to a completed review represent a significant amount of time and energy invested by review authors, Cochrane editorial staff and, in some cases, external referees...

Community interventions for physical activity : the role of a new Cochrane systematic review

Introduction: Systematic reviews are essential in summarising the results of a range of research studies on a specific topic into a single report. They serve as a key source of evidence-based information to support and develop policy and practice for healthy communities. This presentation will examine a new review of community-wide strategies to increase population levels of physical activity and compare it to an earlier Community Guide Review (CGR) of Community-wide campaigns to increase physical activity which recommended community wide interventions. Methods: We registered a Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) title, published a protocol and recently completed the review of Community-wide interventions to increase physical activity. We compared the definitions, design and findings of the CSR to the CGR. Results: The two reviews differed remarkably in their conclusions with the CGR recommending “strong evidence exists that community-wide campaigns are effective in increasing levels of physical activity”, and the new CSR stating “The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that multi-component community wide interventions effectively increase population levels of physical activity”. We observed that both reviews examined multi-component interventions as a “combined package”. Possible explanations for the different conclusions may be due to the definition of community (CSR defined community as “comprising those persons residing in a geographically defined community, such as a village, town, or city”, excluding interventions which were whole of state or country, and CGR as “a group of individuals who share one or more characteristics. The CSR utilised a logic model at various stages of the review process and explicitly defined a combination of strategies encompassed within the intervention. The CSR included 25 and CGR 10 studies, respectively. Six of the 10 studies that were included in CGR were excluded from the CSR due to issues relating to study design, intervention definition or duration. The two reviews also differ in function as the CSR seeks to summarise global evidence and included 7 studies in low-income countries, where as the CGR contained only studies deemed relevant to the USA context. Discussion: Differences in the findings between older and newer reviews can be due to a variety of factors. For example, in updating a review the definition of an intervention can be changed. Further, differences may also be due to improvements in the standards and methodologies for systematic reviews as well as the inclusion of newer studies. These factors need to be understood whenever differences between newer and older reviews are considered.

Text mining for screening efficiency? Testing within a Cochrane public health review

Background The requirement for dual screening of titles and abstracts to select papers to examine in full text can create a huge workload, not least when the topic is complex and a broad search strategy is required, resulting in a large number of results. An automated system to reduce this burden, while still assuring high accuracy, has the potential to provide huge efficiency savings within the review process. Objectives To undertake a direct comparison of manual screening with a semi‐automated process (priority screening) using a machine classifier. The research is being carried out as part of the current update of a population‐level public health review. Methods Authors have hand selected studies for the review update, in duplicate, using the standard Cochrane Handbook methodology. A retrospective analysis, simulating a quasi‐‘active learning’ process (whereby a classifier is repeatedly trained based on ‘manually’ labelled data) will be completed, using different starting parameters. Tests will be carried out to see how far different training sets, and the size of the training set, affect the classification performance; i.e. what percentage of papers would need to be manually screened to locate 100% of those papers included as a result of the traditional manual method. Results From a search retrieval set of 9555 papers, authors excluded 9494 papers at title/abstract and 52 at full text, leaving 9 papers for inclusion in the review update. The ability of the machine classifier to reduce the percentage of papers that need to be manually screened to identify all the included studies, under different training conditions, will be reported. Conclusions The findings of this study will be presented along with an estimate of any efficiency gains for the author team if the screening process can be semi‐automated using text mining methodology, along with a discussion of the implications for text mining in screening papers within complex health reviews.

Informing methods for preparing public health overviews of reviews: a comparison of public health overviews with Cochrane Overviews published between 1999 and 2014

Background: Overviews of systematic reviews (SRs) are useful for public health policy; however there is an absence of Cochrane Overviews covering public health (PH) topics. Objectives: We sought to analyze the methodological approaches used in existing Cochrane Overviews and Protocols for overviews (primarily clinical in nature), and compare these to the methods and approaches used in PH overviews (non-Cochrane). The intent was to identify issues that would be relevant for undertaking Cochrane overviews. Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of overviews published between 1999 and 2014. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for Cochrane Protocols for overviews and Cochrane Overviews, and the HealthEvidence.org for PH overviews. The primary characteristics of the overviews and elements of the methodology were extracted and compared. Results: A total of 61 overviews of SRs were included in our analysis; specifically, this included 21 Cochrane Protocols for overviews, 15 Cochrane Overviews, and 27 non-Cochrane PH overviews. Amongst the overviews, the most significant differences are that PH overviews (non-Cochrane) tend to: include earlier and more reviews, greater number of participants, allow lower levels of evidence, use assessment tools other than AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, i.e. a tool for assessing quality of SRs), not assess quality of evidence in reviews, search more databases overall, specify search limits including English-only reviews, and not consider recent primary studies for inclusion. Some of these differences clearly related to quality, however many relate to the nuances of PH interventions. Conclusions: The methodology in Cochrane overviews and PH overviews varies widely. Future PH overviews may benefit from the Cochrane methodology but the Cochrane approach requires modification to accommodate PH research methodology. Additionally, the use of databases that pre-screen and quality assess relevant PH systematic reviews may help expedite the search process.

Cochrane review: Whole-body cryotherapy (extreme cold air exposure) for preventing and treating muscle soreness after exercise in adults

Delayed-onset muscle soreness, or ‘DOMS’, affects many people after exercise and can impair future performance. It usually peaks one to four days after exercise and several strategies are used to overcome it. The effectiveness and safety of many of these strategies applied and promoted is unknown.

Missionary survey as an aid to intelligent co-operation in foreign missions, by Roland Allen, and Thomas Cochrane.

http://www.archive.org/details/missionarysurvey13360gut