Outcome Measures in Glaucoma:A Systematic Review of Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

In clinical trials, the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial for the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Selection of inappropriate outcomes can compromise the utility of a trial. However, the process of selecting the most suitable outcomes to include can be complex. Ideally, glaucoma trials aim to evaluate important outcomes for clinicians and patients. A high variability in the selection of outcomes suggests that there is no consensus on how best to evaluate the effect of glaucoma interventions. Further, it makes evidence synthesis difficult. The purpose of this review is to determine the extent of clinical outcome measures used in published glaucoma Cochrane Reviews and Protocols.

How much do you need: a randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane Reviews, without reading the full review?

Objective: We explored whether readers can understand key messages without having to read the full review, and if there were differences in understanding between various types of summary.
Design: A randomised experiment of review summaries which compared understanding of a key outcome.
Participants: Members of university staff (n = 36).
Setting: Universities on the island of Ireland.
Method: The Cochrane Review chosen examines the health impacts of the use of electric fans during heat waves. Participants were asked their expectation of the effect these would have on mortality. They were then randomly assigned a summary of the review (i.e. abstract, plain language summary, podcast or podcast transcription) and asked to spend a short time reading/listening to the summary. After this they were again asked about the effects of electric fans on mortality and to indicate if they would want to read the full Review.
Main outcome measure: Correct identification of a key review outcome.
Results: Just over half (53%) of the participants identified its key message on mortality after engaging with their summary. The figures were 33% for the abstract group, 50% for both the plain language and transcript groups and 78% for the podcast group.
Conclusions: The differences between the groups were not statistically significant but suggest that the audio summary might improve knowledge transfer compared to written summaries. These findings should be explored further using a larger sample size and with other reviews.

Towards core outcome set (COS) development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND: A core outcome set (COS) can address problems of outcome heterogeneity and outcome reporting bias in trials and systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews, helping to reduce waste. One of the aims of the international Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative is to link the development and use of COS with the outcomes specified and reported in Cochrane reviews, including the outcomes listed in the summary of findings (SoF) tables. As part of this work, an earlier exploratory survey of the outcomes of newly published 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews was performed. This survey examined the use of COS, the variety of specified outcomes, and outcome reporting in Cochrane reviews by Cochrane Review Group (CRG). To examine changes over time and to explore outcomes that were repeatedly specified over time in Cochrane reviews by CRG, we conducted a follow-up survey of outcomes in 2013 Cochrane reviews.

METHODS: A descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews that were first published in 2013. Outcomes specified in the methods sections and reported in the results section of the Cochrane reviews were examined by CRG. We also explored the uptake of SoF tables, the number of outcomes included in these, and the quality of the evidence for the outcomes.

RESULTS: Across the 50 CRGs, 375 Cochrane reviews that included at least one study specified a total of 3142 outcomes. Of these outcomes, 32 % (1008) were not reported in the results section of these reviews. For 23 % (233) of these non-reported outcomes, we did not find any reason in the text of the review for this non-report. Fifty-seven percent (216/375) of reviews included a SoF table.

CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of specified outcomes that were reported in Cochrane reviews had increased in 2013 (68 %) compared to 2007 (61 %) and 2011 (65 %). Importantly, 2013 Cochrane reviews that did not report specified outcomes were twice as likely to provide an explanation for why the outcome was not reported. There has been an increased uptake of SoF tables in Cochrane reviews. Outcomes that were repeatedly specified in Cochrane reviews by CRG in 2007, 2011, and 2013 may assist COS development.

Survey of new 2007 and 2011 Cochrane reviews found 37% of prespecified outcomes not reported

OBJECTIVES: To survey the outcomes used in Cochrane Reviews, as part of our work within the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive survey of Cochrane Reviews, divided by Cochrane Review Group (CRG), published in full for the first time in 2007 and 2011. Outcomes specified in the methods section of each review and outcomes reported in the results section of each review were of interest, in this exploration of the common use of outcomes and core outcome sets (COS).

RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty-eight reviews, specifying 6,127 outcomes, were included. When we excluded specified outcomes from the 86 reviews that did not include any studies, we found that 1,996 (37%) specified outcomes were not reported. Of the 361 new reviews with studies from 2011, 113 (31%) had a "summary of findings" table (SoF). Fifteen broad outcome categories were identified and used to manage the outcome data. We found consistency in the use of these categories across CRGs but inconsistency in outcomes within these categories.

CONCLUSION: COS have been used rarely in Cochrane Reviews, but the introduction of SoF makes the development and application of COS timelier than ever.

Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND: This empirical study analyzes the current status of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and their strength of recommendation for evidence-based decision making in the field of general surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration's homepage to identify available CRs on surgical topics. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics, utilization, and formulated treatment recommendations were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Association of review characteristics with treatment recommendation was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-three CRs, including 1,403 primary studies and 246,473 patients, were identified. Mean number of included primary studies per CR was 15.1 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) including 2,650 (SD 3,340) study patients. Two and a half (SD 8.3) nonrandomized trials were included per analyzed CR. Seventy-two (77%) CRs were published or updated in 2005 or later. Explicit treatment recommendations were given in 45 (48%). Presence of a treatment recommendation was associated with the number of included primary studies and the proportion of randomized studies. Utilization of surgical CRs remained low and showed large inter-country differences. The most surgical CRs were accessed in UK, USA, and Australia, followed by several Western and Eastern European countries. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of available CRs address surgical questions and their current usage is low. Instead of unsystematically increasing the number of surgical CRs it would be far more efficient to focus the review process on relevant surgical questions. Prioritization of CRs needs valid methods which should be developed by the scientific surgical community.

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.

Outcome Measures in Glaucoma : a systematic review of Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

Peer reviewed

Outcome Measures in Glaucoma : a systematic review of Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

Peer reviewed

Outcome Measures in Glaucoma : a systematic review of Cochrane Reviews and Protocols

Peer reviewed

Do Cochrane summaries help student midwives understand the findings of Cochrane systematic reviews: the BRIEF randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Abstracts and plain language summaries (PLS) are often the first, and sometimes the only, point of contact between readers and systematic reviews. It is important to identify how these summaries are used and to know the impact of different elements, including the authors' conclusions. The trial aims to assess whether (a) the abstract or the PLS of a Cochrane Review is a better aid for midwifery students in assessing the evidence, (b) inclusion of authors' conclusions helps them and (c) there is an interaction between the type of summary and the presence or absence of the conclusions.

METHODS: Eight hundred thirteen midwifery students from nine universities in the UK and Ireland were recruited to this 2 × 2 factorial trial (abstract versus PLS, conclusions versus no conclusions). They were randomly allocated to one of four groups and asked to recall knowledge after reading one of four summary formats of two Cochrane Reviews, one with clear findings and one with uncertain findings. The primary outcome was the proportion of students who identified the appropriate statement to describe the main findings of the two reviews as assessed by an expert panel.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in correct response between the abstract and PLS groups in the clear finding example (abstract, 59.6 %; PLS, 64.2 %; risk difference 4.6 %; CI -0.2 to 11.3) or the uncertain finding example (42.7 %, 39.3 %, -3.4 %, -10.1 to 3.4). There was no significant difference between the conclusion and no conclusion groups in the example with clear findings (conclusions, 63.3 %; no conclusions, 60.5 %; 2.8 %; -3.9 to 9.5), but there was a significant difference in the example with uncertain findings (44.7 %; 37.3 %; 7.3 %; 0.6 to 14.1, p = 0.03). PLS without conclusions in the uncertain finding review had the lowest proportion of correct responses (32.5 %). Prior knowledge and belief predicted student response to the clear finding review, while years of midwifery education predicted response to the uncertain finding review.

CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts with and without conclusions generated similar student responses. PLS with conclusions gave similar results to abstracts with and without conclusions. Removing the conclusions from a PLS with uncertain findings led to more problems with interpretation.