Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2018
ReviewEliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.
Analysis of drug safety in clinical trials involves assessing adverse events (AEs) individually or by aggregate statistical synthesis to provide evidence of likely adverse drug reactions (ADR). While some AEs may be ascertained from physical examinations or tests, there is great reliance on reports from participants to detect subjective symptoms, where he/she is often the only source of information. There is no consensus on how these reports should be elicited, although it is known that questioning methods influence the extent and nature of data detected. This leaves room for measurement error and undermines comparisons between studies and pooled analyses. This review investigated comparisons of methods used in trials to elicit participant-reported AEs. This should contribute to knowledge about the methodological challenges and possible solutions for achieving better, or more consistent, AE ascertainment in trials. ⋯ This review supports concerns that methods to elicit participant-reported AEs influence the detection of these data. There was a risk for under-detection of AEs in studies using a more general elicitation method compared to those using a comprehensive method. These AEs may be important from a clinical perspective or for patients. This under-detection could compromise ability to pool AE data. However, the impact on the nature of the AE detected by different methods is unclear. The wide variety and low quality of methods to compare elicitation strategies limited this review. Future studies would be improved by using and reporting clear definitions and terminology for AEs (and other important variables), frequency and time period over which they were ascertained, how they were graded, assessed for a relationship to the study drug, coded, and tabulated/reported. While the many potential AE endpoints in a trial may preclude the development of general AE patient-reported outcome measurement instruments, much could also be learnt from how these employ both quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand data elicited. Any chosen questioning method needs to be feasible for use by both staff and participants.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2018
ReviewEndoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.
Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear. ⋯ While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2018
ReviewEndoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.
Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear. ⋯ While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2018
Review Meta AnalysisInterventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening.
Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels. ⋯ The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Jan 2018
Review Meta AnalysisInterventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening.
Despite evidence supporting the effectiveness of diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) in reducing the risk of sight loss, attendance for screening is consistently below recommended levels. ⋯ The results of this review provide evidence that QI interventions targeting patients, healthcare professionals or the healthcare system are associated with meaningful improvements in DRS attendance compared to usual care. There was no statistically significant difference between interventions specifically aimed at DRS and those which were part of a general QI strategy for improving diabetes care. This is a significant finding, due to the additional benefits of general QI interventions in terms of improving glycaemic control, vascular risk management and screening for other microvascular complications. It is likely that further (but smaller) improvements in DRS attendance can also be achieved by increasing the intensity of a particular QI component or adding further components.