Explore the vast range of titles available.

Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40–89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies—animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.

Concern about long waiting times for elective surgeries is not a recent phenomenon, but it has been heightened by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated measures. One way to alleviate the problem might be to use prioritisation methods for patients on the waiting list and a wide range of research is available on such methods. However, significant variations and inconsistencies have been reported in prioritisation protocols from various specialties, institutions, and health systems. To bridge the evidence gap in existing literature, this comprehensive systematic review will synthesise global evidence on policy strategies with a unique insight to patient prioritisation methods to reduce waiting times for elective surgeries. This will provide evidence that might help with the tremendous burden of surgical disease that is now apparent in many countries because of operations that were delayed or cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic and inform policy for sustainable healthcare management systems. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, with our most recent searches in January 2020. Articles published after 2013 on major elective surgery lists of adult patients were eligible, but cancer and cancer-related surgeries were excluded. Both randomised and non-randomised studies were eligible and the quality of studies was assessed with ROBINS-I and CASP tools. We registered the review in PROSPERO (CRD42019158455) and reported it in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The electronic search in five bibliographic databases yielded 7543 records (PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane) and 17 eligible articles were identified in the screening. There were four quasi-experimental studies, 11 observational studies and two systematic reviews. These demonstrated moderate to low risk of bias in their research methods. Three studies tested generic approaches using common prioritisation systems for all elective surgeries in common. The other studies assessed specific prioritisation approaches for re-ordering the waiting list for a particular surgical specialty. Explicit prioritisation tools with a standardised scoring system based on clear evidence-based criteria are likely to reduce waiting times and improve equitable access to health care. Multiple attributes need to be considered in defining a fair prioritisation system to overcome limitations with local variations and discriminations. Collating evidence from a diverse body of research provides a single framework to improve the quality and efficiency of elective surgical care provision in a variety of health settings. Universal prioritisation tools with vertical and horizontal equity would help with re-ordering patients on waiting lists for elective surgery and reduce waiting times.

There is increasing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. The lack of a standardized outcome classification system results in inconsistencies due to ambiguity and variation in how outcomes are described across different studies. Being able to classify by outcome would increase efficiency in searching sources such as clinical trial registries, patient registries, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database of core outcome sets (COS), thus aiding knowledge discovery. A literature review was carried out to determine existing outcome classification systems, none of which were sufficiently comprehensive or granular for classification of all potential outcomes from clinical trials. A new taxonomy for outcome classification was developed, and as proof of principle, outcomes extracted from all published COS in the COMET database, selected Cochrane reviews, and clinical trial registry entries were classified using this new system. Application of this new taxonomy to COS in the COMET database revealed that 274/299 (92%) COS include at least one physiological outcome, whereas only 177 (59%) include at least one measure of impact (global quality of life or some measure of functioning) and only 105 (35%) made reference to adverse events. This outcome taxonomy will be used to annotate outcomes included in COS within the COMET database and is currently being piloted for use in Cochrane Reviews within the Cochrane Linked Data Project. Wider implementation of this standard taxonomy in trial and systematic review databases and registries will further promote efficient searching, reporting, and classification of trial outcomes.

An evidence-based approach to health care is recognized internationally as a key competency for healthcare practitioners. This overview systematically evaluated and organized evidence from systematic reviews on teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC). We searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for teaching EBHC to health professionals compared to no intervention or different strategies. Outcomes covered EBHC knowledge, skills, attitudes, practices and health outcomes. Comprehensive searches were conducted in April 2013. Two reviewers independently selected eligible reviews, extracted data and evaluated methodological quality. We included 16 systematic reviews, published between 1993 and 2013. There was considerable overlap across reviews. We found that 171 source studies included in the reviews related to 81 separate studies, of which 37 are in more than one review. Studies used various methodologies to evaluate educational interventions of varying content, format and duration in undergraduates, interns, residents and practicing health professionals. The evidence in the reviews showed that multifaceted, clinically integrated interventions, with assessment, led to improvements in knowledge, skills and attitudes. Interventions improved critical appraisal skills and integration of results into decisions, and improved knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour amongst practicing health professionals. Considering single interventions, EBHC knowledge and attitude were similar for lecture-based versus online teaching. Journal clubs appeared to increase clinical epidemiology and biostatistics knowledge and reading behavior, but not appraisal skills. EBHC courses improved appraisal skills and knowledge. Amongst practicing health professionals, interactive online courses with guided critical appraisal showed significant increase in knowledge and appraisal skills. A short workshop using problem-based approaches, compared to no intervention, increased knowledge but not appraisal skills. EBHC teaching and learning strategies should focus on implementing multifaceted, clinically integrated approaches with assessment. Future rigorous research should evaluate minimum components for multifaceted interventions, assessment of medium to long-term outcomes, and implementation of these interventions.

Background Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need. Methods The methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished reviews systematically, drawing on our experiences and good practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews are described. The process of identifying and appraising all published reviews allows researchers to describe the quality of this evidence base, summarise and compare the review's conclusions and discuss the strength of these conclusions. Results Methodological challenges and possible solutions are described within the context of (i) sources, (ii) study selection, (iii) quality assessment (i.e. the extent of searching undertaken for the reviews, description of study selection and inclusion criteria, comparability of included studies, assessment of publication bias and assessment of heterogeneity), (iv) presentation of results, and (v) implications for practice and research. Conclusion Conducting a systematic review of reviews highlights the usefulness of bringing together a summary of reviews in one place, where there is more than one review on an important topic. The methods described here should help clinicians to review and appraise published reviews systematically, and aid evidence-based clinical decision-making.

The aim of our review was to bring together studies that had assessed the uptake of core outcome sets (COS) to explore the level of uptake across different COS and areas of health. We examined the citations of 337 COS reports to identify studies that had assessed the uptake of a particular COS in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews (SRs). We identified 24 studies that had assessed uptake in RCTs and two studies that had assessed uptake in SRs. The studies covered a total of 17/337 (5%) COS. Uptake rates reported for RCTs varied from 0% of RCTs (gout) to 82% RCTs (rheumatoid arthritis) measuring the full COS. Studies that assessed uptake of individual core outcomes showed a wide variation in uptake between the outcomes. Suggested barriers to uptake included lack of validated measures, lack of patient and other key stakeholder involvement in COS development, and lack of awareness of the COS. Few studies have been undertaken to assess the uptake of COS in RCTs and SRs. Further studies are needed to assess whether COS have been implemented across a wider range of disease categories and to explore the barriers and facilitators to COS uptake.

Systematic reviews of systematic reviews identify good quality reviews of earlier studies of medical conditions. This article describes a systematic review of systematic reviews performed to investigate factors that might influence the risk of rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. It exemplifies the technique of this type of research and reports the finding of a specific study. The annual incidence of subarachnoid haemorrhage resulting from the rupture of intracranial aneurysms is estimated to be nine per 100,000. A large proportion of people who have this bleed, will die or remain dependent on the care of others for some time. Reliable knowledge about the risks of subarachnoid haemorrhage in different populations will help in planning, screening and prevention strategies and in predicting the prognosis of individual patients. If the necessary data were available in the identified reviews, an estimate for the numerical relationship between a particular characteristic and the risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage was included in this report. The identification of eligible systematic reviews relied mainly on the two major bibliographic databases of the biomedical literature: PubMed and EMBASE. These were searched in 2006, using specially designed search strategies. Approximately 2,000 records were retrieved and each of these was checked carefully against the eligibility criteria for this systematic review. These criteria required that the report be a systematic review of studies assessing the risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage in patients known to have an unruptured intracranial aneurysm or of studies that had investigated the characteristics of people who experienced a subarachnoid haemorrhage without previously being known to have an unruptured aneurysm. Reports which included more than one systematic review were eligible and each of these reviews was potentially eligible. The quality of each systematic review was assessed. In this review, 16 separate reports were identified, including a total of 46 eligible systematic reviews. These brought together research studies for 24 different risk factors. This has shown that the following factors appear to be associated with a higher risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage: being a woman, older age, posterior circulation aneurysms, larger aneurysms, previous symptoms, “non-white” ethnicity, hypertension, low body mass index, smoking and alcohol consumption of more than 150 g per week. The following factors appear to be associated with a lower risk of subarachnoid haemorrhage: high cholesterol, diabetes and use of hormone replacement therapy.

Six years after the launch of Systematic Reviews by Biomed Central, this article is part of the celebration of the journal. It contains personal reflections on the past, present and future of systematic reviews, using examples relevant to the role of systematic reviews in cataloguing and analysing research, assessing quality and planning new studies. The focus is on the most common of the various types of systematic review in health and social care, namely those assessing the effects of interventions.

Background Long waiting times for elective surgery are common to many publicly funded health systems. Inefficiencies in referral systems in high-income countries are more pronounced than lower and middle-income countries. Primary care practitioners play a major role in determining which patients are referred to surgeon and might represent an opportunity to improve this situation. With conventional methods of referrals, surgery clinics are often overcrowded with non-surgical referrals and surgical patients experience longer waiting times as a consequence. Improving the quality of referral communications should lead to more timely access and better cost-effectiveness for elective surgical care. This review summarises the research evidence for effective interventions within the scope of primary-care referral methods in the surgical care pathway that might shorten waiting time for elective surgeries. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases in December-2019 to January-2020, for articles published after 2013. Eligibility criteria included major elective surgery lists of adult patients, excluding cancer related surgeries. Both randomised and non-randomised controlled studies were eligible. The quality of evidence was assessed using ROBINS-I, AMSTAR 2 and CASP, as appropriate to the study method used. The review presentation was limited to a narrative synthesis because of heterogeneity. The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42019158455. Results The electronic search yielded 7543 records. Finally, nine articles were considered as eligible after deduplication and full article screening. The eligible research varied widely in design, scope, reported outcomes and overall quality, with one randomised trial, two quasi-experimental studies, two longitudinal follow up studies, three systematic reviews and one observational study. All the six original articles were based on referral methods in high-income countries. The included research showed that patient triage and prioritisation at the referral stage improved timely access and increased the number of consultations of surgical patients in clinics. Conclusions The available studies included a variety of interventions and were of medium to high quality researches. Managing patient referrals with proper triaging and prioritisation using structured referral formats is likely to be effective in health systems to shorten the waiting times for elective surgeries, specifically in high-income countries.