-
Journal of Medical Internet Research Apr 2022Digital health refers to the proper use of technology for improving the health and well-being of people and enhancing the care of patients through the intelligent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Digital health refers to the proper use of technology for improving the health and well-being of people and enhancing the care of patients through the intelligent processing of clinical and genetic data. Despite increasing interest in well-being in both health care and technology, there is no clear understanding of what constitutes well-being, which leads to uncertainty in how to create well-being through digital health. In an effort to clarify this uncertainty, Brey developed a framework to define problems in technology for well-being using the following four categories: epistemological problem, scope problem, specification problem, and aggregation problem.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic scoping review aims to gain insights into how to define and address well-being in digital health.
METHODS
We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Papers were identified from 6 databases and included if they addressed the design or evaluation of digital health and reported the enhancement of patient well-being as their purpose. These papers were divided into design and evaluation papers. We studied how the 4 problems in technology for well-being are considered per paper.
RESULTS
A total of 117 studies were eligible for analysis (n=46, 39.3% design papers and n=71, 60.7% evaluation papers). For the epistemological problem, the thematic analysis resulted in various definitions of well-being, which were grouped into the following seven values: healthy body, functional me, healthy mind, happy me, social me, self-managing me, and external conditions. Design papers mostly considered well-being as healthy body and self-managing me, whereas evaluation papers considered the values of healthy mind and happy me. Users were rarely involved in defining well-being. For the scope problem, patients with chronic care needs were commonly considered as the main users. Design papers also regularly involved other users, such as caregivers and relatives. These users were often not involved in evaluation papers. For the specification problem, most design and evaluation papers focused on the provision of care support through a digital platform. Design papers used numerous design methods, whereas evaluation papers mostly considered pre-post measurements and randomized controlled trials. For the aggregation problem, value conflicts were rarely described.
CONCLUSIONS
Current practice has found pragmatic ways of circumventing or dealing with the problems of digital health for well-being. Major differences exist between the design and evaluation of digital health, particularly regarding their conceptualization of well-being and the types of users studied. In addition, we found that current methodologies for designing and evaluating digital health can be improved. For optimal digital health for well-being, multidisciplinary collaborations that move beyond the common dichotomy of design and evaluation are needed.
Topics: Caregivers; Delivery of Health Care; Humans
PubMed: 35377328
DOI: 10.2196/33787 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Major depression and other depressive conditions are common in people with cancer. These conditions are not easily detectable in clinical practice, due to the overlap between medical and psychiatric symptoms, as described by diagnostic manuals such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Moreover, it is particularly challenging to distinguish between pathological and normal reactions to such a severe illness. Depressive symptoms, even in subthreshold manifestations, have a negative impact in terms of quality of life, compliance with anticancer treatment, suicide risk and possibly the mortality rate for the cancer itself. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants in this population are few and often report conflicting results.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of antidepressants for treating depressive symptoms in adults (aged 18 years or older) with cancer (any site and stage).
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was November 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing antidepressants versus placebo, or antidepressants versus other antidepressants, in adults (aged 18 years or above) with any primary diagnosis of cancer and depression (including major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymic disorder or depressive symptoms in the absence of a formal diagnosis).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome was 1. efficacy as a continuous outcome. Our secondary outcomes were 2. efficacy as a dichotomous outcome, 3. Social adjustment, 4. health-related quality of life and 5. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies (1364 participants), 10 of which contributed to the meta-analysis for the primary outcome. Six of these compared antidepressants and placebo, three compared two antidepressants, and one three-armed study compared two antidepressants and placebo. In this update, we included four additional studies, three of which contributed data for the primary outcome. For acute-phase treatment response (six to 12 weeks), antidepressants may reduce depressive symptoms when compared with placebo, even though the evidence is very uncertain. This was true when depressive symptoms were measured as a continuous outcome (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to -0.12; 7 studies, 511 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and when measured as a proportion of people who had depression at the end of the study (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96; 5 studies, 662 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported data on follow-up response (more than 12 weeks). In head-to-head comparisons, we retrieved data for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) versus tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and for mirtazapine versus TCAs. There was no difference between the various classes of antidepressants (continuous outcome: SSRI versus TCA: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.18; 3 studies, 237 participants; very low-certainty evidence; mirtazapine versus TCA: SMD -4.80, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.10; 1 study, 25 participants). There was a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants versus placebo for the secondary efficacy outcomes (continuous outcome, response at one to four weeks; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences for these outcomes when comparing two different classes of antidepressants, even though the evidence was very uncertain. In terms of dropouts due to any cause, we found no difference between antidepressants compared with placebo (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; 9 studies, 889 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and between SSRIs and TCAs (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.22; 3 studies, 237 participants). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because of the heterogeneous quality of the studies, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide CIs, and inconsistency due to statistical or clinical heterogeneity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Despite the impact of depression on people with cancer, the available studies were few and of low quality. This review found a potential beneficial effect of antidepressants against placebo in depressed participants with cancer. However, the certainty of evidence is very low and, on the basis of these results, it is difficult to draw clear implications for practice. The use of antidepressants in people with cancer should be considered on an individual basis and, considering the lack of head-to-head data, the choice of which drug to prescribe may be based on the data on antidepressant efficacy in the general population of people with major depression, also taking into account that data on people with other serious medical conditions suggest a positive safety profile for the SSRIs. Furthermore, this update shows that the usage of the newly US Food and Drug Administration-approved antidepressant esketamine in its intravenous formulation might represent a potential treatment for this specific population of people, since it can be used both as an anaesthetic and an antidepressant. However, data are too inconclusive and further studies are needed. We conclude that to better inform clinical practice, there is an urgent need for large, simple, randomised, pragmatic trials comparing commonly used antidepressants versus placebo in people with cancer who have depressive symptoms, with or without a formal diagnosis of a depressive disorder.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Antidepressive Agents; Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic; Depression; Depressive Disorder, Major; Mirtazapine; Neoplasms; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 36999619
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011006.pub4 -
Cancer Treatment Reviews Jun 2022Research on therapeutic strategies for patients with unknown primary cancer (CUP) has been underwhelming. This paper summarized and evaluated the CUP therapeutic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Research on therapeutic strategies for patients with unknown primary cancer (CUP) has been underwhelming. This paper summarized and evaluated the CUP therapeutic research over the previous five years. Based on this evaluation, recommendations for clinical trial designs are made to improve the impact of CUP research on patients.
METHODS
Published and ongoing research were evaluated. PubMed was searched from January 1, 2015, to November 1, 2021. The start date of 2015 was chosen to identify research published after ESMO issued new diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. The US National Library of Medicine indexed ongoing clinical trials.
FINDINGS
Of the 244 CUP studies indexed in PubMed, 11.9% were prospective studies, and 4.9% were clinical trials. The review protocol deemed 65 publications eligible for full-text review. Eleven studies evaluating therapeutic regimens were retained. The two prospective studies and non-randomized trials showed promising outcomes for site-specific treatments. Randomized clinical trials were less promising; however, the trials had recruitment challenges resulting in biased accrual and the inability to keep pace with advancing diagnostics and therapeutics. Most of the 35 ongoing studies were phase II single-arm trials assessing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) or site-specific therapies among CUP patients with suspected favorable prognoses.
CONCLUSION
Our evaluation suggests two prospective clinical trial designs that addressed recent study design and recruitment challenges. A visionary approach uses a multi-arm, multistage randomized trial to address rapid advancements in diagnosis and therapy. A pragmatic approach utilizes a single-arm trial with historical controls to overcome comparison group and recruitment challenges.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Prospective Studies; Research Design
PubMed: 35569387
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102407 -
International Journal of Colorectal... Oct 2023A watch-and-wait (WW) strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer that has reached clinical complete remission (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCRT)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Oncologic outcomes of watch-and-wait strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer in clinical complete remission after adjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
A watch-and-wait (WW) strategy or surgery for low to intermediate rectal cancer that has reached clinical complete remission (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCRT) or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) has been widely used in the clinic, but both treatment strategies are controversial.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the oncologic outcomes of a watch-and-wait strategy or a surgical approach to treat rectal cancer in complete remission and to report the evidence-based clinical advantages of the two treatment strategies.
METHODS
Seven national and international databases were searched for clinical trials comparing the watch-and-wait strategy with surgical treatment for oncological outcomes in patients with rectal cancer in clinical complete remission.
RESULTS
In terms of oncological outcomes, there was no significant difference between the watch-and-wait strategy and surgical treatment in terms of overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.52, 1.64), P = 0.777), and subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival (5-year DFS) between WW and both local excision (LE) and radical surgery (RS) (HR = 1.76, 95% CI (0.97, 3.19), P = 0.279; HR = 1.98, 95% CI (0.95, 4.13), P = 0.164), in distant metastasis rate (RR = 1.12, 95% CI (0.73, 1.72), P = 0.593), mortality rate (RR = 1.62, 95% CI (0.93, 2.84), P = 0.09), and organ preservation rate (RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.94, 1.17), P = 0.394) which were not statistically significant and on the outcome indicators of local recurrence rate (RR = 2.09, 95% CI (1.44, 3.03), P < 0.001) and stoma rate (RR = 0.35, 95% CI (0.20, 0.61), P < 0.001). There were significant differences between the WW group and the surgical treatment group.
CONCLUSION
There were no differences in OS, 5-year DFS, distant metastasis, and mortality between the WW strategy group and the surgical treatment group. The WW strategy did not increase the risk of local recurrence compared with local resection but may be at greater risk of local recurrence compared with radical surgery, and the WW group was significantly better than the surgical group in terms of stoma rate; the WW strategy was evidently superior in preserving organ integrity compared to radical excision. Consequently, for patients who exhibit a profound inclination towards organ preservation and the evasion of stoma formation in the scenario of clinically complete remission of rectal cancer, the WW strategy can be contemplated as a pragmatic alternative to surgical interventions. It is, however, paramount to emphasize that the deployment of such a strategy should be meticulously undertaken within the ambit of a multidisciplinary team's management and within specialized centers dedicated to rectal cancer management.
Topics: Humans; Rectal Neoplasms; Remission Induction; Disease-Free Survival; Chemoradiotherapy; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Neoadjuvant Therapy; Watchful Waiting; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37787779
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-023-04534-2 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Sep 2023eHealth is increasingly considered an important tool for supporting pharmacotherapy management. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
eHealth is increasingly considered an important tool for supporting pharmacotherapy management.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to assess the (1) use of eHealth in pharmacotherapy management with patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or cardiovascular disease (CVD); (2) effectiveness of these interventions on pharmacotherapy management and clinical outcomes; and (3) key factors contributing to the success of eHealth interventions for pharmacotherapy management.
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review) statement. Databases searched included Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Cochrane Library. Screening was conducted by 2 independent researchers. Eligible articles were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the effect of an eHealth intervention for pharmacotherapy management compared with usual care on pharmacotherapy management or clinical outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, or diabetes. The interventions were categorized by the type of device, pharmacotherapy management, mode of delivery, features, and domains described in the conceptual model for eHealth by Shaw at al (Health in our Hands, Interacting for Health, Data Enabling Health). The effectiveness on pharmacotherapy management outcomes and patient- and clinician-reported clinical outcomes was analyzed per type of intervention categorized by number of domains and features to identify trends.
RESULTS
Of 63 studies, 16 (25%), 31 (49%), 13 (21%), and 3 (5%) included patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, diabetes, or CVD and diabetes, respectively. Most (38/63, 60%) interventions targeted improving medication adherence, often combined for treatment plan optimization. Of the 16 asthma or COPD interventions, 6 aimed to improve inhaled medication use. The majority (48/63, 76%) of the studies provided an option for patient feedback. Most (20/63, 32%) eHealth interventions combined all 3 domains by Shaw et al, while 25% (16/63) combined Interacting for Health with Data Enabling Health. Two-thirds (42/63, 67%) of the studies showed a positive overall effect. Respectively, 48% (23/48), 57% (28/49), and 39% (12/31) reported a positive effect on pharmacotherapy management and clinician- and patient-reported clinical outcomes. Pharmacotherapy management and patient-reported clinical outcomes, but not clinician-reported clinical outcomes, were more often positive in interventions with ≥3 features. There was a trend toward more studies reporting a positive effect on all 3 outcomes with more domains by Shaw et al. Of the studies with interventions providing patient feedback, more showed a positive clinical outcome, compared with studies with interventions without feedback. This effect was not seen for pharmacotherapy management outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
There is a wide variety of eHealth interventions combining various domains and features to target pharmacotherapy management in asthma or COPD, CVD, and diabetes. Results suggest feedback is key for a positive effect on clinician-reported clinical outcomes. eHealth interventions become more impactful when combining domains.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Asthma; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive; Diabetes Mellitus; Databases, Factual; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37751232
DOI: 10.2196/42474 -
Contemporary Clinical Trials May 2021Pragmatic and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aim to be highly generalizable studies, with broad applicability and flexibility in methods....
BACKGROUND
Pragmatic and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aim to be highly generalizable studies, with broad applicability and flexibility in methods. These trials also address recruitment issues by minimizing exclusions. The trials may also appeal to potential subjects because of lower risk and lower burdens of participation. We sought to examine rates of refusal and uses of waivers of informed consent in pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs.
METHODS
A systematic review of pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs performed wholely or in part in the United States and first published in 2014 and 2017.
RESULTS
103 studies involving 105 discrete populations were included for review. Refusal data was collected for 71 RCTs. Overall, studies reported an average rate of 31.9% of potential subjects refused participation; on an individual basis, 38.4% of people asked to take part refused at some point during recruitment. 23 trials (22%) were performed, at least in part, with a waiver of informed consent, 7 (30%) of which provided any form of notice to subjects.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall refusal rates for pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs appear roughly the same as other types of research, with studies reporting about a third of people solicited for participation refuse. Moreover, informed consent was waived in 22% (95% Binomial exact Confidence Interval 13.9-30.5%) of the trials, and further study is needed to understand when waivers are justified and when notice should be provided.
Topics: Humans; Informed Consent; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 33737197
DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2021.106361 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2023Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease that disproportionally affects women, as well as Black and biracial individuals. While adalimumab remains...
BACKGROUND
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory disease that disproportionally affects women, as well as Black and biracial individuals. While adalimumab remains the only therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for HS, many HS clinical trials for novel and re-tasked therapies are ongoing or upcoming. To optimize treatment equity, reflect the patient population, and facilitate trial participation, it is important to elucidate aspects of clinical trial protocols that may systematically exclude specific patient groups or impose hardships.
OBJECTIVE
The study aimed to systematically review inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as participant demographics in HS clinical trials.
METHODS
A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases was conducted. Peer-reviewed publications of randomized controlled trials that were written in English and had at least 10 participants were included. Title and abstract screening and data extraction were completed by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies totaling 1,496 adult participants met the inclusion criteria. Race and ethnicity were not reported in 473/1,496 (31.6%) and 1,420/1,496 (94.9%) trial participants, respectively. Trial participants were predominantly white (811/1,023, 79.3%) and female (1,057/1,457, 72.5%). The median of each study's average age was 35.7 years (IQR 33.5-38.0), and 17/23 (73.9%) trials excluded pediatric patients. Nearly all participants had Hurley Stage II (499/958, 52.0%) or Hurley Stage III (385/958, 40.2%) disease. Many trials excluded patients who were pregnant (19/23, 82.6%) and breastfeeding (13/23, 56.5%), or who had HS that was "too severe" (8/23, 34.8%) or "too mild" (16/23, 70.0%). Frequently, trial protocols required prolonged washout periods from HS therapies, relatively long duration in the study's placebo arm, and prohibited concurrent analgesic use.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review of 23 HS clinical trials totaling 1,496 participants identified substantial hardships imposed by trial participation, high rates of missing race and ethnicity data, and low representation of key patient groups, including those who identify as Black. Future trials with pragmatic study designs, broader inclusion criteria, and study sites in diverse communities may alleviate burdens of trial participation and improve enrollment of diverse patient groups.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Female; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Clinical Trials as Topic; Adalimumab; Demography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36108592
DOI: 10.1159/000526069 -
Implementation Science : IS Dec 2022Sustainability is concerned with the long-term delivery and subsequent benefits of evidence-based interventions. To further this field, we require a strong understanding... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sustainability is concerned with the long-term delivery and subsequent benefits of evidence-based interventions. To further this field, we require a strong understanding and thus measurement of sustainability and what impacts sustainability (i.e., sustainability determinants). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality and empirical application of measures of sustainability and sustainability determinants for use in clinical, public health, and community settings.
METHODS
Seven electronic databases, reference lists of relevant reviews, online repositories of implementation measures, and the grey literature were searched. Publications were included if they reported on the development, psychometric evaluation, or empirical use of a multi-item, quantitative measure of sustainability, or sustainability determinants. Eligibility was not restricted by language or date. Eligibility screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two members of the research team. Content coverage of each measure was assessed by mapping measure items to relevant constructs of sustainability and sustainability determinants. The pragmatic and psychometric properties of included measures was assessed using the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The empirical use of each measure was descriptively analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 32,782 articles were screened from the database search, of which 37 were eligible. An additional 186 publications were identified from the grey literature search. The 223 included articles represented 28 individual measures, of which two assessed sustainability as an outcome, 25 covered sustainability determinants and one explicitly assessed both. The psychometric and pragmatic quality was variable, with PAPERS scores ranging from 14 to 35, out of a possible 56 points. The Provider Report of Sustainment Scale had the highest PAPERS score and measured sustainability as an outcome. The School-wide Universal Behaviour Sustainability Index-School Teams had the highest PAPERS score (score=29) of the measure of sustainability determinants.
CONCLUSIONS
This review can be used to guide selection of the most psychometrically robust, pragmatic, and relevant measure of sustainability and sustainability determinants. It also highlights that future research is needed to improve the psychometric and pragmatic quality of current measures in this field.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This review was prospectively registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1097), March 2021.
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Psychometrics
PubMed: 36514059
DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01252-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a clinical syndrome resulting from loss of ovarian function before the age of 40. It is a state of hypergonadotropic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a clinical syndrome resulting from loss of ovarian function before the age of 40. It is a state of hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, characterised by amenorrhoea or oligomenorrhoea, with low ovarian sex hormones (oestrogen deficiency) and elevated pituitary gonadotrophins. POI with primary amenorrhoea may occur as a result of chromosomal and genetic abnormalities, such as Turner syndrome, Fragile X, or autosomal gene defects; secondary amenorrhoea may be iatrogenic after the surgical removal of the ovaries, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. Other causes include autoimmune diseases, viral infections, and environmental factors; in most cases, POI is idiopathic. Appropriate replacement of sex hormones in women with POI may facilitate the achievement of near normal uterine development. However, the optimal effective hormone therapy (HT) regimen to maximise the reproductive potential for women with POI remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness and safety of different hormonal regimens on uterine and endometrial development in women with POI.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2021. We also checked references of included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of various hormonal preparations on the uterine development of women diagnosed with POI.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was uterine volume; secondary outcomes were endometrial thickness, endometrial histology, uterine perfusion, reproductive outcomes, and any reported adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
We included three studies (52 participants analysed in total) investigating the role of various hormonal preparations in three different contexts, which deemed meta-analysis unfeasible. We found very low-certainty evidence; the main limitation was very serious imprecision due to small sample size. Conjugated oral oestrogens versus transdermal 17ß-oestradiol We are uncertain of the effect of conjugated oral oestrogens compared to transdermal 17ß-oestradiol (mean difference (MD) -18.2 (mL), 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.18 to -13.22; 1 RCT, N = 12; very low-certainty evidence) on uterine volume, measured after 12 months of treatment. The study reported no other relevant outcomes (including adverse events). Low versus high 17ß-oestradiol dose We are uncertain of the effect of a lower dose of 17ß-oestradiol compared to a higher dose of 17ß-oestradiol on uterine volume after three or five years of treatment, or adverse events (1 RCT, N = 20; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other relevant outcomes. Oral versus vaginal administration of oestradiol and dydrogesterone We are uncertain of the effect of an oral or vaginal administration route on uterine volume and endometrial thickness after 14 or 21 days of administration (1 RCT, N = 20; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other relevant outcomes (including adverse events).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
No clear conclusions can be drawn in this systematic review, due to the very low-certainty of the evidence. There is a need for pragmatic, well designed, randomised controlled trials, with adequate power to detect differences between various HT regimens on uterine growth, endometrial development, and pregnancy outcomes following the transfer of donated gametes or embryos in women diagnosed with POI.
Topics: Amenorrhea; Dydrogesterone; Endometrium; Estradiol; Estrogens; Female; Humans; Menopause, Premature; Pregnancy
PubMed: 36200708
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008209.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Dec 2022To explore qualitatively the relationship between selected trial design choices and proxies for a scientific and clinical uptake in a cohort of published randomized... (Review)
Review
The relationship between pragmatism, timing, and study size on impact of randomized trials: a qualitative, hypothesis generating study of trials of systemic corticosteroids for COVID-19.
OBJECTIVE
To explore qualitatively the relationship between selected trial design choices and proxies for a scientific and clinical uptake in a cohort of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of corticosteroids for COVID-19, to identify design characteristics that may result in trials with potential to eliminate equipoise, achieve uptake, and help reduce research waste.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
A systematic literature search and qualitative, narrative review of published RCTs (up to April 13, 2021) evaluating the effectiveness of systemic corticosteroids in treatment of COVID-19. We extracted information on sample size, number of centers, single-country or multi-country conduct, dates of initiation and of publication, risk of bias and pragmatism scores, and also on an impact measured by citation in scientific literature and in clinical guidelines. We qualitatively compared design features of the highest impact vs. other trials.
RESULTS
Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) was by the most impactful of the seven eligible RCTs as it was 10 times more frequently cited in peer-reviewed literature and influenced all the selected COVID-19 treatment guidelines. All trials started recruiting from similar dates. RECOVERY was a single-country, multicentre platform trial at low risk of bias, features which also fail to distinguish it from the other trials. RECOVERY was distinguished by more strongly pragmatic design features, more centers, and more rapid recruitment resulting in a larger sample size and early publication.
CONCLUSION
Higher pragmatism scores may contribute to recruiting more centers and more rapid recruitment of patients at each center, leading to larger size, earlier publication, and greater scientific and guideline uptake. By eliminating equipoise, RECOVERY rendered other simultaneous trials redundant. Further work is needed to confirm these findings in a larger quantitative study and to identify the individual contribution of each characteristic of pragmatism to conduct and impact of trials and their interaction in different national contexts. Until then, research waste might be reduced by designing trials with as many of the characteristics of RECOVERY as is feasible.
Topics: Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36209914
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.09.018