METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.
METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.
RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.
METHODOLOGY: A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline, was conducted on articles published between 2002 and 2023 from three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. A manual search was conducted for the references of the included articles using Google Scholar. Included articles must be in English and were based on empirical evidence published in peer-reviewed journals and focus on the assessment of domains of social frailty in older people aged 60 or over in the Asia-Pacific (East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania).
RESULT: A total of 31 studies were included in the thematic analysis, from which 16 screening tools measuring six social domains were reviewed. The six domains were: social networks, followed by social activities, social support, financial difficulties, social roles, and socioeconomic, arranged in four categories: social resources, social needs, social behaviors (or social activities), and general resources. The six social domains predicted mortality, physical difficulties, and disability incidence. Other adverse health outcomes were also associated with these social domains, including cognitive disorders, mental illness, and nutritional disorders (n = 5 domains each), dementia (n = 4 domains), and oral frailty, hearing loss, obesity, and chronic pain (n = 3 domains each).
CONCLUSION: Overall, social frailty is a complex construct with multiple dimensions, including the frailty of social and general resources, social behaviors, and social needs, leading to several health disorders. The findings contribute to understanding the conceptual framework of social frailty in older people and its related health outcomes. Therefore, it could facilitate professionals and researchers to monitor and reduce the risks of adverse health outcomes related to each domain of social frailty, contributing to a better aging process.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until September 2017; manual searches of reference lists of systematic reviews identified in the electronic search; and online trial registries for unpublished, ongoing, or planned trials. (PROSPERO CRD42016050028).
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trials in a nursing home setting that included participants of at least 60 years of age.
MEASURES: Falls, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and potentially inappropriate medication were assessed in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 41 randomized clinical studies (18,408 residents) that examined deprescribing (defined as either medication discontinuation, substitution, or reduction) in nursing were identified. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced the number of residents with potentially inappropriate medications by 59% (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.89). In subgroup analysis, medication review-directed deprescribing interventions reduced all-cause mortality by 26% (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84), as well as the number of fallers by 24% (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other deprescribing interventions, medication review-directed deprescribing had significant benefits on older residents in nursing homes. Further research is required to elicit other clinical benefits of medication review-directed deprescribing practice.
AIM: The aim of this study was to classify the primary outcomes used in Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) into the ICF domains of functioning; to describe the differences in primary outcomes in reviews related to rehabilitation intervention and non-rehabilitation intervention; and to describe the trend of outcome selections according year of publication.
DESIGN: Methodological paper.
POPULATION: Adult stroke population.
METHODS: We analyzed the primary outcomes used in the CSRs published by the Cochrane Stroke Review Group up to December 2017. The primary outcomes were extracted and classified into the ICF domains of functioning (body functions, body structures and activity and participation).
RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four papers with 216 primary outcomes were included in this analysis. Less than half (102/216, 47.2%) of the outcomes could be classified into the ICF domains of functioning. For the outcomes that could be classified into the ICF domains, the majority (72/102, 70.5%) were in the activity and participation domain, followed by body functions (26/102, 25.5%) and body structures (4/102, 4.0%). Of the outcomes that could not be classified into the ICF domains (N.=114), death (81/114, 71.1%) and recurrent stroke (21/114,18.4%) formed the majority of the outcome. There were 75 CSRs on rehabilitation related interventions; the majority of the outcomes (75/97, 77.3%) used in rehabilitation related CSRs could be classified into the ICF framework with more than half (49/75, 65.3%) in the activity and participation domain.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the primary outcomes selected by the Cochrane Stroke Review Group in their CSRs could not be classified into the ICF domains of functioning. Death and recurrence of vascular events remains the major outcome of interest. In rehabilitation related interventions, activity and participation domain is the functioning domain most commonly used.
CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The systematic use of patients-centered ICF-based outcomes in CSRs could help the application of evidence in clinical decision making.