ArticlePDF Available

Evidence gaps in conservative non-pharmacological interventions and guideline implementation for high-burden non-communicable diseases: protocol for an overview of reviews

BMJ Group
BMJ Open Sports and Exercise Medicine
Authors:

Abstract

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent a high burden for the society and affected individuals. Conservative non-pharmacological interventions play a first-line role in the treatment and management of most NCDs. Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest level of evidence and significantly influence clinical decision-making. The primary aim of this study is to provide an overview of the evidence on the effectiveness of recommended conservative non-pharmacological interventions for highly burdensome NCDs. The secondary aim is to provide an overview of the evidence for guideline implementation. A literature search was performed in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. Six reviewers will, in duplicate, independently screen and select studies following eligibility criteria. The population will include individuals with NCDs from disease categories chosen based on WHO burden of disease data and the importance of conservative rehabilitation for their management. Eligible interventions will encompass conservative non-pharmacological approaches recommended by clinical practice guidelines (ie, physical, psychological and education/advice). Eligible comparator will include no or minimal intervention and other competitive interventions. Outcomes will comprise proposed core outcomes for the respective diseases, including patient-reported (eg, pain) and performance-based (eg, physical functioning) outcomes. SRs published in the last 5 years as peer-reviewed journal article in the English language will be eligible. The overview will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of reviews.
DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 1
Open access Protocol
Evidence gaps in conservative non-
pharmacological interventions and
guideline implementation for high-
burden non- communicable diseases:
protocol for an overview of reviews
Rebekka Döding ,1 Tobias Braun,1,2 Katja Ehrenbrusthoff ,1 Bernhard Elsner,3
Christian Kopkow,4 Toni Lange,5 Kerstin Lüdtke,3 Andres Jung,6 Clint Miller,7
Patrick J Owen ,8,9 Tobias Saueressig,10 Axel Schäfer,11 Robin Schäfer,1
Tim Schleimer,1 Rilind Shala,12,13 Tibor Szikszay,3 Jochen Zebisch,10
Daniel L Belavý 1
To cite: DödingR, BraunT,
EhrenbrusthoffK, etal.
Evidence gaps in conservative
non- pharmacological
interventions and guideline
implementation for high-
burden non- communicable
diseases: protocol for an
overview of reviews. BMJ Open
Sport & Exercise Medicine
2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/
bmjsem-2024-002032
Additional supplemental
material is published online
only. To view, please visit the
journal online (https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1136/ bmjsem- 2024-
002032).
Accepted 3 September 2024
For numbered afliations see
end of article.
Correspondence to
Professor Daniel L Belavý;
belavy@ gmail. com
© Author(s) (or their
employer(s)) 2024. Re- use
permitted under CC BY- NC. No
commercial re- use. See rights
and permissions. Published by
BMJ.
ABSTRACT
Non- communicable diseases (NCDs) represent a
high burden for the society and affected individuals.
Conservative non- pharmacological interventions play a
rst- line role in the treatment and management of most
NCDs. Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the highest
level of evidence and signicantly inuence clinical
decision- making. The primary aim of this study is to
provide an overview of the evidence on the effectiveness
of recommended conservative non- pharmacological
interventions for highly burdensome NCDs. The
secondary aim is to provide an overview of the evidence
for guideline implementation. A literature search was
performed in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE and Cochrane
CENTRAL. Six reviewers will, in duplicate, independently
screen and select studies following eligibility criteria.
The population will include individuals with NCDs from
disease categories chosen based on WHO burden
of disease data and the importance of conservative
rehabilitation for their management. Eligible interventions
will encompass conservative non- pharmacological
approaches recommended by clinical practice guidelines
(ie, physical, psychological and education/advice). Eligible
comparator will include no or minimal intervention and
other competitive interventions. Outcomes will comprise
proposed core outcomes for the respective diseases,
including patient- reported (eg, pain) and performance-
based (eg, physical functioning) outcomes. SRs published
in the last 5 years as peer- reviewed journal article in the
English language will be eligible. The overview will be
reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items
for Overviews of reviews.
INTRODUCTION
With the increasing prevalence of non-
communicable diseases and an ageing
population, the number of people suffering
from high- burden (ie, highly prevalent, highly
disabling) diseases is expected to increase.1–3
Global Burden of Disease estimates show
that in 2019, 2.41 billion people worldwide
suffered from non- communicable diseases,
which contributed to 310 million years of
disability, an increase of 63% between 1990
and 2019.3 In addition, global demand for
health services and associated costs are likely
WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC
Worldwide, there is a high burden of non-
communicable diseases (NCDs), and the prevalence
is expected to increase further.
Conservative non- pharmacological interventions
delivered by various rehabilitation professionals are
considered a cornerstone in the management of
most NCDs.
Numerous systematic reviews with varying degrees
of scope, rigour and up- to- dateness are available,
limiting current understanding of treatment effec-
tiveness, evidence gaps and needed implementation
efforts.
WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS
This overview of reviews will provide a comprehen-
sive summary of the available systematic review
literature on the effectiveness and barriers/facilita-
tors for implementing the top- ranked conservative
non- pharmacological interventions for the highest
burdensome NCDs.
HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH,
PRACTICE OR POLICY
The ndings of this overview will guide and improve
future research decision- making by informing about
evidence gaps in multiple disease categories.
The overview will provide a comprehensive and
accessible document for clinicians, enabling better
evidence- based clinical decisions.
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
2DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032
Open access
to climb. Similar trends have been observed in the USA
(from US$1.4 trillion in 2000 to US$4.3 trillion in 2021),4
Australia (US$50.6 billion in 20125 to US$94.4 billion
in 20216) and Germany (218.4 billion in 20007 to
440.6 billion in 20208).
Conservative non- pharmacological treatments (eg,
exercise, respiratory training and education) are typi-
cally offered by allied health professions, such as
physiotherapy, exercise physiology and psychology, to
manage non- communicable chronic diseases. Many
international guidelines now recommend conservative
non- pharmacological interventions as the first- line treat-
ment or therapy for non- communicable diseases.9–13 The
delivery of conservative non- pharmacological treatments
can improve symptoms and enable patients to manage
them independently, reducing costs overall.14–17 System-
atic reviews and meta- analyses provide higher- quality
clinical practice guidelines, representing the highest
level of evidence for clinical practice.18 19
As new primary research is published, existing system-
atic reviews and associated meta- analyses lose currency
over time. One analysis20 published in 2007 proved
that approximately 25% of systematic reviews that met
predefined minimum quality standards were no longer
up to date after 2 years, and approximately 50% were
outdated after 5 years. Similarly, an analysis21 of Spanish
clinical practice guidelines noted that one in five recom-
mendations were outdated after 3 years. A consensus
publication in the BMJ22 guided decision- making when
a given systematic review may no longer be current.
For example, the authors suggest that a new systematic
review may no longer be current if there are new rele-
vant (systematic review) methods, new primary research
or updated information on existing included studies (eg,
retractions).22 In informing clinical practice and guide-
lines, it is relevant to assess the presence and recency
of systematic reviews for key diseases as well as their
treatments. Furthermore, recent findings suggest that
96% of published reviews in psychology report positive
statistically significant results23 as opposed to only 5%
in Cochrane Reviews, including high- quality evidence.24
These findings highlight the need to systematically iden-
tify high- quality reviews to make trustworthy clinical
recommendations. We aim to conduct an overview of
systematic reviews for high- burden non- communicable
diseases that are amenable to management via non-
pharmacological conservative interventions.
In doing so, the prioritisation of diseases to assess
may be driven by assessing the burden of disease data.25
In prioritising which treatments should be included
in this assessment, existing evidence- based clinical
practice guidelines inform which interventions are
currently recommended for routine care. In addition,
understanding the barriers and facilitators to guideline
implementation is critical to providing high- quality care
to those who need it most. However, to our knowledge,
work has yet to be done to identify existing research gaps
and update research priorities.
The objectives of this overview of reviews are to provide
an overview (presence and currency of systematic
reviews) in two areas: (1) intervention effectiveness in
high burden and relevant to conservative rehabilitative
professions diseases and (2) barriers and facilitators to
guideline implementation in clinical practice.
METHODS
This overview of reviews is conducted and reported
following the PRIOR reporting guideline for overviews
of reviews26 (online supplemental data 1). The review
was prospectively registered (Open Science Framework:
https://osf.io/s94qf).
Patient and public involvement
Patients and/or the public were not involved in the
design and conduct of this research.
Search strategy
The full search strategy can be found in the appendix
(online supplemental data 2,3). The following databases
(limits) were searched from the last 5 years to the current
date: MEDLINE via PubMed (last 5 years), EMBASE via
Ovid (Exclude MEDLINE; last 5 years) and CENTRAL
(no time limit). Searches were performed in March
2023. We chose to target only these three databases as
the major medical databases, as higher- quality systematic
reviews are more likely to be published in journals listed
in these databases. As we were not searching for primary
randomised controlled trials, where broad search terms
are required to ensure all relevant literature is captured,
search terms were chosen that focused specifically on the
disease and intervention of interest. Citation tracking was
not performed as systematic reviews are readily identifi-
able in databases, and citation tracking has been shown27
to have minimal additional benefits in identifying system-
atic reviews.
If no relevant studies were identified from the last 5
years, an additional hand search was performed, and
the most recent review was included. Two independent
assessors (RD, TSaueressig, TB, JZ, AJ and RSchäfer)
screened the studies using Covidence. Disagreements
were resolved through collaborative discussion within
the review team and involved a three- stage process: first,
reviewers and extractors engaged in discussions; second,
in cases of uncertainty, there was consultation with an
adjudicator (RD or TSchleimer); and finally, if no resolu-
tion could be achieved at the previous stages, the matter
was referred to a designated team member.
Before each phase (title/abstract and full- text
screening), a pilot was conducted. Each reviewer inde-
pendently screened the same randomly chosen 100 titles/
abstracts (RD, TSaueressig, TB, JZ, AJ and RSchäfer) and
20 full texts (RD, TSzikszay, TB, JZ, AJ and RShala). Article
data (eg, author, publication year, title and abstract) and
inclusion/exclusion criteria were copied into a Microsoft
Excel (V.16.0) spreadsheet template. After collating the
results, all reviewers discussed themes of disagreement
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
3
DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032
Open access
and refinement of the screening process. This procedure
was repeated if no consensus was reached.
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria followed the Participants, Interventions,
Comparators, Outcomes and Study design framework.28
Systematic reviews of treatment efcacy (primary research
question)
Participants: In line with data from the Global Burden
of Disease Study 2019,1 3 the following high- burden
diseases were chosen to be included: back pain, osteoar-
thritis, rheumatoid arthritis, cerebral palsy, Alzheimer/
dementia, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(COPD), ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and lung cancer
(see online supplemental data 4) for detail on the process
of population selection). The target population(s) were
included if separate analysis was performed per disease
category. Reviews that encompassed studies/reports with
participants who had undergone surgery before or after
rehabilitation were excluded.
Interventions: The approach from Rauch et al29 was
adopted to identify relevant interventions; clinical prac-
tice guidelines from the UK, USA and Germany reporting
on non- pharmacological interventions were evaluated
(see online supplemental data 5) for a list of guide-
lines used) and if relevant guidelines were not available,
expert team members were asked to provide suggestions
on current conservative non- pharmacological inter-
ventions (see online supplemental data 6) for details
on the interventions considered). In total, 12 experts,
comprising team members and international experts,
ranked the suggested interventions based on the impor-
tance of evidence mapping with the question: ‘Select
(tick) the interventions according to your view of the
importance/urgency to do evidence mapping and iden-
tify knowledge gaps’. The top three interventions for
each disease category were selected. If more than three
interventions received equal votes in the survey, a panel
of three experts (DLB, TSzikszay and RD) met to discuss
and select the top interventions. Table 1 lists the resulting
interventions, of which one had to be included in the
review.
Comparators: Reviews were included if the intervention
was compared with minimal or no intervention (eg, ‘usual
care’, placebo/sham, true (no intervention) control) or
with other interventions. The rationale for including
other interventions as comparators was that most inter-
ventions show efficacy compared with, for example, no
intervention, and it is, therefore, more informative for
clinical practice if data on the comparative effects of
different interventions are also presented. Reviews were
excluded if a combination of non- pharmacological
conservative interventions with pharmacological or non-
conservative interventions (eg, exercise plus surgery) was
examined. Similarly, the comparison of different aspects
within the same intervention domain, such as exercise
against another form of exercise, was also excluded.
Outcomes: The inclusion criteria for reviews were based
on the assessment of specific core outcomes for various
disease categories, including the consideration of conser-
vative non- pharmacological interventions. This approach
was adopted to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of the
effectiveness and relevance of different treatment modal-
ities in managing specific disease categories.
For back pain, osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis,
reviews were included if they evaluated pain, disability
and/or quality of life.30–32 For cerebral palsy, Alzheimer’s
disease or dementia, the assessments of physical func-
tioning and/or quality of life were considered.33 34 For
stroke, COPD, IHD or lung cancer, reviews that evaluated
exercise capacity and/or quality of life were included.35–38
Study design: Systematic reviews of randomised
controlled trials (RCTs) in English were included. We
defined a systematic review as a study that addresses
a specific research question by identifying primary
research evidence that meets defined eligibility criteria
identified by a search of academic research databases.
Further, peer- reviewed full- text journal publications
from the last 5 years (ie, with reference to publication
date) were eligible. The rationale for this was that reviews
should be recent, as per findings20 on the loss of currency
of reviews. The most recent Cochrane review on the topic
will be included, irrespective of the time frame. Suppose
there are more than five reviews of the last 5 years. In that
case, the reviews available will be prioritised according
to (a) how specific the included population was to the
target population, (b) the relevance of the intervention
evaluated to the target intervention, (c) in what setting
the intervention was performed (d), number of databases
searched, (e) number of RCTs included and (f) whether
the study was published in a journal from a potentially
predatory publisher (see online supplemental data 7).
The levels of priority (=Prio) were assigned an ordinal
value of 1 for ‘high’, 0 for ‘moderate’ and −1 for ‘low’
and were summed for each review based on the afore-
mentioned criteria. The five highest priority reviews will
be included.
Our operationalisation of the inclusion criteria as part
of the screening process is presented in online supple-
mental data 8.
Systematic reviews of implementation (secondary research
question)
For systematic reviews of implementation (focusing on
barriers/facilitators and trials of guideline implemen-
tation), the same criteria were used for participants as
for the primary research question on systematic reviews
of treatment efficacy. There were no restrictions on the
criteria for interventions, comparators or outcomes. The
systematic review had to be focused on either barriers/
facilitators to implementing evidence in clinical practice
or trials for implementing evidence in clinical practice.
Systematic reviews, which included RCT or cluster trials
and non- randomised study designs such as interrupted
time series and controlled before/after studies and/or
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
4DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032
Open access
Table 1 Diseases, interventions and outcomes considered
Disease Outcome
Quality
of life
Pain
intensity
Physical
functioning
Exercise
capacity
Back pain
(acute)
Back pain
(subacute/
chronic)
Osteoarthritis
Rheumatoid
arthritis
Cerebral palsy
Alzheimer/
dementia
Stroke
Chronic
obstructive
pulmonary
disease
Ischaemic
heart disease
Lung cancer
Intervention Education Cognitive
behavioural
therapy
Exercise Cognitive
behavioural
therapy+exercise
Physical
activity/
promotion
Behavioural
change
technique
Postural
training
Occupational
therapy
Telehealth Early
mobilisation
Intensive
mobilisation
Breathing
technique
Physical functioning refers to the ability to perform physical tasks and/or activities related to daily living.44 This includes aspects such as strength, exibility, balance and coordination, as well as walking, climbing stairs and others. In this review, we dened it as being measured by a questionnaire.
Exercise capacity is a specic component of overall physical functioning that focuses on the maximum amount of physical exertion one can sustain.45 This review dened it as performance- based tests rather than patient- reported outcomes.
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
5
DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032
Open access
qualitative or mixed- methods studies, were included as
long as these addressed the research question.
Data extraction
Two independent reviewers will extract the data of
included reviews, including publication demographics
(eg, authors, publication year), population (name of
diagnosis/condition), stage of the condition (acute,
subacute, chronic), intervention, comparators in a meta-
analysis, outcomes included in our review (number of
reports included, number of patients, effect size estimate,
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development
and Evaluation assessment if performed). The data will
be compiled and organised in a spreadsheet using Micro-
soft Excel (V.16.0). If conflicts arise, the two reviewers
will discuss them, and the adjudicator will be consulted
if a conflict cannot be resolved. When only figures are
presented (rather than numerical data within the text),
data will be extracted using the web app WebPlotDigi-
tizer (https://automeris.io/WebPlotDigitizer/). If not
possible, data will be manually extracted using ImageJ
(https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/) to measure the length (in
pixels) of the axes to calibrate and then the length in
pixels of the data points of interest.39 Where information
was unavailable within a paper, authors will be contacted
at least three times over 4 weeks to request the data.
Data extraction will be piloted on five reports chosen
at random before extraction. All reviewers will conduct
the pilot extraction independently. The results will be
discussed with all coauthors to refine the extraction
template. This step will be repeated unless a consensus
is reached.
Identication of study overlap
To quantitatively assess the degree of overlap between
included systematic reviews, the corrected covered area
(CCA) will be calculated.40 The CCA considers the
degree of similarity between different systematic reviews
and provides a measure of the extent to which they have
studied, populations, interventions, comparators and/or
outcomes in common. In addition, a qualitative assess-
ment will be conducted to describe the percentage of
overlap in the findings.
Quality of included systematic reviews
Two reviewers will independently assess the methodolog-
ical quality of the included systematic reviews using (A
MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; https://
amstar.ca/Amstar-2.php) according to an internal
protocol (see online supplemental data 9). In case of
conflicts, the two reviewers will discuss and contact an
adjudicator if conflicts persist.
Quality of primary studies included in the systematic review
The method (eg, Cochrane Risk of Bias version 1 or 2,41
PEDRO scale)42 used in the systematic review to assess
the risk of bias in the primary studies will be recorded.
Furthermore, the summary estimates of the risk of bias of
the included studies (ie, percentage rated as low risk of
bias) will be recorded.
Synthesis methods
The data synthesis will be performed narratively and via
summary information (eg, the number of reviews on a
particular research question). A reanalysis of underlying
primary studies will not be performed.
Reporting bias
Whether authors attempted to assess reporting bias will
be recorded. If it is present, we will record whether this
was via statistical (eg, Egger’s test) or visual (eg, assess-
ment of funnel plot asymmetry) means only or whether
authors attempted to identify potentially unpublished
studies (eg, via assessment of clinical trial registries).
Certainty assessment
Whether a certainty assessment is present in a systematic
review will be assessed. If it is present, the certainty assess-
ment made by the authors will be recorded.
DISCUSSION
Our study protocol outlines the need for up- to- date
evidence in the management of high- burden diseases.
The emphasis on non- pharmacological conservative
treatments aligns with current healthcare trends and
international guidelines, which focus on patient- centred,
cost- effective approaches. We aim to produce evidence
maps on the existence and recency of systematic reviews
of non- pharmacological conservative treatments for
high- burden diseases, which, together with identifying
facilitators and barriers to treatment uptake, will inform
the design of future health strategies and research
initiatives. Pending a more conclusive understanding of
the evidence, our work supports urging public health
authorities (eg, WHO, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence and Robert Koch Institute) to adopt refined
programmes based on the latest high- quality evidence.
Strengths
Recognising the diminishing relevance of systematic
reviews over time, our study addresses this challenge
by providing a contemporary overview of the evidence
landscape. We aim for a focused examination of relevant
evidence, emphasising high- quality sources, particularly
systematic reviews, including those published by the
Cochrane Collaboration. We enhance the reliability and
generalisability of the findings by mapping the current
state of systematic reviews of RCTs. This emphasis on
RCTs highlights their methodological rigour and unique
strengths in minimising bias and providing reliable
evidence for informed decision- making.43 Furthermore,
the integration of evidence- based clinical practice guide-
lines into our disease selection process will provide a
robust basis for recommendations. In addition, our
careful disease selection process, informed by the latest
burden of disease data and guided by specialists in the
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
6DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032
Open access
field, ensures the relevance of our findings. The use of
expert panels is a distinct advantage, facilitating nuanced
selections.
Limitations
While expert panels are adept at identifying nuances
in the available evidence, they introduce a potential for
subjectivity in the delineation of disease and treatment
categories. Similarly, we recognise the impact of national
perspectives on our findings, which may underscore the
different disease and treatment landscapes in global
contexts. This, together with our prioritisation strategy
based on review quality, may result in a limited number
of reviews being considered. Furthermore, the hetero-
geneity of disease definitions, diagnoses, interventions
and comparison groups presents a major challenge to
evidence synthesis. Hence, the methods we have outlined
for the qualitative presentation and synthesis of evidence
should provide the reader with a comprehensive frame-
work for interpreting the results.
In perspective, recognising the inherent limitations
of heterogeneity of evidence, our work will provide a
contemporary and focused overview of reviews, empha-
sising high- quality sources and expert input.
Author afliations
1Department of Applied Health Sciences, Division of Physiotherapy, Hochschule für
Gesundheit Bochum, Bochum, Germany
2Department of Health, University of Applied Sciences Döpfer, Koln, Germany
3Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Physiotherapy, Universität zu Lübeck,
Lubeck, Germany
4Department of Therapy Sciences, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-
Senftenberg, Cottbus, Germany
5Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav, Center for Evidence- based
Healthcare, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
6Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich- Alexander- Universität Erlangen-
Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
7Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Burwood,
Victoria, Australia
8Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
9Eastern Health Emergency Medicine Program, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
10Physio Meets Science GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany
11Faculty of Social Work and Health, HAWK, Hildesheim, Germany
12Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiotherapy, University of Prishtina,
Prishtina, Albania
13IMPACT in Health, Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
X Patrick J Owen @PatrickOwenPhD, Rilind Shala @RilindShalaPT and Daniel L
Belavý @belavyprof
Contributors Conceptualisation: DLB, TB, KE, PE, CK and TL. KL, AJ, CM, PJO, AS,
RSchäfer, TSaueressig, RShala. TSzikszay and JZ. Methodology: DLB, TB, KE, PE,
CK, TL. KL, AJ, CM, PJO, TSaueressig, AS, RSchäfer, TSchleimer, RShala. TSzikszay,
JZ, RD and TSaueressig. Software: DLB and PJO. Search strategy development
and implementation: DLB, TSchleimer and RD. TIAB pilot: RD, TSaueressig, TB,
AJ, RShala and TSchleimer. TIAB screening: RD, TSaueressig, TB, AJ, RSchäfer
and TSchleimer. TIAB adjudication: RD. Full text pilot: RD, TSaueressig, TB, AJ,
RSchäfer, TSchleimer. Resources: DLB and PJO. Writing–original draft: RD. Writing–
review and editing: DLB, TB, KE, PE, CK and TL. KL, AJ, CM, PJO, TSaueressig, AS,
RSchäfer, TSchleimer, RShala. TSzikszay, JZ, RD; TSchleimer. Visualisation: RD.
Supervision: DLB. Project administration: DLB, RSchäfer, RD. Funding acquisition:
DLB. DLB is the guarantor.
Funding This project is supported in part by an internal institutional grant (to DLB
from the Hochschule für Gesundheit).
Competing interests The authors declare no conicts.
Patient consent for publication Not applicable.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated
and/or analysed for this study. No data are available.
Open access This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the
Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY- NC 4.0) license, which
permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non- commercially,
and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is
properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the
use is non- commercial. See:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
ORCID iDs
RebekkaDöding http://orcid.org/0009-0003-5114-6149
KatjaEhrenbrusthoff http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-8943
Patrick JOwen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3924-9375
Daniel LBelavý http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9307-832X
REFERENCES
1 Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, etal. Global burden of 369 diseases and
injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic
analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. The Lancet
2020;396:1204–22.
2 World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health. WHO;
2015. Available: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/186463
[Accessed 11 Feb 2023].
3 Cieza A, Causey K, Kamenov K. Global estimates of the need for
rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease study 2019: a
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
Lancet 2021;396:2006–17.
4 Peterson- KFF Health Sys- tem Tracker. How has U.S. spending
on healthcare changed over time?, Available: https://www.
healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spending-healthcare-
changed-time/ [Accessed 13 Feb 2023].
5 Health expenditure Australia 2012–13. Summary. Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare
; 2014. Available: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-
expenditure/health-expenditure-australia-2012-13/contents/
summary [Accessed 13 Feb 2013].
6 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Rapid growth in
government health spending during the pandemic. 2022. Available:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/2021/
november/rapid-growth-in-government-health-spending-during
[Accessed 13 Feb 2023].
7 Gesundheitsausgaben 1992 bis 2000. Statistisches Bundesamt,
Available: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Methoden/WISTA-Wirtschaft-
und-Statistik/2002/07/gesundheitsusgaben-1992-2000-072002.html
[Accessed 13 Feb 2023].
8 Gesundheitsausgaben im Jahr 2020 auf über 440 Milliarden Euro
gestiegen. Statistisches Bundesamt, Available: https://www.destatis.
de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2022/04/PD22_153_236.html
[Accessed 13 Feb 2023].
9 NICE. Overview Chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s:
assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary
pain | Guidance, 2021. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/
ng193 [Accessed 13 Feb 2023].
10 Overview | Stroke and transient ischaemic attack in over 16s:
diagnosis and initial management | Guidance | NICE, 2019. Available:
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng128
11 NICE. Overview | Rheumatoid arthritis in adults: management |
Guidance, 2018. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng100
[Accessed 13 Feb 2023].
12 Fernandes L, Hagen KB, Bijlsma JWJ, etal. EULAR
recommendations for the non- pharmacological core management of
hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013;72:1125–35.
13 Bannuru RR, Osani MC, Vaysbrot EE, etal. OARSI guidelines
for the non- surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular
osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 2019;27:1578–89.
14 Shields GE, Wells A, Doherty P, etal. Cost- effectiveness of cardiac
rehabilitation: a systematic review. Heart 2018;104:1403–10.
15 Howard- Wilsher S, Irvine L, Fan H, etal. Systematic overview of
economic evaluations of health- related rehabilitation. Disabil Health
J 2016;9:11–25.
16 Andronis L, Kinghorn P, Qiao S, etal. Cost- Effectiveness of Non-
Invasive and Non- Pharmacological Interventions for Low Back Pain:
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
7
DödingR, etal. BMJ Open Sp Ex Med 2024;10:e002032. doi:10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032
Open access
a Systematic Literature Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy
2017;15:173–201.
17 Bürge E, Monnin D, Berchtold A, etal. Cost- Effectiveness of
Physical Therapy Only and of Usual Care for Various Health
Conditions: Systematic Review. Phys Ther 2016;96:774–86.
18 Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, etal. New evidence pyramid. Evid
Based Med 2016;21:125–7.
19 Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and Meta-
analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J
Family Med Prim Care 2013;2:9–14.
20 Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, etal. How quickly do
systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern
Med 2007;147:224–33.
21 Martínez García L, Sanabria AJ, García Alvarez E, etal. The validity
of recommendations from clinical guidelines: a survival analysis.
CMAJ 2014;186:1211–9.
22 Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, etal. When and how to update
systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016;354:i3507.
23 Scheel AM, Schijen M, Lakens D. An Excess of Positive Results:
Comparing the Standard Psychology Literature With Registered
Reports. Adv Methods Pract Psychol Sci 2021;4:251524592110074.
24 Howick J, Koletsi D, Ioannidis JPA, etal. Most healthcare
interventions tested in Cochrane Reviews are not effective according
to high quality evidence: a systematic review and meta- analysis. J
Clin Epidemiol 2022;148:160–9.
25 Brookes VJ, Del Rio Vilas VJ, Ward MP. Disease prioritization: what
is the state of the art? Epidemiol Infect 2015;143:2911–22.
26 Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, etal. Reporting guideline for overviews
of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR
statement. BMJ 2022;378:e070849.
27 Wright K, Golder S, Rodriguez- Lopez R. Citation searching:
a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour
interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014;14:73.
28 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, etal. The PRISMA 2020
statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
BMJ 2021;372:n71.
29 Rauch A, Negrini S, Cieza A. Toward Strengthening Rehabilitation
in Health Systems: Methods Used to Develop a WHO Package
of Rehabilitation Interventions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil
2019;100:2205–11.
30 Chiarotto A, Boers M, Deyo RA, etal. Core outcome measurement
instruments for clinical trials in nonspecic low back pain. Pain
2018;159:481–95.
31 Smith TO, Hawker GA, Hunter DJ, etal. The OMERACT- OARSI Core
Domain Set for Measurement in Clinical Trials of Hip and/or Knee
Osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2019;46:981–9.
32 Kirkham J, Christensen R, Boers M. Use of composite outcomes
facilitate core outcome set uptake in rheumatoid arthritis trials. Ann
Rheum Dis 2020;79:301–2.
33 McPhee PG, Benner JL, Sanvido L, etal. A core outcome set for
multimorbidity risk in individuals with cerebral palsy. Dev Med Child
Neurol 2022;64:881–9.
34 Benner JL, Noten S, Limsakul C, etal. Outcomes in adults
with cerebral palsy: systematic review using the International
Classication of Functioning, Disability and Health. Dev Med Child
Neurol 2019;61:1153–61.
35 Souto- Miranda S, Rodrigues G, Spruit MA, etal. Pulmonary
rehabilitation outcomes in individuals with chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease: A systematic review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med
2022;65:101564.
36 Dinglas VD, Cherukuri SPS, Needham DM. Core outcomes sets for
studies evaluating critical illness and patient recovery. Curr Opin Crit
Care 2020;26:489–99.
37 Ramsey I, Eckert M, Hutchinson AD, etal. Core outcome sets in
cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-
reported outcome measures: a systematic review. J Patient Rep
Outcomes 2020;4:77.
38 Garg D, Gupta A, Agarwal A, etal. Latest Trends in Outcome
Measures in Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment Trials. Brain
Sci 2022;12:922.
39 Vucic K, Jelicic Kadic A, Puljak L. Survey of Cochrane protocols
found methods for data extraction from gures not mentioned or
unclear. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:1161–4.
40 Pieper D, Antoine S- L, Mathes T, etal. Systematic review nds
overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J
Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:368–75.
41 Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Available:
https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-08
[accessed 12 Feb 2024].
42 PEDro- Skala - PEDro, 2016. Available: https://pedro.org.au/german/
resources/pedro-scale/ [Accessed 12 Feb 2024].
43 Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding
randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2018;210:2–21.
44 Painter P, Stewart AL, Carey S. Physical functioning: denitions,
measurement, and expectations. Adv Ren Replace Ther
1999;6:110–23.
45 Goldstein RE. Clinical methods: the history, physical, and laboratory
examinations. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW, eds. Exercise
Capacity. Boston: Butterworths, 1990. Available: http://www.ncbi.
nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK404/ [accessed 26 May 2023].
by copyright. on October 16, 2024 by guest. Protectedhttp://bmjopensem.bmj.com/BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med: first published as 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002032 on 15 October 2024. Downloaded from
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Objective To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Design Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Participants Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. Setting International consensus. Intervention Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. Results From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. Conclusions PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.
Article
Full-text available
Background Disease modification trials in dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) have not met with success. One potential criticism of these trials is the lack of sensitive outcome measures. A large number of outcome measures have been employed in dementia and MCI trials. This review aims to describe and analyze the utility of cognitive/clinical outcome measures in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and MCI trials. Methods A PubMed search was conducted using relevant MeSH terms and exploded keywords. The search was confined to English language publications of human studies from the last five years which describe the latest trends in the use of outcome measures. Results Despite broad use, the outcome measures employed are heterogeneous, with little data on correlations between scales. Another problem is that most studies are over-reliant on clinician/researcher assessment and cognitive outcomes, and there is a definite lack of stakeholder input. Finetuning of the paradigm is also required for people with early-stage disease, mild to moderate disease, and advanced dementia, as the outcome measures in these subgroups have varying relevance. Disease modification/prevention is an appropriate goal in early disease, whereas palliation and freedom from discomfort are paramount in later stages. The outcome measures selected must be suitable for and sensitive to these particular care goals. Although there is a shift to enrich MCI cohorts using a biomarker-based approach, the clinical relevance of such outcome measures remains uncertain. Conclusions Outcome measures in dementia/MCI trials remain inhomogeneous and diverse, despite extensive use. Outcome measures fall within several paradigms, including cognitive, functional, quality-of-life, biomarker-based, and patient-reported outcome measures. The success of future disease-modifying trials is reliant to a large extent on the selection of outcome measures which combine all outcomes of clinical relevance as well as clinical meaning. Outcome measures should be tied to the type and stage of dementia and to the specific interventions employed.
Article
Full-text available
Objective To estimate the proportion of healthcare interventions tested within Cochrane Reviews that are effective according to high-quality evidence. Study design and setting We selected a random sample of 2428 (35%) of all Cochrane Reviews published between 1 January 2008 and 5 March 2021. We extracted data about interventions within these reviews that were compared with placebo, or no treatment, and whose outcome quality was rated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We calculated the proportion of interventions whose effectiveness was based on high-quality evidence according to GRADE, had statistically significant positive effects, and were judged as beneficial by the review authors. We also calculated the proportion of interventions that suggested harm. Results Of 1567 eligible interventions, 87 (5.6%) had high quality evidence on first-listed primary outcomes, positive, statistically significant results and were rated by review authors as beneficial. Harms were measured for 577 (36.8%) interventions, 127 of which (8.1%) had statistically significant evidence of harm. Our dependence on the reliability of Cochrane author assessments (including their GRADE assessments) was a potential limitation of our study. Conclusion Most healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high quality evidence, and harms are under-reported.
Article
Full-text available
Aim To: (1) investigate the importance of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) within a core outcome set (COS) for multimorbidity (at least two chronic health conditions) risk in individuals with cerebral palsy (CP); (2) investigate the feasibility of OMIs within the COS in international clinical research settings in adolescents and adults with CP; and (3) describe the associations between the COS data and Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels. Method Eighty‐three individuals with CP completed a survey on health outcomes: physical behaviour, nutrition, sleep, endurance, body composition, blood pressure, blood lipids, and glucose. A cross‐sectional study assessed the feasibility of the COS in 67 adolescents and adults with CP (mean age 30y, SD 15y 1mo, min–max: 14–68y, 52.2% male) at four centres. Prevalence of multimorbidity risk and associations with GMFCS levels are described. Results Most participants rated physical behaviour, nutrition, sleep, and endurance as very important. Body composition, blood pressure, nutrition, and sleep were highly feasible since data were collected in 88% or more participants who consented to having the assessments. Physical behaviour, cardiorespiratory endurance, and blood draws were collected in less than 60% of participants. Total time sedentary (ρ=0.53, p<0.01) and endurance (ρ=−0.46, p<0.01) were significantly associated with GMFCS level. Interpretation The COS identified that most participants had poor sleep quality and endurance, did not have healthy diets, and showed increased sedentary behaviour. Individuals with CP valued these outcomes as most important, suggesting a need to assess these modifiable behaviours in this population. Objective measures of physical behaviour and cardiorespiratory endurance in the COS required additional personnel, time, and participant burden. We recommend that healthcare providers should perform a simpler first screen using questionnaire‐based assessments and then focus the use of the remainder of the COS if required for the patient.
Article
Full-text available
Selectively publishing results that support the tested hypotheses (“positive” results) distorts the available evidence for scientific claims. For the past decade, psychological scientists have been increasingly concerned about the degree of such distortion in their literature. A new publication format has been developed to prevent selective reporting: In Registered Reports (RRs), peer review and the decision to publish take place before results are known. We compared the results in published RRs ( N = 71 as of November 2018) with a random sample of hypothesis-testing studies from the standard literature ( N = 152) in psychology. Analyzing the first hypothesis of each article, we found 96% positive results in standard reports but only 44% positive results in RRs. We discuss possible explanations for this large difference and suggest that a plausible factor is the reduction of publication bias and/or Type I error inflation in the RR literature.
Article
Full-text available
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Article
Full-text available
Background Rehabilitation has often been seen as a disability-specific service needed by only few of the population. Despite its individual and societal benefits, rehabilitation has not been prioritised in countries and is under-resourced. We present global, regional, and country data for the number of people who would benefit from rehabilitation at least once during the course of their disabling illness or injury. Methods To estimate the need for rehabilitation, data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 were used to calculate the prevalence and years of life lived with disability (YLDs) of 25 diseases, impairments, or bespoke aggregations of sequelae that were selected as amenable to rehabilitation. All analyses were done at the country level and then aggregated to seven regions: World Bank high-income countries and the six WHO regions (ie, Africa, the Americas, Southeast Asia, Europe, Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Pacific). Findings Globally, in 2019, 2·41 billion (95% uncertainty interval 2·34–2·50) individuals had conditions that would benefit from rehabilitation, contributing to 310 million [235–392] YLDs. This number had increased by 63% from 1990 to 2019. Regionally, the Western Pacific had the highest need of rehabilitation services (610 million people [588–636] and 83 million YLDs [62–106]). The disease area that contributed most to prevalence was musculoskeletal disorders (1·71 billion people [1·68–1·80]), with low back pain being the most prevalent condition in 134 of the 204 countries analysed. Interpretation To our knowledge, this is the first study to produce a global estimate of the need for rehabilitation services and to show that at least one in every three people in the world needs rehabilitation at some point in the course of their illness or injury. This number counters the common view of rehabilitation as a service required by only few people. We argue that rehabilitation needs to be brought close to communities as an integral part of primary health care to reach more people in need. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Article
Full-text available
Background: In an era of shifting global agendas and expanded emphasis on non-communicable diseases and injuries along with communicable diseases, sound evidence on trends by cause at the national level is essential. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) provides a systematic scientific assessment of published, publicly available, and contributed data on incidence, prevalence, and mortality for a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of diseases and injuries. Methods: GBD estimates incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) due to 369 diseases and injuries, for two sexes, and for 204 countries and territories. Input data were extracted from censuses, household surveys, civil registration and vital statistics, disease registries, health service use, air pollution monitors, satellite imaging, disease notifications, and other sources. Cause-specific death rates and cause fractions were calculated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model and spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression. Cause-specific deaths were adjusted to match the total all-cause deaths calculated as part of the GBD population, fertility, and mortality estimates. Deaths were multiplied by standard life expectancy at each age to calculate YLLs. A Bayesian meta-regression modelling tool, DisMod-MR 2.1, was used to ensure consistency between incidence, prevalence, remission, excess mortality, and cause-specific mortality for most causes. Prevalence estimates were multiplied by disability weights for mutually exclusive sequelae of diseases and injuries to calculate YLDs. We considered results in the context of the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a composite indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and fertility rate in females younger than 25 years. Uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated for every metric using the 25th and 975th ordered 1000 draw values of the posterior distribution. Findings: Global health has steadily improved over the past 30 years as measured by age-standardised DALY rates. After taking into account population growth and ageing, the absolute number of DALYs has remained stable. Since 2010, the pace of decline in global age-standardised DALY rates has accelerated in age groups younger than 50 years compared with the 1990-2010 time period, with the greatest annualised rate of decline occurring in the 0-9-year age group. Six infectious diseases were among the top ten causes of DALYs in children younger than 10 years in 2019: lower respiratory infections (ranked second), diarrhoeal diseases (third), malaria (fifth), meningitis (sixth), whooping cough (ninth), and sexually transmitted infections (which, in this age group, is fully accounted for by congenital syphilis; ranked tenth). In adolescents aged 10-24 years, three injury causes were among the top causes of DALYs: road injuries (ranked first), self-harm (third), and interpersonal violence (fifth). Five of the causes that were in the top ten for ages 10-24 years were also in the top ten in the 25-49-year age group: road injuries (ranked first), HIV/AIDS (second), low back pain (fourth), headache disorders (fifth), and depressive disorders (sixth). In 2019, ischaemic heart disease and stroke were the top-ranked causes of DALYs in both the 50-74-year and 75-years-and-older age groups. Since 1990, there has been a marked shift towards a greater proportion of burden due to YLDs from non-communicable diseases and injuries. In 2019, there were 11 countries where non-communicable disease and injury YLDs constituted more than half of all disease burden. Decreases in age-standardised DALY rates have accelerated over the past decade in countries at the lower end of the SDI range, while improvements have started to stagnate or even reverse in countries with higher SDI. Interpretation: As disability becomes an increasingly large component of disease burden and a larger component of health expenditure, greater research and development investment is needed to identify new, more effective intervention strategies. With a rapidly ageing global population, the demands on health services to deal with disabling outcomes, which increase with age, will require policy makers to anticipate these changes. The mix of universal and more geographically specific influences on health reinforces the need for regular reporting on population health in detail and by underlying cause to help decision makers to identify success stories of disease control to emulate, as well as opportunities to improve. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Article
Full-text available
Objectives: Issues arising from a lack of outcome standardisation in health research may be addressed by the use of core outcome sets (COS), which represent agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum in studies of a health condition. This review investigated the scope, outcomes, and development methods of consensus-based COS for cancer, and their approaches and criteria for selecting instruments to assess core patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Studies that used a consensus-driven approach to develop a COS containing PROs, for use in research with cancer populations, were sought via MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature. Results: Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most COS (82%) were specific to a cancer type (prostate, esophageal, head and neck, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, lung, or colorectal) and not specific to an intervention or treatment (76%). Conducting a systematic review was the most common approach to identifying outcomes (88%) and administering a Delphi survey was the most common approach to prioritising outcomes (71%). The included COS contained 90 PROs, of which the most common were physical function, sexual (dys) function, pain, fatigue, and emotional function. Most studies (59%) did not address how to assess the core PROs included in a set, while 7 studies (41%) recommended specific instruments. Their approaches to instrument appraisal and selection varied. Conclusion: Efforts to standardise outcome assessment via the development of COS may be undermined by a lack of recommendations on how to measure core PROs. To optimise COS usefulness and adoption, valid and reliable instruments for the assessment of core PROs should be recommended with the aid of resources designed to facilitate this process.
Article
Background: The magnitude of response to pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is influenced by the selection of outcomes and measures. Objectives: This systematic review aimed to review all outcomes and measures used in clinical trials of PR for individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: The review involved a search of Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Library, EBSCO, Science Direct and PubMed databases for studies of stable individuals with COPD undergoing PR. Frequency of reporting for each domain, outcome and measure was synthesized by using Microsoft Excel. Results: We included 267 studies (43153 individuals with COPD). A broad range of domains (n=22), outcomes (n=163) and measures (n=217) were reported. Several measures were used for the same outcome. The most reported outcomes were exercise capacity (n=218) assessed with the 6-min walk test (n=140), health-related quality of life (n=204) assessed with the Saint George's respiratory questionnaire (n=99), and symptoms (n=158) assessed with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (n=56). The least reported outcomes were comorbidities, adverse events and knowledge. Conclusions: This systematic review reinforces the need for a core outcome set for PR in individuals with COPD because of high heterogeneity in reported outcomes and measures. Future studies should assess the importance of each outcome for PR involving different stakeholders. Prospero id: CRD42017079935.