Browsing by Subject "Systematic Reviews as Topic"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Caveat emptor: the combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting.
    (Trials, 2018-09-17) Li, Tianjing; Mayo-Wilson, Evan; Fusco, Nicole; Hong, Hwanhee; Dickersin, Kay
    Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ("multiplicity"). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Telehealth Interventions Designed for Women: an Evidence Map.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2018-12) Goldstein, Karen M; Zullig, Leah L; Dedert, Eric A; Alishahi Tabriz, Amir; Brearly, Timothy W; Raitz, Giselle; Sata, Suchita Shah; Whited, John D; Bosworth, Hayden B; Gordon, Adelaide M; Nagi, Avishek; Williams, John W; Gierisch, Jennifer M

    Background

    Telehealth employs technology to connect patients to the right healthcare resources at the right time. Women are high utilizers of healthcare with gender-specific health issues that may benefit from the convenience and personalization of telehealth. Thus, we produced an evidence map describing the quantity, distribution, and characteristics of evidence assessing the effectiveness of telehealth services designed for women.

    Methods

    We searched MEDLINE® (via PubMed®) and Embase® from inception through March 20, 2018. We screened systematic reviews (SRs), randomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies using predetermined eligibility criteria. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were identified for data abstraction. To assess emerging trends, we also conducted a targeted search of ClinicalTrials.gov .

    Results

    Two hundred thirty-four primary studies and three SRs were eligible for abstraction. We grouped studies into focused areas of research: maternal health (n = 96), prevention (n = 46), disease management (n = 63), family planning (n = 9), high-risk breast cancer assessment (n = 10), intimate partner violence (n = 7), and mental health (n = 3). Most interventions focused on phone as the primary telehealth modality and featured healthcare team-to-patient communication and were limited in duration (e.g., < 12 weeks). Few interventions were conducted with older women (≥ 60 years) or in racially/ethnically diverse populations. There are few SRs in this area and limited evidence regarding newer telehealth modalities such as mobile-based applications or short message service/texting. Targeted search of clinical.trials.gov yielded 73 ongoing studies that show a shift in the use of non-telephone modalities.

    Discussion

    Our systematic evidence map highlights gaps in the existing literature, such as a lack of studies in key women's health areas (intimate partner violence, mental health), and a dearth of relevant SRs. With few existing SRs in this literature, there is an opportunity for examining effects, efficiency, and acceptability across studies to inform efforts at implementing telehealth for women.