Objectives: To establish whether items included in instruments published in the last decade assessing risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are indeed addressing risk of bias.Study Design and Setting: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2010 to October 2021 for instruments assessing risk of bias of RCTs. By extracting items and summarizing their essential content, we generated an item list. Items that two re-viewers agreed clearly did not address risk of bias were excluded. We included the remaining items in a survey in which 13 experts judged the issue each item is addressing: risk of bias, applicability, random error, reporting quality, or none of the above.Results: Seventeen eligible instruments included 127 unique items. After excluding 61 items deemed as clearly not addressing risk of bias, the item classification survey included 66 items, of which the majority of respondents deemed 20 items (30.3%) as addressing risk of bias; the majority deemed 11 (16.7%) as not addressing risk of bias; and there proved substantial disagreement for 35 (53.0%) items. Conclusion: Existing risk of bias instruments frequently include items that do not address risk of bias. For many items, experts disagree on whether or not they are addressing risk of bias.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: We were engaged by policy stakeholders to undertake a scoping review of cannabis measurement instruments to inform the evaluation of cannabis legalization impacts. We identified instruments employed in population-based or clinical research to screen and assess cannabis use, including measurement properties. We also identified the content domains included in each instrument and gaps in the measurement of key priority areas as established by policy stakeholders. Methods: We followed PRISMA and conducted searches on MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, HAPI, Scopus and grey literature. We included publications from the past 15 years that reported the use of an instrument to measure cannabis use. Six study team members calibrated screening and data abstraction, independently identified records and abstracted data. Results: Across 915 included publications, we identified 187 unique instruments covering seven content domains and 35 subdomains. The most identified instruments were the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, the Timeline Follow-Back and the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (109/915; 91/915; 64/915). The Canadian Cannabis Survey addressed the most subdomains (22/35). Frequency of use, prevalence of use, and mental health impacts were the most addressed subdomains (110/187; 94/187; 67/187) and storage, growing cannabis, and second-hand exposure were the least addressed (1/187; 4/187; 6/187). Conclusion: This research identified instruments and domains critical to the assessment of public health impacts of cannabis legalization, which can facilitate the harmonization of measures to inform policy development. Future research should develop new instruments for less commonly-addressed constructs and thoroughly explore psychometric properties of existing instruments.

Introduction: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cancer pain have been published; however, the quality of these guidelines has not been evaluated so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of CPGs for cancer pain and identify gaps limiting knowledge. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases and 12 websites from their inception to July 20, 2021, to include CPGs related to cancer pain. We used the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the methodology and reporting quality of eligible CPGs. The overall agreement among reviewers with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated. The development methods of CPGs, strength of recommendations, and levels of evidence were determined. Results: Eighteen CPGs published from 1996 to 2021 were included. The overall consistency of the reviewers in each domain was acceptable (ICC from 0.76 to 0.95). According to the AGREE II assessment, only four CPGs were determined to be recommended without modifications. For reporting quality, the average reporting rates for all seven domains of CPGs was 57.46%, with the highest domain in domain 3 (evidence, 68.89%) and the lowest domain in domain 5 (review and quality assurance, 33.3%). Conclusion: The methodological quality of cancer pain CPGs fluctuated widely, and the complete reporting rate in some areas is very low. Researchers need to make greater efforts to provide high-quality guidelines in this field to clinical decision-making.

Background: Neurogenic bladder (NGB) is a chronic and disabling condition with a high prevalence rate, which can cause economic burden on patients and their families and reduce the quality of life of patients. Researchers have carried out a large number of clinical trials on the effectiveness and safety of different interventions for the treatment of NGB. The published clinical trials of NGB generally suffered from inconsistent and irregular reporting of outcome indicators. To facilitate future research studies of NGB, a core outcome set (COS) is required, which helps translate the results into high-quality evidence. Methods and analysis: This mixed-method project has four phases instrument: in phase 1, a scoping review of the literature to identify outcomes that have been reported in clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials of interventions for NCB; in phase 2, a qualitative component using interviews to obtain the views of NGB patients, families, and their caregivers; in phase 3, Delphi survey among stakeholders to prioritize the core outcomes; and in phase 4, a face-to-face consensus meeting to discuss and agree on the final NBG COS. Conclusions: We will develop a COS that should be reported in future clinical trials of NGB.

BACKGROUND: Numerous articles have sought to identify the impact of educational interventions for improving evidence-based practice (EBP) amongst nurses, most of these focus on skills and knowledge acquired. No systematic review has explored whether this educational input translates into improved patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To review the evidence on (1) The change in patient outcomes following educational interventions to support practising nurses in implementing EBP. (2) The instruments or methods used to determine whether EBP education improves patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidance was conducted. Literature was comprehensive searched including 6 databases, journal handsearching, citation tracking, and grey literature websites. Studies were included if they reported an EBP educational intervention aimed at practising nurses and contained objective or self-reported measures of patient related outcomes. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified Health Care Practice R&D Unit (HCPRDU) tool. Because of the poor homogeneity of the included studies, the data were analysed by narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Of the 4284 articles identified, 18 were included: 12 pre-post studies, three qualitative studies, and three mixed-methods study designs. The level of quality was modest in the studies. The results of the EBP educational interventions on patient outcomes were assessed using three methods: individual projects to implement an evidence-based approach, qualitative approaches, and a questionnaire survey. The majority of the articles concluded there was a positive change in patient outcomes following an educational intervention to improve EBP; a wide range of context specific outcomes were described. CONCLUSION: Educational interventions for clinical nurses to support the implementation of EBP show promise in improving patient outcomes. However, the direct impact of EBP interventions on clinical outcomes is difficult to measure. Further testing and development is needed to improve the quality of studies and evaluation instruments in order to confirm the current findings.

Aim: To identify, appraise and describe the characteristics of instruments for measuring evidence-based knowledge, skills and/or attitudes in nursing practice. Background: Evidence-based practice has been proposed for optimal patient care for more than three decades, yet competence in evidence-based practice knowledge and skills among nurse clinicians remains difficult to measure. There is a need to identify well-validated and reliable instruments for assessing competence for evidence-based practice in nursing. Design: Psychometric systematic review. Data sources: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, CDSR, All EBM reviews and PsycInfo databases were searched from 1960-April 2013; with no language restrictions applied. Review methods: Using pre-determined inclusion criteria, three reviewers independently identified studies for full-text review, extracting data and grading instrument validity using a Psychometric Grading Framework. Results: Of 91 studies identified for full-text review, 59 met the inclusion criteria representing 24 different instruments. The Psychometric Grading Framework determined that only two instruments had adequate validity - the Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire measuring knowledge, skills and attitudes and another un-named instrument measuring only EBP knowledge and attitudes. Instruments used in another nine studies were graded as having 'weak' validity and instruments in the remaining 24 studies were graded as 'very weak'. Conclusion: The Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire was assessed as having the highest validity and was the most practical instrument to use. However, the Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire relies totally on self-report rather than direct measurement of competence suggesting a need for a performance-based instrument for measuring evidence-based knowledge, skills and attitudes in nursing.