Objectives: To systematically analyze the use of evidence assessment tools in systematic reviews of management and education. Study design and setting: We systematically searched selected literature databases and websites to identify systematic reviews on management and education. We extracted general information of the included studies and information about the evidence assessment tool they applied, including whether it was used for methodological quality assessment, reporting quality assessment or evidence grading, as well as the name, reference, publication year, version and original intended use of the tool, the role of the tool in the systematic review, and whether the quality determination criteria were given. Results: A total of 299 systematic reviews were included, of which only 34.8% used evidence assessment tools. A total of 66 different evidence assessment tools were used, of which Risk of Bias (ROB) and its updated version (n = 16, 15.4%) were the most frequent. The specific roles of the evidence assessment tools were reported clearly in 57 reviews, and 27 reviews used two tools. Conclusion: Evidence assessment tools were seldom used in systematic reviews in social sciences. The understanding and reporting of evidence assessment tools among the researchers and users still needs improvement.

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that birth and care in a maternity service associated with a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is associated with improved survival in preterm babies born at <27 weeks of gestation. We conducted a systematic review to address whether similar gains manifested in babies born between 27+0 and 31+6 weeks (hereafter 27 and 31 weeks) of gestation, or in those with a birth weight between 1000 and 1500 g. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline and CINAHL databases for studies comparing outcomes for babies born between 27 and 31 weeks or between 1000 and 1500 g birth weight, based on designation of the neonatal unit where the baby was born or subsequently cared for (NICU vs non-NICU setting). A modified QUIPS (QUality In Prognostic Studies) tool was used to assess quality. RESULTS: Nine studies compared outcomes for babies born between 27 and 31 weeks of gestation and 11 studies compared outcomes for babies born between 1000 and 1500 g birth weight. Heterogeneity in comparator groups, birth locations, gestational age ranges, timescale for mortality reporting, and description of morbidities facilitated a narrative review as opposed to a meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: Due to paucity of evidence, significant heterogeneity and potential for bias, we were not able to answer our question-does place of birth or care affect outcomes for babies born between 27 and 31 weeks? This supports the need for large-scale research to investigate place of birth and care for babies born in this gestational age range.

AIM: Systematic review of knowledge translation studies focused on paediatric emergency care to describe and assess the interventions used in emergency department settings. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched for knowledge translation studies conducted in the emergency department that included the care of children. Two researchers independently reviewed the studies. RESULTS: From 1305 publications identified, 15 studies of varied design were included. Four were cluster-controlled trials, two patient-level randomised controlled trials, two interrupted time series, one descriptive study and six before and after intervention studies. Knowledge translation interventions were predominantly aimed at the treating clinician, with some targeting the organisation. Studies assessed effectiveness of interventions over 6-12 months in before and after studies, and 3-28 months in cluster or patient level controlled trials. Changes in clinical practice were variable, with studies on single disease and single treatments in a single site showing greater improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for effective methods to translate knowledge into practice in paediatric emergency medicine is fairly limited. More optimal study designs with more explicit descriptions of interventions are needed to facilitate other groups to effectively apply these procedures in their own setting.

Quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in the management of head and neck cancers (HNC). We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the impact of curative surgical re (+/- adjuvant therapy) of HNC on QoL. Eligible studies (participants>age 18years, reported fully in English, and prospectively assessed QoL) were filtered using quality criteria, and classified according to the added value, using a published taxonomy. MEDLINE and EMBASE searching yielded 302 distinct reports, 49 met eligibility, and 26 met quality criteria. Among the eligible studies, achievement of certain quality criteria was poor: a priori hypothesis (8%), statistical accounting of missing data (8%), reporting of assessment interval (35%) and rationale for chosen measure (53%). The most frequent ways QoL added value were: understanding of treatment benefit and risk (100%), comparing treatments for QoL effect (92%) and advancing QoL research methodology (50%). QoL (physical/social functioning and various symptom domains) deteriorated with treatment, gradually recovering to baseline (cancer diagnosis) level. Swallowing, chewing, saliva, taste, eating disruption, and aesthetic deficits may persist. Advanced tumors, extensive surgical resection, need for flap reconstruction, neck dissection, and postoperative radiation are associated with worse QoL outcomes. Knowledge of these trends can be applied in shared decision making, identification of commonly faced QoL issues, and to develop and provide survivorship resources. Future research should focus on routinely incorporating QoL in randomized studies, reporting the result according to guidelines, and following knowledge translation principles to maximize the clinician's and patient's ability to use QoL data

Quality of life (QoL) is an important consideration in the management of head and neck cancers (HNC). We systematically reviewed the literature to assess the impact of curative surgical re (+/- adjuvant therapy) of HNC on QoL. Eligible studies (participants>age 18 years, reported fully in English, and prospectively assessed QoL) were filtered using quality criteria, and classified according to the added value, using a published taxonomy. MEDLINE and EMBASE searching yielded 302 distinct reports, 49 met eligibility, and 26 met quality criteria. Among the eligible studies, achievement of certain quality criteria was poor: a priori hypothesis (8%), statistical accounting of missing data (8%), reporting of assessment interval (35%) and rationale for chosen measure (53%). The most frequent ways QoL added value were: understanding of treatment benefit and risk (100%), comparing treatments for QoL effect (92%) and advancing QoL research methodology (50%). QoL (physical/social functioning and various symptom domains) deteriorated with treatment, gradually recovering to baseline (cancer diagnosis) level. Swallowing, chewing, saliva, taste, eating disruption, and aesthetic deficits may persist. Advanced tumors, extensive surgical resection, need for flap reconstruction, neck dissection, and postoperative radiation are associated with worse QoL outcomes. Knowledge of these trends can be applied in shared decision making, identification of commonly faced QoL issues, and to develop and provide survivorship resources. Future research should focus on routinely incorporating QoL in randomized studies, reporting the result according to guidelines, and following knowledge translation principles to maximize the clinician's and patient's ability to use QoL data.