The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.

Cost-effectiveness (CEA) and cost-utility analyses (CUA) have become popular types of economic evaluations (EE) used for evidence-based decision-making in healthcare resource allocation. Newborn screening programs (NBS) can have significant clinical benefits for society, and cost-effectiveness analysis may help to select the optimal strategy among different screening programs, including the no-screening option, on different conditions. These economic analyses of NBS, however, are hindered by several methodological challenges. This study explored the methodological quality in recent NBS economic evaluations and analyzed the main challenges and strategies adopted by researchers to deal with them. A scoping review was conducted according to PRISMA methodology to identify CEAs and CUAs of NBS. The methodological quality of the retrieved studies was assessed quantitatively using a specific guideline for the quality assessment of NBS economic evaluations, by calculating a general score for each EE. Challenges in the studies were then explored using thematic analysis as a qualitative synthesis approach. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The quantitative analysis showed that the methodological quality of NBS economic evaluations was heterogeneous. Lack of clear description of items related to results, discussion, and discounting were the most frequent flaws. Methodological challenges in performing EEs of neonatal screenings include the adoption of a long time horizon, the use of quality-adjusted life years as health outcome measure, and the assessment of costs beyond the screening interventions. The results of this review can support future economic evaluation research, aiding researchers to develop a methodological guidance to perform EEs aimed at producing solid results to inform decisions for resource allocation in neonatal screening.

The paper discusses how qualitative evidence synthesis methods developed in other fields could be applied to evidence on environmental management and policy.

Background: The GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision making, including guideline development and policy formulation. CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on making an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and a CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Methods: We developed this guidance by examining the methods used by other GRADE approaches, gathering feedback from relevant research communities and developing consensus through project group meetings. We then piloted the guidance on several qualitative evidence syntheses before agreeing on the approach. Results: Confidence in the evidence is an assessment of the extent to which a review finding is a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. Creating a summary of each review finding and deciding whether or not CERQual should be used are important steps prior to assessing confidence. Confidence should be assessed for each review finding individually, based on the judgements made for each of the four CERQual components. Four levels are used to describe the overall assessment of confidence: high, moderate, low or very low. The overall CERQual assessment for each review finding should be explained in a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Conclusions: Structuring and summarising review findings, assessing confidence in those findings using CERQual and creating a CERQual Evidence Profile and Summary of Qualitative Findings table should be essential components of undertaking qualitative evidence syntheses. This paper describes the end point of a CERQual assessment and should be read in conjunction with the other papers in the series that provide information on assessing individual CERQual components.

This journal article introduces systematic maps in detail using three recent case studies that demonstrate their utility for research and decision-making.

BACKGROUND: The central line bundle to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) is widely regarded as one of the most evidence-based quality improvement (QI) interventions. Yet, two high-quality trials reached different conclusions about its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess the overall evidence on the effectiveness of the central line bundle and also to illustrate issues related to appraising the effectiveness of QI interventions. METHODS: We searched the English-language literature (MEDLINE to Sept 2014) for prospective evaluations of the central line bundle (hand hygiene, chlorhexidine skin antisepsis, maximum sterile barrier precautions, optimal catheter site selection, daily review of line necessity) on CLABSI. Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios were calculated using a random effects model. Risk of bias was assessed on five domains: comparability of subjects, definition of intervention, assessment of outcome, statistical analysis and co-interventions/heterogeneity. Strength of the evidence was assessed following the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, a widely recommended framework for assessing the robustness of treatment effect and the likelihood of change as a result of future studies. RESULTS: Across 59 studies, the central line bundle effectively reduced CLABSI by 56% (relative risk 0.44 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.50)). Studies that assessed bundle compliance at the individual patient level reported slightly higher reductions than other studies. Considerable heterogeneity was present in most subgroups. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias, with only six (10%) studies exhibiting low risk of bias on at least four domains without any high risk. In this subset of higher-quality studies, the reduction was 52% (95% CI 32% to 66%) without heterogeneity. Applying the GRADE framework, the overall strength of the evidence was low, but moderate in quality for the six high-quality studies. This rating is typically interpreted as meaning that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the effect estimate and may change the estimate. CONCLUSIONS: That the central line bundle could receive only a moderate evidence rating may suggest that the GRADE framework, developed mostly for traditional clinical therapies, requires modification for QI interventions. GRADE does not distinguish prospective trials (eg, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series) from lower-level observational studies. On the other hand, that the two highest quality studies reached different conclusions makes it difficult to conclude that future research would not change the effect estimate, especially given evidence of secular trends and the variability of co-interventions to ensure bundle compliance, which created heterogeneity across studies

PURPOSE: A systematic review examining the economic effects of pharmacist-provided direct patient care on health outcomes in the United States was conducted. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using 13 academic and medical databases. Studies were included in the analysis if they described pharmacist-provided direct patient care, used comparison groups, evaluated economic outcomes, and were conducted in the United States. Outcome results were categorized as (1) favorable, indicating significant improvement as a result of pharmacists' interventions or services, (2) not favorable, indicating significant improvement as a result of nonpharmacist care, (3) mixed, having favorable results on one measure of a study variable but not favorable results or no effect on another, (4) having no effect, indicating no significant difference between pharmacists' interventions or services and the comparison, or (5) unclear, indicating the outcome could not be determined based on presented data. RESULTS: Of the 56,573 citations considered, a total of 126 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Results favoring pharmacist-provided care were found in 20 studies (15.9%), mixed results were seen in 53 studies (42.1%), no effect was found in 6 studies (4.8%), and unclear results were found in 47 studies (37.3%). CONCLUSION: A majority of studies examining the economic effects of pharmacist-provided direct patient care in the United States were limited by their partial cost analyses, study design, and other analysis considerations. A majority of the 20 studies that found positive economic benefits examined pharmacists' interventions involving technical methods or multimodal approaches