Biomedical subjects

Anne-Marie Bagnall

Publications and source records attributed to Anne-Marie Bagnall.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Need for high-quality studies in health technology assessments: the case of a systematic review of treatment for retinoblastoma.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence for treatments for retinoblastoma in children. METHODS: Seventeen electronic databases were searched. Two reviewers independently selected studies. Studies of participants diagnosed with childhood retinoblastoma, any interventions, and all clinical outcomes were eligible. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and cohort studies with clear comparisons between treatment groups were included. Methodological quality was assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-one observational comparative studies were included, of which twenty-seven were retrospective. The methodological quality was generally poor, with a high risk of selection bias in all studies. Although there were high levels of treatment success in many of the studies, due to the limitations of the evidence identified, it was not possible to make meaningful and robust conclusions about the relative effectiveness of different treatment approaches for retinoblastoma in children. CONCLUSIONS: Good quality randomized controlled trials are required. Where controlled trials are not feasible, only high quality prospective, nonrandomized studies should be given consideration, due to the generally higher risk of bias in retrospective studies.

Child↗

PubMed2006

Interventions for the treatment, management and rehabilitation of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: an updated systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether any particular intervention or combination of interventions is effective in the treatment, management and rehabilitation of adults and children with a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome / myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). DESIGN: Substantive update of a systematic review published in 2002. Randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials of any intervention or combination of interventions were eligible for inclusion. Study participants could be adults or children with a diagnosis of CFS/ME based on any criteria. We searched eleven electronic databases, reference lists of articles and reviews, and textbooks on CFS/ME. Additional references were sought by contact with experts. RESULTS: Seventy studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies on behavioural, immunological, pharmacological and complementary therapies, nutritional supplements and miscellaneous other interventions were identified. Graded exercise therapy and cognitive behaviour therapy appeared to reduce symptoms and improve function based on evidence from RCTs. For most other interventions, evidence of effectiveness was inconclusive and some interventions were associated with significant adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last five years, there has been a marked increase in the size and quality of the evidence base on interventions for CFS/ME. Some behavioural interventions have shown promising results in reducing the symptoms of CFS/ME and improving physical functioning. There is a need for research to define the characteristics of patients who would benefit from specific interventions and to develop clinically relevant objective outcome measures.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Balanced decisions about health care interventions require reliable evidence on harms as well as benefits. Most systematic reviews focus on efficacy and randomised trials, for which the methodology is well established. Methods to systematically review harmful effects are less well developed and there are few sources of guidance for researchers. We present our own recent experience of conducting systematic reviews of harmful effects and make suggestions for future practice and further research. METHODS: We described and compared the methods used in three systematic reviews. Our evaluation focused on the review question, study designs and quality assessment. RESULTS: One review question focused on providing information on specific harmful effects to furnish an economic model, the other two addressed much broader questions. All three reviews included randomised and observational data, although each defined the inclusion criteria differently. Standard methods were used to assess study quality. Various practical problems were encountered in applying the study design inclusion criteria and assessing quality, mainly because of poor study design, inadequate reporting and the limitations of existing tools. All three reviews generated a large volume of work that did not yield much useful information for health care decision makers. The key areas for improvement we identified were focusing the review question and developing methods for quality assessment of studies of harmful effects. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of harmful effects are more likely to yield information pertinent to clinical decision-making if they address a focused question. This will enable clear decisions to be made about the type of research to include in the review. The methodology for assessing the quality of harmful effects data in systematic reviews requires further development.

Anticonvulsants↗