scholarly journals PNS144 NETWORK META-ANALYSES OF REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF METHODS

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. S311
Author(s):  
S. Nambiar ◽  
S. Dehipawala ◽  
G. Miyasato ◽  
N. Hadker
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (12) ◽  
pp. 2126-2133 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Strober ◽  
J. Crowley ◽  
R.G. Langley ◽  
K. Gordon ◽  
A. Menter ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 26-26
Author(s):  
Scott Gibson ◽  
Sita Saunders ◽  
Maximilian Blüher ◽  
Amanda Hansson Hedblom ◽  
Rafael Torrejon Torres ◽  
...  

IntroductionAlthough randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are recognized as providing the highest level of clinical evidence, few medical device RCTs are available due to underfunding or inherent challenges associated with trial design. This study examines the extent to which real-world evidence (RWE) supports the recommendations made by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Medical Technologies Evaluation Programme (MTEP).MethodsAll MTEP guidance documents published online prior to October 2020 were reviewed. The “case for adoption” recommendation, type of clinical data, and clinical critiques for each MTEP submission were extracted and categorized. RWE was defined as studies with neither blinding nor prospective selection or control of patient characteristics.ResultsOf the MTEP submissions reviewed, 34 of 45 (76%) received a positive recommendation. Independent of outcome, all submissions included RWE, but only 19 (42%) utilized RCT evidence (15 were recommended and four were not). Meta-analyses of RWE were used whenever possible. The most common clinical critiques in unsuccessful submissions were the following: (i) not generalizable to the United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS); (ii) low quality; (iii) likelihood of bias; (iv) trial design faults; (v) uncertain benefit; and (vi) evidence unrelated to scope.ConclusionsThis study suggests that while the use of RCTs has not always led to a positive recommendation, RWE can be valuable in decision-making. Evidence that is generalizable to the NHS, is related to the scope, and shows clear indication of benefit is more likely to positively influence MTEP decision-making.


2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans C. Ebbers ◽  
Burkhard Pieper ◽  
Amine Issa ◽  
Janet Addison ◽  
Ulrich Freudensprung ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (04) ◽  
pp. 261-270
Author(s):  
Yasser Al Omran ◽  
Ali Abdall-Razak ◽  
Catrin Sohrabi ◽  
Tiffanie-Marie Borg ◽  
Hayat Nadama ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Augmented reality (AR) uses a set of technologies that overlays digital information into the real world, giving the user access to both digital and real-world environments in congruity. AR may be specifically fruitful in reconstructive microsurgery due to the dynamic nature of surgeries performed and the small structures encountered in these operations. The aim of this study was to conduct a high-quality preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) compliant systematic review evaluating the use of AR in reconstructive microsurgery. Methods A systematic literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases was performed using appropriate search terms to identify all applications of AR in reconstructive microsurgery from inception to December 2018. Articles that did not meet the objectives of the study were excluded. A qualitative synthesis was performed of those articles that met the inclusion criteria. Results A total of 686 articles were identified from title and abstract review. Five studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of the studies used head-mounted displays, one study used a display monitor, and one study demonstrated AR using spatial navigation technology. The augmented reality microsurgery score was developed and applied to each of the AR technologies and scores ranged from 8 to 12. Conclusion Although higher quality studies reviewing the use of AR in reconstructive microsurgery is needed, the feasibility of AR in reconstructive microsurgery has been demonstrated across different subspecialties of plastic surgery. AR applications, that are reproducible, user-friendly, and have clear benefit to the surgeon and patient, have the greatest potential utility. Further research is required to validate its use and overcome the barriers to its implementation.


Pain Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S47-S57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishnan Chakravarthy ◽  
Rudy Malayil ◽  
Terje Kirketeig ◽  
Timothy Deer

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (9) ◽  
pp. 1232-1240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Engel ◽  
Diana E. Yung ◽  
Christopher Ma ◽  
Benjamin Pariente ◽  
Pauline WIls ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document