Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.

Resveratrol has an Overall Neuroprotective Role in Ischemic Stroke: A Meta-Analysis in Rodents

Background: Resveratrol, a natural polyphenolic phytoalexin, is broadly presented in dietary sources. Previous research has suggested its potential neuroprotective effects on ischemic stroke animal models. However, these results have been disputable. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the effect of resveratrol treatment in ischemic stroke rodent models.Objective: To comprehensively evaluate the effect of resveratrol treatment in ischemic stroke rodent models.Methods: A literature search of the databases Pubmed, Embase, and Web of science identified 564 studies that were subjected to pre-defined inclusion criteria. 54 studies were included and analyzed using a random-effects model to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding confidence interval (CI).Results: As compared with controls, resveratrol significantly decreased infarct volume (SMD −4.34; 95% CI −4.98 to −3.69; p < 0.001) and the neurobehavioral score (SMD −2.26; 95% CI −2.86 to −1.67; p < 0.001) in rodents with ischemic stroke. Quality assessment was performed using a 10-item checklist. Studies quality scores ranged from 3 to 8, with a mean value of 5.94. In the stratified analysis, a significant decrease of infarct volume and the neurobehavioral score was achieved in resveratrol sub-groups with a dosage of 20–50 mg/kg. In the meta-regression analysis, the impact of the delivery route on an outcome is the possible source of high heterogeneity.Conclusion: Generally, resveratrol treatment presented neuroprotective effects in ischemic stroke models. Furthermore, this study can direct future preclinical and clinical trials, with important implications for human health.

Compliance of operating room sterilization procedures with valid Scientific guidelines

introduction: Infections caused by surgeries have always been considered a primary concern of medical centers and are associated with irreversible complications. Using appropriate sterilization procedures reduces these complications. This study aimed to investigate how compliant are the current sterilization procedures of operating room (OR) environment and instruments with valid scientific standards. Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study examined ophthalmology, gynecology, and otorhinolaryngology ORs of Valiasr Hospital in Birjand. With the presence of the researcher in the OR, a standard 41-item checklist consisting of three parts (environmental cleaning, equipment cleaning, and sterilization procedure) was completed for each OR in each shift. The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis test by SPSS(Version18) in significant level (a=0.05). Results: A total of 50 questionnaires were filled out for ORs. The highest number of questionnaires were completed for the gynecology OR, and the most elective surgeries were performed in the morning shift. There was no significant difference between the median score of OR instruments cleaning and that of valid scientific guidelines in terms of steralization (P> 0.05). The median scores of sterilization procedures and steps in hospital ORs were significantly different from those of scientific guidelines in the field of sterilization of surgical operations (P <0.05). Conclusion: The study findings indicate cases of mismatch between the quality of infection control and sterilization in the ORs of Vali-asar Hospital in Birjand and those recommended by valid scientific standards and guidelines.

Performances of community pharmacists and community pharmacies during COVID-19 outbreak: a cross-sectional study

Background: Community pharmacists can play an important role in the management of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak by providing pharmaceutical care and education services. In addition to providing drug-related services, community pharmacies must take measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to customers and technicians in pharmacy. Therefore, a study was designed to assess community pharmacists performance and community pharmacies preparedness during COVID-19 outbreak. Materials & Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Kerman, Iran. A 20-item checklist consisting of nine items assessing the practice of pharmacists regarding use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and education of people about routes of transmission, prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19 and eleven items evaluating the adherence of pharmacies to principles of reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission in public places was used. Results: Of 95 enrolled pharmacists, 55 (57.9%) were female and 78.9% had work experience ≤ 10 years. More than 90% of pharmacists used appropriate PPE and provided information about medications for prevention and treatment of COVID-19 and routs of its transmission to the pharmacy customers. Phone consultation was done by 71.6% of pharmacists. Concerning the preparedness of pharmacies, 92% of personnel used PPE, and hand sanitizers were available in 89.5% of pharmacies. However, a clear sheet was not placed at counters in the majority of pharmacies, and home delivery services were not provided by most pharmacies. Conclusions: The practice of most community pharmacists was acceptable. However, stricter measures should be taken to diminish the probability of COVID-19 transmission in community pharmacies.

Development, validation, and testing of a physiotherapist initiated checklist of items for implementing pulmonary rehabilitation in Nigeria

Objectives: Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) program is beneficial to patients with chronic respiratory diseases. However, PR services are limited or non-existent in many resource limited settings of the world, including Nigeria. Equally important, is lack of local guidelines or checklists to support the implementation of these programs. This study was aimed at developing, validating, and testing a physiotherapist initiated checklist of items for implementing of PR in Nigeria. Materials and Methods: A panel of experienced cardiopulmonary physiotherapists was constituted to draw-up and agree on a list of items that they consider necessary for implementing of PR. The resulting items were collated as a checklist of items. The checklist was then locally validated by presenting it to a wider group of respiratory health-care professionals including chest physicians, nurses, occupational therapists, dieticians, and clinical psychologists, practicing within the study area. Each item was rated from strongly agree to strongly disagree on 5-point Likert scale. Thereafter, the performance of the items of the checklist was subjected to testing by assessing whether each item was addressed in the British Thoracic Society (BTS) PR guideline. This was done by rating each item with either a “yes,” “no,” or “not fully” to whether our checklists are included and described in the BTS guideline. Supporting evidence profile was also stated for some items, if applicable. Results: A consensus was reached by the panel of physiotherapists to arrive at a 16-item checklist. Each item was further provided with specific details and/or examples that are relevant for instituting PR in a Nigerian setting. All items on the checklist were considered valid by other respiratory health-care professionals, with a rating consensus agreement of between 80% and 100%. Furthermore, the testing of checklists based on inclusion and description in the BTS guideline showed that six items were addressed fully in the BTS guideline (rated “yes”), six were partially addressed (rated “not fully”), while four were not addressed (rated “no”). Conclusion: A checklist of items for the implementation of PR in Nigeria was successfully developed, validated, and tested. Nevertheless, there may be a need to develop a full guideline before instituting PR in view of the potential disparities with existing/established guidelines.

The use of online video consultations in the aftercare of orthopedic patients: a prospective case-control study

Background Video consultations have proven to be an efficient source of support for patient-doctor interactions and have become increasingly used in orthopedics, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzed both patients’ and doctors’ acceptance of an orthopedic telemedical consultation (OTC) and compared the results of OTC examinations to the results of live consultation (LC) to identify discrepancies. Methods The study was carried out in an orthopedic department of a German hospital between 2019 and 2020. After written informed consent was obtained, patients voluntarily presented for follow-up by OTC and LC. The experience with and attitudes toward OTC among both patients and doctors was evaluated (using Likert scale-scored and open questions, 26 to 28 items). The results of the OTC and LC examinations were compared using a 12-item checklist. The data were analyzed by quantitative and qualitative statistics. Results A total of 53 patients were included, each of whom completed an OTC and an LC. The OTC was rated as pleasant, and the experience was rated as very satisfying (average rating on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating strong agreement: doctors: 1.2; patients: 1.3). Various technical and organizational challenges were identified. Compared to LC, OTC showed no significant differences in patient history or in inspection, palpation, or active range of motion results. Only for the functional or passive joint assessment did LC show significantly higher suitability (p < 0.05) than OTC. Recommendations for further procedures did not differ significantly between OTC and LC. Conclusions Because of the high acceptance and the objective benefits of OTC and the similarity of clinical results with LC, OTC is recommendable for orthopedic follow-up examinations. To better assess joint functionality, meaningful digital alternatives for established examination methods should be further investigated.

Efficacy of curcumin for wound repair in diabetic rats/mice: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical studies

Background: Curcumin possesses multiple bioactivities that have beneficial effects on diabetic foot ulcers. Herein, we aimed to conduct a systematic preclinical review of 9 studies including a total of 262 animals, to assess the possible mechanisms of curcumin for wound healing in diabetic animals. Methods: Five databases were searched from inception to May 12, 2020; Rev-Man 5.3 software was applied for data analyses. Cochrane Collaboration’s tool 10-item checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality, and data revealed scores of risk of bias ranging from 2 to 5. Results: Meta-analysis indicated that curcumin had significant effects on wound healing rate and blood vessel density when compared with control (P < 0.05). The wound regeneration properties of curcumin for diabetic wounds are thought to mainly work through the possible mechanisms of antioxidation, enhanced cell proliferation, increased collagen formation, and angiogenesis. However, the anti-inflammatory effect on wounds in diabetic animals remains controversial. Conclusions: The findings indicate that more randomized controlled trials should be pursued to obtain more reliable results regarding inflammatory response. Overall, curcumin might be a probable candidate for diabetic foot ulcers and may contribute to future clinical trials.