Brito, Juan P

Background: Adolescent patients with moderate to severe idiopathic scoliosis who have completed their skeletal growth face a significant choice in their treatment path: watchful waiting or spinal fusion. Shared decision making (SDM) assists patients and clinicians to find treatments that make intellectual, practical and emotional sense. Our objective was to develop a tool that supports SDM for patients with scoliosis and their families. Methods: We used a user-centered design approach that included collaboration between patients, surgeons and SDM experts, observation of clinician encounters, and literature review. We focused on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients 13 or more years of age with less than 1 year of growth remaining (Risser stage 3 or greater) and curves between 40 and 65 degrees. Results: We included 22 patients, and collected 22 video recordings. From these videos, we identified salient patient priorities for decision making including treatment benefits, surgical complications, pain, scheduling and recovery, and cost. For each theme, we conducted a focused review to obtain the best estimate of effect. Then, an expert SDM designer developed an electronic prototype called Scoliosis Choice. Conclusions: The initial prototype of the scoliosis SDM was finalized and is currently being field tested in clinic. Scoliosis Choice may help patients and surgeons better understand the potential risks and benefits of spinal fusion vs. observation for scoliosis treatment and improve validated measures of quality in patient-parent-surgeon communication.

Objective Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. Methods We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. Results We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. Conclusion Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.

Abstract Objective The overuse of antibiotics for acute otitis media (AOM) in children is a healthcare quality issue in part arising from conflicting parent and physician understanding of the risks and benefits of antibiotics for AOM. Our objective was to develop a conversation aid that supports shared decision making (SDM) with parents of children who are diagnosed with non-severe AOM in the acute care setting. Materials and Methods We developed a web-based encounter tool following a human-centered design approach that includes active collaboration with parents, clinicians, and designers using literature review, observations of clinical encounters, parental and clinician surveys, and interviews. Insights from these processes informed the iterative creation of prototypes that were reviewed and field-tested in patient encounters. Results The ear pain conversation aid includes five sections: (1) A home page that opens the discussion on the etiologies of AOM; (2) the various options available for AOM management; (3) a pictograph of the impact of antibiotic therapy on pain control; (4) a pictograph of complication rates with and without antibiotics; and (5) a summary page on management choices. This open-access, web-based tool is located at www.earpaindecisionaid.org. Conclusions We collaboratively developed an evidence-based conversation aid to facilitate SDM for AOM. This decision aid has the potential to improve parental medical knowledge of AOM, physician/parent communication, and possibly decrease the overuse of antibiotics for this condition.

Background: Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare but highly lethal form of thyroid cancer. Since the guidelines for the management of ATC by the American Thyroid Association were first published in 2012, significant clinical and scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, and researchers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of ATC. Methods: The specific clinical questions and topics addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of the Task Force members (authors of the guideline). Relevant literature was reviewed, including serial PubMed searches supplemented with additional articles. The American College of Physicians Guideline Grading System was used for critical appraisal of evidence and grading strength of recommendations. Results: The guidelines include the diagnosis, initial evaluation, establishment of treatment goals, approaches to locoregional disease (surgery, radiotherapy, targeted/systemic therapy, supportive care during active therapy), approaches to advanced/metastatic disease, palliative care options, surveillance and long-term monitoring, and ethical issues, including end of life. The guidelines include 31 recommendations and 16 good practice statements. Conclusions: We have developed evidence-based recommendations to inform clinical decision-making in the management of ATC. While all care must be individualized, such recommendations provide, in our opinion, optimal care paradigms for patients with ATC.

Background Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of “basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence”; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria. Methods We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain’s definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids ( N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid’s evidence characteristics. Results Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified. Conclusions Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

AbstractAimThe aim of this study was to systematically appraise the quality of a sample of COVID-19-related systematic reviews (SRs) and discuss internal validity threats affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence.DesignWe conducted a scoping review of the literature. SRs with or without meta-analysis (MA) that evaluated clinical data, outcomes or treatments for patients with COVID-19 were included.Main outcome measuresWe extracted quality characteristics guided by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 to calculate a qualitative score. Complementary evaluation of the most prominent published limitations affecting the COVID-19 body of evidence was performed.ResultsA total of 63 SRs were included. The majority were judged as a critically low methodological quality. Most of the studies were not guided by a pre-established protocol (39, 62%). More than half (39, 62%) failed to address risk of bias when interpreting their results. A comprehensive literature search strategy was reported in most SRs (54, 86%). Appropriate use of statistical methods was evident in nearly all SRs with MAs (39, 95%). Only 16 (33%) studies recognised heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19 as a limitation of the study, and 15 (24%) recognised repeated patient populations as a limitation.ConclusionThe methodological and reporting quality of current COVID-19 SR is far from optimal. In addition, most of the current SRs fail to address relevant threats to their internal validity, including repeated patients and heterogeneity in the definition of severe COVID-19. Adherence to proper study design and peer-review practices must remain to mitigate current limitations.

Abstract Context Active surveillance (AS) of thyroid cancer with serial ultrasounds is a newer management option in the United States. Objective This work aimed to understand factors associated with the adoption of AS. Methods We surveyed endocrinologists and surgeons in the American Medical Association Masterfile. To estimate adoption, respondents recommended treatment for 2 hypothetical cases appropriate for AS. Established models of guideline implementation guided questionnaire development. Outcome measures included adoption of AS (nonadopters vs adopters, who respectively did not recommend or recommended AS at least once; and partial vs full adopters, who respectively recommended AS for one or both cases). Results The 464 respondents (33.3% response) demographically represented specialties that treat thyroid cancer. Nonadopters (45.7%) were significantly (P < .001) less likely than adopters to practice in academic settings, see more than 25 thyroid cancer patients/year, be aware of AS, use applicable guidelines (P = .04), know how to determine whether a patient is appropriate for AS, have resources to perform AS, or be motivated to use AS. Nonadopters were also significantly more likely to be anxious or have reservations about AS, be concerned about poor outcomes, or believe AS places a psychological burden on patients. Among adopters, partial and full adopters were similar except partial adopters were less likely to discuss AS with patients (P = .03) and more likely to be anxious (P = .04), have reservations (P = .03), and have concerns about the psychological burden (P = .009) of AS. Few respondents (3.2%) believed patients were aware of AS. Conclusion Widespread adoption of AS will require increased patient and physician awareness, interest, and evaluation of outcomes.