Search

Timothy Sowder,1 Dawood Sayed,1 Tyler Concannon,1 Scott H Pew,2 Natalie H Strand,2 Alaa Abd-Elsayed,3 Christopher S Wie,2 Daniel E Gomez Ramos,4 Ahmed M Raslan,5 Timothy R Deer6 1Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 3Department of Anesthesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA; 4Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ, USA; 5Department of Neurological Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA; 6The Spine and Nerve Center of the Virginias, Charleston, WV, USACorrespondence: Timothy Sowder, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Mail Stop 1034, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA, Tel +1-913-588-6670, Fax +1-913-588-3365, Email tsowder@kumc.eduAbstract: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a treatment modality used in interventional pain management to treat several conditions including chronic neck or back pain, sacroiliac joint pain, major joint pain, and pain from sites that can be isolated to a sensory nerve amenable to RFA. The goals of such procedures are to reduce pain, improve function, delay need for surgical intervention, and reduce pain medication consumption. As applications for RFA expand through novel techniques and nerve targets, there is concern with how RFA may impact patients with implanted medical devices. Specifically, the electrical currents used in RFA produce electromagnetic interference, which can result in unintentional energy transfer to implanted devices. This may also interfere with device function or cause damage to the device itself. As the number of patients with implanted devices increases, it is imperative to establish guidelines for the management of implanted devices during RFA procedures. This review aims to establish guidelines to assist physicians in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management of implanted devices in patients undergoing procedures using radiofrequency energy. Here, we provide physicians with background knowledge and a summary of current evidence to allow safe utilization of RFA treatment in patients with implanted devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices, spinal cord stimulators, intrathecal pumps, and deep brain stimulators. While these guidelines are intended to be comprehensive, each patient should be assessed on an individual basis to optimize outcomes.Keywords: radiofrequency ablation, implanted medical devices, cardiac implantable electronic device, spinal cord stimulator, intrathecal pump, deep brain stimulator

Aim: Although the US FDA encourages manufacturers of medical devices to submit real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory decisions, the ability of real-world data (RWD) to generate evidence suitable for decision making remains unclear. The 2017 Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA IV), authorized the National Evaluation System for health Technology Coordinating Center (NESTcc) to conduct pilot projects, or 'Test-Cases', to assess whether current RWD captures the information needed to answer research questions proposed by industry stakeholders. We synthesized key lessons about the challenges conducting research with RWD and the strategies used by research teams to enhance their ability to generate evidence from RWD based on 18 Test-Cases conducted between 2020 and 2022. Materials & methods: We reviewed study protocols and reports from each Test-Case team and conducted 49 semi-structured interviews with representatives of participating organizations. Interview transcripts were coded and thematically analyzed. Results: Challenges that stakeholders encountered in working with RWD included the lack of unique device identifiers, capturing key data elements and their appropriate meaning in structured data, limited reliability of diagnosis and procedure codes in structured data, extracting information from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) data, limited capture of long-term study end points, missing data and data sharing. Successful strategies included using manufacturer and supply chain data, leveraging clinical registries and registry reporting processes to collect and aggregate data, querying standardized EHR data, implementing natural language processing algorithms and using multidisciplinary research teams. Conclusion: The Test-Cases identified numerous challenges working with RWD but also opportunities to address these challenges and improve researchers' ability to use RWD to generate evidence on medical devices.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify, describe, and summarize existing guidance and methods for multistakeholder engagement throughout the health guideline development process., (© 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.)

Background: There is a need for the development of comprehensive, global, evidence-based guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development. Stakeholders are any individual or group who is responsible for or affected by health- and healthcare-related decisions. This includes patients, the public, providers of health care and policymakers for example. As part of the guidance development process, Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium set out to conduct four concurrent systematic reviews to summarise the evidence on: (1) existing guidance for stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (2) barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in guideline development, (3) managing conflicts of interest in stakeholder engagement in guideline development and (4) measuring the impact of stakeholder engagement in guideline development. This protocol addresses the second systematic review in the series., Objectives: The objective of this review is to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on barriers and facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. We will address this objective through two research questions: (1) What are the barriers to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the facilitators to multi-stakeholder engagement in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?, Search Methods: A comprehensive search strategy will be developed and peer-reviewed in consultation with a medical librarian. We will search the following databases: MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, PsycInfo, Scopus, and Sociological Abstracts. To identify grey literature, we will search the websites of agencies who actively engage stakeholder groups such as the AHRQ, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), INVOLVE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the PCORI. We will also search the websites of guideline-producing agencies, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, Australia's National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the WHO. We will invite members of the team to suggest grey literature sources and we plan to broaden the search by soliciting suggestions via social media, such as Twitter., Selection Criteria: We will include empirical qualitative and mixed-method primary research studies which qualitatively report on the barriers or facilitators to stakeholder engagement in health guideline development. The population of interest is stakeholders in health guideline development. Building on previous work, we have identified 13 types of stakeholders whose input can enhance the relevance and uptake of guidelines: Patients, caregivers and patient advocates; Public; Providers of health care; Payers of health services; Payers of research; Policy makers; Program managers; Product makers; Purchasers; Principal investigators and their research teams; and Peer-review editors/publishers. Eligible studies must describe stakeholder engagement at any of the following steps of the GIN-McMaster Checklist for Guideline Development., Data Collection and Analysis: All identified citations from electronic databases will be imported into Covidence software for screening and selection. Documents identified through our grey literature search will be managed and screened using an Excel spreadsheet. A two-part study selection process will be used for all identified citations: (1) a title and abstract review and (2) full-text review. At each stage, teams of two review authors will independently assess all potential studies in duplicate using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted by two review authors independently and in duplicate according to a standardised data extraction form., Main Results: The results of this review will be used to inform the development of guidance for multi-stakeholder engagement in guideline development and implementation. This guidance will be official GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group guidance. The GRADE system is internationally recognised as a standard for guideline development. The findings of this review will assist organisations who develop healthcare, public health and health policy guidelines, such as the World Health Organization, to involve multiple stakeholders in the guideline development process to ensure the development of relevant, high quality and transparent guidelines., (© 2022 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.)

Background: Despite national guidelines promoting hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing in prisons, there is substantial heterogeneity on the implementation of HCV testing in jails. We sought to better understand barriers and opportunities for HCV testing by interviewing a broad group of stakeholders involved in HCV testing and treatment policies and procedures in Massachusetts jails., Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with people incarcerated in Middlesex County Jail (North Billerica, MA), clinicians working in jail and community settings, corrections administrators, and representatives from public health, government, and industry between November 2018-April 2019., Results: 51/120 (42%) of people agreed to be interviewed including 21 incarcerated men (mean age 32 [IQR 25, 39], 60% non-White). Themes that emerged from these interviews included gaps in knowledge about HCV testing and treatment opportunities in jail, the impact of captivity and transience, and interest in improving linkage to HCV care after release. Many stakeholders discussed stigma around HCV infection as a factor in reluctance to provide HCV testing or treatment in the jail setting. Some stakeholders expressed that stigma often led decisionmakers to estimate a lower "worth" of incarcerated individuals living with HCV and therefore to decide against paying for HCV testing."., Conclusion: All stakeholders agreed that HCV in the jail setting is a public health issue that needs to be addressed. Exploring stakeholders' many ideas about how HCV testing and treatment can be approached is the first step in developing feasible and acceptable strategies., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background and Objective: To present a structured approach for assessing stakeholder perceptions and implementing the approach in guideline development., Methods: This work was carried out by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Equity and Stakeholder Engagement Project Groups through brainstorming and iterative frameworks, stakeholder engagement, pilot testing, refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes a GRADE conceptual article on implementation., Results: We introduce the FACE implementation criteria, feasibility, acceptability, cost, and equity; priority; and "intent to implement" criterion. We outline the implementation importance of networks and approaches to patient and other stakeholder engagement. Implementation is often highly contextual and can benefit from stakeholder engagement and other assessments. Our FACE approach provides stakeholder questions and language to inform guideline implementation and tools., Conclusion: The FACE criteria propose a series of knowledge translation questions to guide the assessment of implementation for evidence-based guidelines. It is desirable for guideline developers to use a conceptual approach, such as FACE, to tailor implementation and inform end of guideline dissemination and knowledge translation activities., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

CAPriCORN, the Chicago Area Patient Centered Outcomes Research Network, is one of the eleven PCORI-funded Clinical Data Research Networks. A collaboration of six academic medical centers, a Chicago public hospital, two VA hospitals and a network of federally qualified health centers, CAPriCORN addresses the needs of a diverse community and overlapping populations. To capture complete medical records without compromising patient privacy and confidentiality, the network created policies and mechanisms for patient consultation, central IRB approval, de-identification, de-duplication, and integration of patient data by study cohort, randomization and sampling, re-identification for consent by providers and patients, and communication with patients to elicit patient-reported outcomes through validated instruments. The paper describes these policies and mechanisms and discusses two case studies to prove the feasibility and effectiveness of the network.

Background: Substantial geographical clustering of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) outbreaks in hospitals in the USA have previously been demonstrated., Aim: To test the hypothesis that hospital burden of CDI is associated with admission from and discharge to long-term care facilities (LTCFs)., Methods: Hospital discharge data from 19 states in the USA were used to identify all patients discharged with a diagnosis of CDI from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004. For every hospital, the proportion of discharges with a diagnosis of CDI was calculated, and those above the 90th percentile were classified as 'high CDI' hospitals. We tested the association between this measure of hospital burden of CDI and the rates of admission from and discharges to LTCFs. We adjusted for other hospital level characteristics, case-complexity and local population characteristics., Findings: We identified 38,372,951 discharges during the three-year study period. Of all discharges, 274,311 (0.71%) had a primary or secondary diagnosis of CDI. Hospitals had a mean CDI burden of 7.8 cases per 1000 discharges. High CDI hospitals (N = 610; 10.0%) had a mean CDI burden of 34.8 cases per 1000 discharges. Compared to other hospitals, high CDI hospitals were more likely to have a high proportion of admissions from or discharges to LTCFs. This association persisted after adjustments for other hospital characteristics, case-complexity, and area population characteristics., Conclusion: A high rate of admission from or discharge to LTCFs is associated with an increased hospital burden of CDI., (Copyright © 2011 The Healthcare Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In controlled clinical trials, random assignment of treatment is appropriate only when there is equipoise, that is, no clear preference among treatment options. However, even when equipoise appears absent because prior trials show, on average, one treatment yields superior outcomes, random assignment still may be appropriate for some patients and circumstances. In such cases, enrollment into trials may be assisted by real-time patient-specific predictions of treatment outcomes, to determine whether there is equipoise to justify randomization. The percutaneous coronary intervention thrombolytic predictive instrument (PCI-TPI) computes probabilities of 30-day mortality for patients having ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), if treated with thrombolytic therapy (TT), and if treated with PCI. We estimated uncertainty around differences in their respective predicted benefits using the estimated uncertainty of the model coefficients. Using the 2,781-patient PCI-TPI development dataset, we evaluated the distribution of predicted benefits for each patient. For three typical clinical situations, randomization was potentially warranted for 70%, 93%, and 80% of patients. Predictive models may allow real-time patient-specific determination of whether there is equipoise that justifies trial enrollment for a given patient. This approach may have utility for comparative effectiveness trials and for application of trial results to clinical practice., (© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Context: The delivery of burn care is a resource-intensive endeavor that requires specialized personnel and equipment. The optimal geographic distribution of burn centers has long been debated; however, the current distribution of centers relative to geographic area and population is unknown., Objective: To estimate the proportion of the US population living within 1 and 2 hours by rotary air transport (helicopter) or ground transport of a burn care facility., Design and Setting: A cross-sectional analysis of geographic access to US burn centers utilizing the 2000 US census, road and speed limit data, the Atlas and Database of Air Medical Services database, and the 2008 American Burn Association Directory., Main Outcome Measure: The proportion of state, regional, and national population living within 1 and 2 hours by air transport or ground transport of a burn care facility., Results: In 2008, there were 128 self-reported burn centers in the United States including 51 American Burn Association-verified centers. An estimated 25.1% and 46.3% of the US population live within 1 and 2 hours by ground transport, respectively, of a verified burn center. By air, 53.9% and 79.0% of the population live within 1 and 2 hours, respectively, of a verified center. There was significant regional variation in access to verified burn centers by both ground and rotary air transport. The greatest proportion of the population with access was highest in the northeast region and lowest in the southern United States., Conclusion: Nearly 80% of the US population lives within 2 hours by ground or rotary air transport of a verified burn center; however, there is both state and regional variation in geographic access to these centers.

The dry matter digestibility (DMD) of sifted granulated maize meal and the digestibility of the protein in yellow haricot beans were determined in intact and caecectomised rats. The experiments were done to ascertain whether microbial activity in the caecum has an effect on the digestibility. Removal of the caecum resulted in a decrease of 9 percentage units in the DMD value but had no appreciable effect on the protein digestibity data.