Determining Acceptable Waiting Times for the Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review CIHR Grant: Toward Canadian Benchmarks.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Summarising what we already know – the pivotal role of systematic reviews Malcolm Macleod.
Advertisements

What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
Search Strategy and Information Retrieval By Rekha Gupta, NIC
Introducing... Reproduced and modified from a presentation produced by Zoë Debenham from the original presentation created by Kate Light, Cochrane Trainer.
Revised January 2008 IUPUI University Library Randi L. Stocker, MLS developed for the Indiana University School of Nursing.
Authors and affiliation Research, University of Sheffield, 3 East Midlands Ambulance Service Study flow Conclusion In addition to measures relating to.
What is Evidence Based Dentistry Author: Gökhan Alpaslan DMD,Ph.D
The material was supported by an educational grant from Ferring How to Write a Scientific Article Nikolaos P. Polyzos M.D. PhD.
Accessing Sources Of Evidence For Practice Introduction To Databases Karen Smith Department of Health Sciences University of York.
Gut-directed hypnotherapy for functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome in children: a systematic review Journal club presentation
Reading Science Critically Debi A. LaPlante, PhD Associate Director, Division on Addictions.
The All Breast Cancer Report was published in October breastscreen/research.html#breast- cancer-report.
Classify your information need and select appropriate resource(s) from the Shimberg Library! Selecting Resource Databases for Health Care Literature Annotated.
Developing Research Proposal Systematic Review Mohammed TA, Omar Ph.D. PT Rehabilitation Health Science.
Clinical Information Resources Sandra A. Martin, M.L.I.S. Health Sciences Resource Coordinator Instructor of Library Services John Vaughan Library Room.
Heidi Beck & Eva Yuen NUTN 514 February 11, 2008.
O Type 2 diabetes has traditionally been managed as a single chronic disease state but it can commonly exist with co-morbidities such as depression. o.
Evidence Based Practice
JCUH NICE MSCC Guidelines Compliance audit Ruth Mhlanga Senior Specialist Physiotherapist Oncology and Haematology.
Systematic Reviews.
Division of Population Health Sciences Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Coláiste Ríoga na Máinleá in Éirinn Developing a web-based international register.
Evidenced- based Librarianship : A Proposal for Philippine Libraries Corazon M. Nera Director of Libraries, Lyceum of the Philippines University Chairman,
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Introduction to Systematic Reviews Afshin Ostovar Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Bushehr, /9/20151.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
Evidence-Based Journal Article Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department.
Finding Relevant Evidence
VANDERBILT EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CENTER Katherine E. Hartmann, MD, PhD Lucius E. Burch Chair, Obstetrics and Gynecology Deputy Director, Institute for.
Evidence-Based Medicine Presentation [Insert your name here] [Insert your designation here] [Insert your institutional affiliation here] Department of.
Clinical Writing for Interventional Cardiologists.
Background Information Audience Response Systems (ARS) are a technology used in classrooms that consist of an input device controlled by the learner, a.
IAWG Global Evaluation: Literature Review Global Evaluation Steering Committee Meeting February 12, 2014.
How to write a scientific article Nikolaos P. Polyzos M.D. PhD.
Conducting a Sound Systematic Review: Balancing Resources with Quality Control Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center.
Introduction to Healthcare and Public Health in the US The Evolution and Reform of Healthcare in the US Lecture a This material (Comp1_Unit9a) was developed.
Clinical Information Resources Sandra A. Martin, M.L.I.S. Health Sciences Resource Coordinator Instructor of Library Services John Vaughan Library Room.
Wipanee Phupakdi, MD September 15, Overview  Define EBM  Learn steps in EBM process  Identify parts of a well-built clinical question  Discuss.
1 How to find literature - A very short introduction - How to start smart Students IIC/IID Medical Library, August 2013.
Type Your Title Here Author’s First Name Last Name, degree,…. Mentor’s First Name Last Name, degree Dept. Name here, NYU Lutheran Medical Center, Brooklyn,
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
EBM --- Journal Reading Presenter :呂宥達 Date : 2005/10/27.
Finding, Evaluating, and Presenting Evidence Sharon E. Lock, PhD, ARNP NUR 603 Spring, 2001.
Collaboration and its outcomes in primary care compared internationally Sanneke Schepman Johan Hansen Ronald Batenburg Dinny de Bakker Netherlands Institute.
Systematic Review Krit Pongpirul, MD, MPH. Johns Hopkins University.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence November-December 2012.
1. Mohammed Almasabi, Hui Yang, Shane Thomas World Applied Sciences Journal 31 (9): ,
Table of Contents – Part B HINARI Resources –Clinical Evidence –Cochrane Library –EBM Guidelines –BMJ Practice –HINARI EBM Journals.
Towards Global Eminence K Y U N G H E E U N I V E R S I T Y Colonoscopy Surveillance After Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society.
Copyright © 2010, 2006, 2002 by Mosby, Inc., an affiliate of Elsevier Inc. Chapter 10 Evidence-Based Practice Sharon E. Lock.
Impact of Comorbidity on Chemotherapy Use and Outcomes in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review Linda Lee, Winson Y. Cheung, Esther Atkinson, and Monika K.
Evidence-Based Medicine in PubMed PubMed for Trainers, Summer 2016 U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) and NN/LM Training Office.
Ghada Aboheimed, Msc. Review the principles of an evidence based approach to clinical practice. Appreciate the value of EBM Describe the 5 steps of evidence.
A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE PREVENTIVE EFFECT OF ORAL HYGIENE ON PNEUMONIA AND RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION IN ELDERLY PEOPLE IN HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES:
1 Copyright © 2012 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. Copyright © 2008 by Mosby, Inc., an affiliate of Elsevier Inc. Chapter 15 Evidence-Based Practice.
School of Health Studies, University of Bradford Self help materials for disfigurement: A systematic review Rob Newell Lucy Ziegler.
Contact: Patrick Phillips,
Supplementary Table 1. PRISMA checklist
Contact: Patrick Phillips,
Y W Liao1, S Shaman1, C S Chean1, S S Poon1, A Soltan1
Performance Measurement and Rural Primary Care: A scoping review
Health-care interactions and placebo effects:
Drug Information Resources
Things to Remember… PubMed
Information Pyramid UpToDate, Dynamed, FIRSTConsult, ACP PIER
Library Sessions for CM 2
How to Search in PubMed and ESGO Journal
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic. Ask What is a review?
Drug Information Resources
Table of Contents – Part B
Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Presentation transcript:

Determining Acceptable Waiting Times for the Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review CIHR Grant: Toward Canadian Benchmarks for Health Services Wait Times – Evidence, Application and Research Priorities Nicole Choptain, Donna Turner, Steve Latosinsky, Tom Noseworthy, Mark Taylor January, 2006

Goal of Project To provide an in-depth summary of the issues and evidence for establishing waiting time benchmarks in solid organ malignancies treated by surgery.

Introduction Feb 2005 – CIHR RFA : Toward Canadian Benchmarks for Health Services Wait Times – Evidence, Application and Research Priorities Systematic reviews of existing evidence in 5 areas, one of which was cancer Provide first ministers with advice re establishment of benchmark waiting times

Literature Review – Existing Benchmarks Description of the benchmarks being used, for what purposes and by whom Description of the range of settings where such benchmarks are currently applied Summary of wait-time benchmarks currently used nationally or elsewhere, & research evidence that was used to support their selection.

Evidence for Benchmarks Identify areas / procedures where there is currently sufficient evidence, and general consensus exists, regarding wait time

Relationships Synthesis of the research evidence regarding the relationships between patient characteristics, health service wait-times, and outcome (mortality, health status or quality of life).

CIHR Benchmark RFA Funded Cancer Applications May, 2005 Marcy Winget – Wait-times for colorectal and lung cancer, “Three Province Study” Bill MacKillop – Time to radiotherapy Paul Moayyedi – Time to diagnosis for upper and lower GI cancer Mark Taylor – Time from decision to undergo cancer surgery to actual surgery

1. Review available evidence on cancer waiting time benchmarks in randomized & non-randomized trials. 1. Review available evidence on cancer waiting time benchmarks in randomized & non-randomized trials. 2. Identify practical & clinically established waiting time measures re: impact on mortality, quality of life, & surgical treatment of cancer. 2. Identify practical & clinically established waiting time measures re: impact on mortality, quality of life, & surgical treatment of cancer. 3. Assess completeness of existing reviews & audits on cancer waiting time benchmarks & how applicable they are to the health care system in Canada. 3. Assess completeness of existing reviews & audits on cancer waiting time benchmarks & how applicable they are to the health care system in Canada. 4. To compare the appropriateness & effectiveness of evidence-based cancer waiting times as a part of quality patient care. 4. To compare the appropriateness & effectiveness of evidence-based cancer waiting times as a part of quality patient care. OBJECTIVES Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review

First stage of the project involved review of main medical sources, well-defined search strategy, & inclusive search criteria. Specific search strategy developed in consultation with medical librarian, to exclude highly irrelevant material & focus on surgical waiting times & benchmarks. The search for evidence-based waiting time benchmarks was investigated according to a list of relevant keywords SEARCH METHODOLOGY

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review Published and unpublished sources to Searches conducted nationally & internationally Not limited by language, provided that an English title or keywords were available. First search conducted on MEDLINE. SEARCH METHODOLOGY

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review 1. Neoplasms and surgery or surgical procedures or operative. 2. Cancer or neoplasms or oncology or malignancy or tumour or carcinoma or adenocarcinoma or sarcoma or mastectomy or hysterectomy or orchiectomy or prostatectomy and surgery or surgically. 3. #1 OR #2 4. Time factors or waiting lists or appointments & schedules or time & motion studies or time management or referral and consultation or patient selection. 5. Wait or referral or time factor or fast track or surgical delay or delay in surgical or delay or interval. 6. #4 OR #5 7. #3 AND #6 8. Management audit or nursing audit or medical audit or utilization review or audit. 9. #3 AND #8 MEDLINE SEARCH TERMS – (PubMed including Cancerlit) Brief Version

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review MEDLINE MEDLINE Relevance Level:Number of Records: Level 1 Highly Relevant39 Level 2Probably Relevant33 Level 3Possible Relevant61 Level 4Probably Not Relevant24 Level 5Definitely Not Relevant15 Total172 Total172 1 st SEARCH RESULTS- Titles Reviewed

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review Relevance of all 172 articles reassessed based on the full article or abstract for a second relevance rating. Relevance of all 172 articles reassessed based on the full article or abstract for a second relevance rating. Rating of articles done by 2 of 3 reviewers – scored with standard template Rating of articles done by 2 of 3 reviewers – scored with standard template Articles were identified as “Auxiliary” under the following conditions: Articles were identified as “Auxiliary” under the following conditions: - only editorial or commentary information provided, review of other studies or not directly referring to all 3 terms: cancer, waiting times, and surgery. ARTICLE RE-ASSESSMENT

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review Studies were graded according to study design & quality Grade A – Benchmark based on Level 1 studies (RCTs) Grade A – Benchmark based on Level 1 studies (RCTs) Grade B – Benchmark based on Level 2&3 studies (cohort or case-control) Grade B – Benchmark based on Level 2&3 studies (cohort or case-control) Grade C – Benchmark based on Level 4 studies (case series) Grade C – Benchmark based on Level 4 studies (case series) Grade D – Benchmark based on Level 5 studies (expert opinion) Grade D – Benchmark based on Level 5 studies (expert opinion)

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review Relevance Level:# Records AuxiliaryReviewed Level 1 Highly Relevant Level 2 Probably Relevant Level 3 Possible Relevant Level 4 Probably Not 75- Level 5 Definitely Not 23- Total (24% of 172) MEDLINE ARTICLE RE-ASSESSMENT RESULTS :

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review, Report 1 – July 22, 2005 Few cancer surgery benchmark waiting times were found Those that existed were based solely on expert opinion, with very little evidence to support them (Grade D) Available studies assessed compliance with these benchmarks

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review From references listed in Medline articles From references listed in Medline articles Relevance Level:Number of Records: Level 1Highly Relevant33 Level 2Probably Relevant23 Level 3Possible Relevant35 Level 4Probably Not Relevant19 Level 5Definitely Not Relevant 9 To Be Ranked56 Total175 2 nd SEARCH RESULTS

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review Report 2 – October 14, % of identified benchmarks based solely on expert opinion Most studies assessed compliance with arbitrary benchmarks No compelling evidence that waiting impacted on outcome 49% of studies had poor methodology, & 80% not generalizable Only 6 studies assessed health status in relation to waiting 10 studies looked at reducing waiting times through referral or flow changes

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review 1. Cancer & surgery 2. Neoplasm or cancer or oncology or malignancy or tumour or carcinoma or sarcoma 3. #1 or #2 4. Orchiectomy or hysterectomy or prostatectomy or mastectomy or surgery or operation or pre-operative or re- operative 5. #3 or #4 6. Cancer patient or surgical patient or hospital admission or medical audit or nursing audit or management audit 7. #5 or #6 8. Waiting list or surgical delay or delay in surgery or waiting time or surgery delay or time or times or wait or waiting or delay or tracking or interval or fast track or fast 9. #7 and #8 3rd Search - EMBASE SEARCH TERMS - Brief Version

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review EMBASE EMBASE Relevance Level:Number of Records: Level 1Highly Relevant 2 Level 2Probably Relevant 10 Level 3Possible Relevant 43 Level 4Probably Not Relevant 30 Level 5Definitely Not Relevant 44 To Be Ranked 13 To Be Ranked 13 Total rd SEARCH RESULTS

Librarian used the cited reference feature based on most relevant references identified first search results (PubMed etc). These were entered to retrieve citations that cited them (and also in some cases citations that they cited). These were entered to retrieve citations that cited them (and also in some cases citations that they cited). In addition, librarian used judgement in identifying only those that appeared somewhat relevant. 4 th Search - Web of Science SEARCH STRATEGY Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review

Web of Science Web of Science Relevance Level:Number of Records: Level 1Highly Relevant8 Level 2Probably Relevant20 Level 3Possible Relevant50 Level 4Probably Not Relevant41 Level 5Definitely Not Relevant18 To Be Ranked 13 To Be Ranked 13 Total150 4 th SEARCH RESULTS

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review Comparisons: Database # of Journal Articles 1. MEDLINE MEDLINE References from MEDLINE Articles175 MEDLINE Articles EMBASE Web of Science150 (WOS) (WOS) TOTAL:639 TOTAL:639 OVERVIEW

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review- Final Report due May, 2006 Preliminary Impressions May be some evidence of impact on waiting on outcome – breast, bladder, testicle There will never be conclusive proof that delay in treatment beyond “x” weeks reduces survival Cancer surgery should be available with minimal delay for reasons of fundamental fairness

Waiting Times for Surgical Treatment of Solid Organ Malignancies - A Systematic Review- Final Report due May, 2006 First step is system change, improving patient flow from time of first symptom, through diagnosis, treatment, recovery, and follow-up Establishing mandatory benchmarks may provide impetus leading to these changes These benchmarks will be arbitrary