To support the development of appraisal tools for assessing the quality of in vitro studies, we developed a method for literature-based discovery of study assessment criteria, used the method to create an item bank of assessment criteria of potential relevance to in vitro studies, and analyzed the item bank to discern and critique current approaches for appraisal of in vitro studies. We searched four research indexes and included any document that identified itself as an appraisal tool for in vitro studies, was a systematic review that included a critical appraisal step, or was a reporting checklist for in vitro studies. We abstracted, normalized, and categorized all criteria applied by the included appraisal tools to create an \"item bank\" database of issues relevant to the assessment of in vitro studies. The resulting item bank consists of 676 unique appraisal concepts from 67 appraisal tools. We believe this item bank is the single most comprehensive resource of its type to date, should be of high utility for future tool development exercises, and provides a robust methodology for grounding tool development in the existing literature. While we set out to develop an item bank specifically targeting in vitro studies, we found that many of the assessment concepts we discovered are readily applicable to other study designs. Item banks can be of significant value as a resource; however, there are important challenges in developing, maintaining, and extending them of which researchers should be aware.

Critical appraisal is a crucial step in evidence-based practice, enabling researchers to evaluate the credibility and applicability of research findings. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to cultivate critical appraisal skills to assess the trustworthiness and value of available evidence. This process involves scrutinizing key components of a research publication, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the study, and assessing its relevance to a specific context. It is essential for researchers to become familiar with the core elements of a research article and utilize key questions and guidelines to rigorously assess a study. This paper aims to provide an overview of the critical appraisal process. By understanding the main points of critical appraisal, researchers can assess the quality, relevance, and reliability of articles, thereby enhancing the validity of their findings and decision-making processes.

It is estimated that 200 million people are living with coronary heart disease, which remains one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Those living with coronary heart disease are at an increased risk of cardiovascular events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death. Pathophysiology of coronary heart disease revolves around inflammation which leads to plaque build-up. Antibiotics are known to hold anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties. It is theorized that reductions in inflammation could prevent cardiovascular events which may reduce suffering, risk of death and hospital admission rates in patients with coronary heart disease. This article critically appraises a systematic review that assessed the risk of antibiotics used as secondary prevention for coronary heart disease.

One to two percent of the population in developed countries are affected by chronic heart failure and this increases to greater than 10% in those over 70 years old. Heart failure (HF) predisposes patients to thromboembolic events. Anticoagulants are often used to prevent thromboembolic events in specific patient populations, such as those with atrial fibrillation. Currently, no guidance exists on the long-term use of anticoagulants for patients with HF in sinus rhythm. This article critically appraises a systematic review which assesses whether the long-term use of oral anticoagulants reduces total mortality and stroke in patients with HF in sinus rhythm.

OBJECTIVE: To assess to what extent the overall quality of evidence indicates changes to observe intervention effect estimates when new data become available.
METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We obtained evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials of Cochrane reviews addressing the same health-care question that was updated with inclusion of additional data between January 2016 and May 2021. We extracted the reported effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from meta-analyses and corresponding GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments of any intervention comparison for the primary outcome in the first and the last updated review version. We considered the reported overall quality (certainty) of evidence (CoE) and specific evidence limitations (no, serious or very serious for risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and/or indirectness). We assessed the change in pooled effect estimates between the original and updated evidence using the ratio of odds ratio (ROR), absolute ratio of odds ratio (aROR), ratio of standard errors (RoSE), direction of effects, and level of statistical significance.
RESULTS: High CoE without limitations characterized 19.3% (n = 29) out of 150 included original Cochrane reviews. The update with additional data did not systematically change the effect estimates (mean ROR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.02), which deviated 1.06-fold from the older estimates (median aROR; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.01-1.15), gained precision (median RoSE 0.87; IQR 0.76-1.00), and maintained the same direction with the same level of statistical significance in 93% (27 of 29) of cases. Lower CoE with limitations characterized 121 original reviews and graded as moderate CoE in 30.0% (45 of 150), low CoE in 32.0% (48 of 150), and very low CoE in 18.7% (28 of 150) reviews. Their update had larger absolute deviations (median aROR 1.12 to 1.33) and larger gains in precision (median RoSE 0.78-0.86) without clear and consistent differences between these categories of CoE. Changes in effect direction or statistical significance were also more common in the lower quality evidence, again with a similar extent across categories (without change in 75.6%, 64.6%, and 75.0% for moderate, low, very low CoE). As limitations increased, effect estimates deviated more (aROR 1.05 with zero, 1.11 with one, 1.25 with two, 1.24 with three limitations) and changes in direction or significance became more frequent (93.2% stable with no limitations, 74.5% with one, 68.2% with two, and 61.5% with three limitations).
CONCLUSIONS: High-quality evidence without methodological deficiencies is trustworthy and stable, providing reliable intervention effect estimates when updated with new data. Evidence of moderate and lower quality may be equally prone to being unstable and cannot indicate if available effect estimates are true, exaggerated, or underestimated.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) or eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by dry, itchy, and inflamed skin. We review emerging concepts and clinical evidence addressing the pathogenesis and prevention of AD. We examine several interventions ranging from skin barrier enhancement strategies to probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics; and conversely, from antimicrobial exposure to vitamin D and omega fatty acid supplementation; breastfeeding and hydrolyzed formula; and house dust mite avoidance and immunotherapy. We appraise the available evidence base within the context of the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also contextualize our findings in relation to concepts relating AD and individual-patient allergic life trajectories versus a linear concept of the atopic march and provide insights into future knowledge gaps and clinical trial design considerations that must be addressed in forthcoming research. Finally, we provide implementation considerations to detect population-level differences in AD risk. Major international efforts are required to provide definitive evidence regarding what works and what does not for preventing AD.

BACKGROUND: The fragility index is a statistical measure of the robustness or \"stability\" of a statistically significant result. It has been adapted to assess the robustness of statistically significant outcomes from randomized controlled trials. By hypothetically switching some non-responders to responders, for instance, this metric measures how many individuals would need to have responded for a statistically significant finding to become non-statistically significant. The purpose of this study is to assess the fragility index of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies for opioid use disorder. This will provide an indication as to the robustness of trials in the field and the confidence that should be placed in the trials\' outcomes, potentially identifying ways to improve clinical research in the field. This is especially important as opioid use disorder has become a global epidemic, and the incidence of opioid related fatalities have climbed 500% in the past two decades.
METHODS: Six databases were searched from inception to September 25, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating opioid substitution and antagonist therapies for opioid use disorder, and meeting the necessary requirements for fragility index calculation. Specifically, we included all parallel arm or two-by-two factorial design RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any opioid substitution and antagonist therapies using a binary primary outcome and reported a statistically significant result. The fragility index of each study was calculated using methods described by Walsh and colleagues. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials.
RESULTS: Ten studies with a median sample size of 82.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 58, 179, range 52-226) were eligible for inclusion. Overall risk of bias was deemed to be low in seven studies, have some concerns in two studies, and be high in one study. The median fragility index was 7.5 (IQR 4, 12, range 1-26).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that approximately eight participants are needed to overturn the conclusions of the majority of trials in opioid use disorder. Future work should focus on maximizing transparency in reporting of study results, by reporting confidence intervals, fragility indexes, and emphasizing the clinical relevance of findings.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42013006507. Registered on November 25, 2013.

Quality improvement (QI) has become an integral part of healthcare. Despite efforts to improve the reporting of QI through frameworks such as the SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines, there is no standard or well-accepted guide to evaluate published QI for rigor, validity, generalizability, and applicability. User\'s Guides for evaluation of published clinical research have been employed routinely for over 25 years; however, similar tools for critical appraisal of QI are limited and uncommonly used. In this article we propose an approach to guide the critical review of QI reports focused on evaluating the methodology, improvement results, and applicability and feasibility for implementation in other settings. The resulting Quality Improvement Critical Knowledge (QUICK) Tool can be used by those reviewing manuscripts submitted for publication, as well as healthcare providers seeking to understand how to apply published QI to their local context.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practice supports clinical decision-making by using multiple sources of evidence arising from research and practice. Research evidence develops through empirical study while practice evidence arises through clinical experience, client preferences, and the practice context. Although occupational therapists have embraced the paradigm of evidence-based practice, some studies have identified limits in the availability and use of research, which can lead to reliance on other forms of evidence. This study aimed to understand how Australian occupational therapists use practice evidence, manage potential bias, and enhance trustworthiness. Potential use of a critical appraisal tool for practice evidence was also explored.
METHODS: A 42-item questionnaire was developed to address the study aims. It consisted of a 7-point Likert scale, ordinal and free text questions. Likert scales were collapsed into binary scales and analysed using SPSS. Ordinal data were graphed and free text responses were analysed using manifest content analysis.
RESULTS: Most respondents (82%) indicated that practice evidence was an important informant of practice and is used alongside research evidence. Almost all respondents (98%) expressed confusion when reconciling discrepancies between research and practice evidence. There was general acknowledgement that practice evidence is prone to bias (82%), yet 92% were confident in trusting their own practice evidence. Most respondents (74.5%) undertook some measures to appraise practice evidence, and almost all respondents (90%) agreed they would refer to a critical appraisal tool that helped them evaluate practice evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Occupational therapists in this study routinely use practice evidence arising from their own experience, client perspectives, and their practice context to inform clinical decision-making. While they agreed that practice evidence was prone to bias and misinterpretation, they generally trusted their own practice evidence. Participants indicated they needed guidance to critically appraise their practice evidence and supported the development of a critical appraisal tool for this purpose.