Benefits and Harms of Coronary Revascularization in Non-Dialysis-Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease and Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Key Points: In people with non–dialysis-dependent CKD, revascularization may lower all-cause mortality and risk of cardiovascular events. Adverse kidney events, which are often cited as a reason to avoid revascularization, were uncommon. Additional research on the effect of revascularization on patient-reported outcomes in people with non–dialysis-dependent CKD is needed.

Effectiveness of telehealth versus in-person care during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

In this systematic review, we compared the effectiveness of telehealth with in-person care during the pandemic using PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from March 2020 to April 2023. We included English-language, U.S.

Opportunistic Screening for Coronary Artery Disease: An Untapped Population Health Resource.

Background: Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in the United States. At-risk asymptomatic adults are eligible for screening with electrocardiogram-gated coronary artery calcium (CAC) CT, which aids in risk stratification and management decision-making. Incidental CAC (iCAC) is easily quantified on chest CT in patients imaged for noncardiac indications; however, radiologists do not routinely report the finding.

Realist Review of Care Models That Include Primary Care for Adult Childhood Cancer Survivors.

Appropriate models of survivorship care for the growing number of adult survivors of childhood cancer are unclear. We conducted a realist review to describe how models of care that include primary care and relevant resources (eg, tools, training) could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. We first developed an initial program theory based on qualitative literature (studies, commentaries, opinion pieces) and stakeholder consultations.

Implementation and Effectiveness of Integrating Palliative Care Into Ambulatory Care of Noncancer Serious Chronic Illness: Mixed Methods Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: To perform a mixed methods review to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of models for integrating palliative care into ambulatory care for US adults with noncancer serious chronic illness.

Methods: We searched 3 electronic databases from January 2000 to May 2020 and included qualitative, mixed methods studies and randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials. For each study, 2 reviewers abstracted data and independently assessed for quality.

Advance Care Planning Shared Decision-Making Tools for Non-Cancer Chronic Serious Illness: A Mixed Method Systematic Review.

Context: Shared decision-making tools can facilitate advance care planning and goals of care conversations in non-cancer serious illness. More information on integrating these tools in ambulatory care could better support clinicians and patients/caregivers in these conversations.

Objectives: We evaluated effectiveness and implementation of integrating palliative care shared decision-making tools into ambulatory care for U.

Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments.

Objectives: In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care.

Methods: We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification).

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling.

Background: Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Methods and Risks of Bias in Natural Experiments in Obesity: Opportunities for the Future Informed by a Systematic Review.

Objective: This paper promotes rigorous methods and designs currently underutilized in obesity research, informed by a recent systematic review of the methods and risks of bias in studies of policies, programs, and built environment changes for obesity prevention and control.

Methods: To determine the current state of the field, relevant databases from 2000 to 2017 were searched to identify studies that fit the inclusion criteria. Study design, analytic approach, and other details of study methods were abstracted.

Balance of benefits and harms of different blood pressure targets in people with multiple chronic conditions: a quantitative benefit-harm assessment.

Objective: Recent studies suggest that a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of 120 mm Hg is appropriate for people with hypertension, but this is debated particularly in people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC). We aimed to quantitatively determine whether benefits of a lower SBP target justify increased risks of harm in people with MCC, considering patient-valued outcomes and their relative importance.

Design: Highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessment based on various input data identified as the most valid and applicable from a systematic review of evidence and based on weights from a patient preference survey.

Systematic Review of Natural Experiments for Childhood Obesity Prevention and Control.

Context: The National Academy of Medicine recommends childhood obesity prevention efforts making healthier options the passive choice. This review evaluated the effectiveness of population-level policies and programs from natural experiments for childhood obesity prevention.

Evidence Acquistion: The search included PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit from 2000 to 2017 for policies evaluated by natural experiments reporting childhood BMI outcomes.

Effectiveness of Policies and Programs to Combat Adult Obesity: a Systematic Review.

Background: This systematic review identifies programs, policies, and built-environment changes targeting prevention and control of adult obesity and evaluates their effectiveness.

Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit from January 2000 to March 2018. We included natural experiment studies evaluating a program, policy, or built-environment change targeting adult obesity and reporting weight/body mass index (BMI).

Methods for Evaluating Natural Experiments in Obesity: A Systematic Review.

Background: Given the obesity pandemic, rigorous methodological approaches, including natural experiments, are needed.

Purpose: To identify studies that report effects of programs, policies, or built environment changes on obesity prevention and control and to describe their methods.

Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EconLit (January 2000 to August 2017).

Patient- and Caregiver-Reported Assessment Tools for Palliative Care: Summary of the 2017 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Technical Brief.

Context: Assessment tools are data collection instruments that are completed by or with patients or caregivers and which collect data at the individual patient or caregiver level.

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to 1) summarize palliative care assessment tools completed by or with patients or caregivers and 2) identify needs for future tool development and evaluation.

Methods: We completed 1) a systematic review of systematic reviews; 2) a supplemental search of previous reviews and Web sites, and/or 3) a targeted search for primary articles when no tools existed in a domain.

Validity of the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Hospital-acquired Conditions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital-acquired Conditions (HACs) are increasingly being used for pay-for-performance and public reporting despite concerns over their validity. Given the potential for these measures to misinform patients, misclassify hospitals, and misapply financial and reputational harm to hospitals, these need to be rigorously evaluated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess PSI and HAC measure validity.