Cargando…
Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a complex chronic condition, leading to frequent hospitalization, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Current guidelines recommend that multidisciplinary care be provided in specialized HF clinics. A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiven...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6359805/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30711016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0953-4 |
_version_ | 1783392356664344576 |
---|---|
author | Slater, Morgan Bielecki, Joanna Alba, Ana Carolina Abrahamyan, Lusine Tomlinson, George Mak, Susanna MacIver, Jane Zieroth, Shelley Lee, Douglas Wong, William Krahn, Murray Ross, Heather Rac, Valeria E. |
author_facet | Slater, Morgan Bielecki, Joanna Alba, Ana Carolina Abrahamyan, Lusine Tomlinson, George Mak, Susanna MacIver, Jane Zieroth, Shelley Lee, Douglas Wong, William Krahn, Murray Ross, Heather Rac, Valeria E. |
author_sort | Slater, Morgan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a complex chronic condition, leading to frequent hospitalization, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Current guidelines recommend that multidisciplinary care be provided in specialized HF clinics. A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of these clinics; however, there is a wide range in the services provided across different clinics. This network meta-analysis will aim to identify the aspects of HF clinic care that are associated with the best outcomes: a reduction in mortality, hospitalization, and visits to emergency department (ED) and improvements to quality of life. METHODS: Relevant electronic databases will be systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Controlled trials and observational cohort studies of adult (≥ 18 years of age) patients will be eligible for inclusion if they evaluate at least one component of guideline-based HF clinic care and report all-cause or HF-related mortality, hospitalizations, or ED visits or health-related quality of life assessed after a minimum follow-up of 30 days. Both controlled trials and observational studies will be included to allow us to compare the efficacy of the interventions in an ideal context versus their effectiveness in the real world. Two reviewers will independently perform both title and abstract full-text screenings and data abstraction. Study quality will be assessed through a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. The strength of evidence will be assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Network meta-analysis methods will be applied to synthesize the evidence across included studies. To contrast findings between study designs, data from RCTs will be analyzed separately from non-randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. We will estimate both the probability that a particular component of care is the most effective and treatment effects for specified combinations of care. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first study to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the different components of care offered in HF clinics. The findings from this systematic review will provide valuable insight about which components of HF clinic care are associated with improved outcomes, potentially informing clinical guidelines as well as the design of future care interventions in dedicated HF clinics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017058003 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0953-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6359805 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63598052019-02-07 Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis Slater, Morgan Bielecki, Joanna Alba, Ana Carolina Abrahamyan, Lusine Tomlinson, George Mak, Susanna MacIver, Jane Zieroth, Shelley Lee, Douglas Wong, William Krahn, Murray Ross, Heather Rac, Valeria E. Syst Rev Protocol BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a complex chronic condition, leading to frequent hospitalization, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Current guidelines recommend that multidisciplinary care be provided in specialized HF clinics. A number of studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of these clinics; however, there is a wide range in the services provided across different clinics. This network meta-analysis will aim to identify the aspects of HF clinic care that are associated with the best outcomes: a reduction in mortality, hospitalization, and visits to emergency department (ED) and improvements to quality of life. METHODS: Relevant electronic databases will be systematically searched to identify eligible studies. Controlled trials and observational cohort studies of adult (≥ 18 years of age) patients will be eligible for inclusion if they evaluate at least one component of guideline-based HF clinic care and report all-cause or HF-related mortality, hospitalizations, or ED visits or health-related quality of life assessed after a minimum follow-up of 30 days. Both controlled trials and observational studies will be included to allow us to compare the efficacy of the interventions in an ideal context versus their effectiveness in the real world. Two reviewers will independently perform both title and abstract full-text screenings and data abstraction. Study quality will be assessed through a modified Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or the ROBINS-I tool for observational studies. The strength of evidence will be assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Network meta-analysis methods will be applied to synthesize the evidence across included studies. To contrast findings between study designs, data from RCTs will be analyzed separately from non-randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. We will estimate both the probability that a particular component of care is the most effective and treatment effects for specified combinations of care. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first study to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the different components of care offered in HF clinics. The findings from this systematic review will provide valuable insight about which components of HF clinic care are associated with improved outcomes, potentially informing clinical guidelines as well as the design of future care interventions in dedicated HF clinics. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017058003 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0953-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6359805/ /pubmed/30711016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0953-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Protocol Slater, Morgan Bielecki, Joanna Alba, Ana Carolina Abrahamyan, Lusine Tomlinson, George Mak, Susanna MacIver, Jane Zieroth, Shelley Lee, Douglas Wong, William Krahn, Murray Ross, Heather Rac, Valeria E. Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title | Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparative effectiveness of the different components of care provided in heart failure clinics—protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
topic | Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6359805/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30711016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0953-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT slatermorgan comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT bieleckijoanna comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT albaanacarolina comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT abrahamyanlusine comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT tomlinsongeorge comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT maksusanna comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT maciverjane comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT zierothshelley comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT leedouglas comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT wongwilliam comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT krahnmurray comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT rossheather comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT racvaleriae comparativeeffectivenessofthedifferentcomponentsofcareprovidedinheartfailureclinicsprotocolforasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis |