Recently Published Projects

Objectives: The Vanderbilt Evidence-based Practice Center systematically reviewed evidence on therapies for children ages 2 to 12 with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). We focused on treatment outcomes, modifiers of treatment effectiveness, evidence for generalization of outcomes to other contexts, and evidence to support treatment decisions in children ages 0-2 at risk for an ASD diagnosis.

Objectives: To comprehensively review and critically assess the literature on vaginal estrogen and its alternatives for women with genitourinary syndrome of menopause and to provide clinical practice guidelines.

Objectives: Background: Many health decisions about screening and treatment for cancers involve uncertainty or tradeoffs between the expected benefits and harms. Patient decision aids have been developed to help health care consumers and their providers identify the available alternatives and choose the one that aligns with their values. It is unclear whether the effectiveness of decision aids for decisions related to cancers differs by people’s average risk of cancer or by the content and format of the decision aid.; Objectives: We sought to appraise and synthesize the evidence assessing the effectiveness of decision aids targeting health care consumers who face decisions about cancer screening or prevention, or early cancer treatment (Key Question 1), particularly with regard to decision aid or patient characteristics that might function as effect modifiers. We also reviewed interventions targeting providers for promotion of shared decision making using decision aids (Key Question 2).; Data sources: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO®, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®) from inception to the end of June 2014.; Review methods: For Key Question 1, we included randomized controlled trials comparing decision aid interventions among themselves or with a control. We included trials of previously developed decision aids that were delivered at the point of the actual decision. We predefined three population groups of interest based on risk or presence of cancer (average cancer risk, high cancer risk, early cancer). The assessed outcomes pertained to measurements of decisional quality and cognition (e.g., knowledge scores), attributes of the decision-making process (e.g., Decisional Conflict Scale), emotion and quality of life (e.g., decisional regret), and process and system-level attributes. We assessed for effect modification by population group, by the delivery format or content of the decision aid or other attributes, or by methodological characteristics of the studies. For Key Question 2, we included studies of any intervention to promote patient decision aid use, regardless of study design and outcomes assessed.; Results: Of the 16,669 screened citations, 87 publications were eligible, corresponding to 83 (68 trials; 25,337 participants) and 5 reports for Key Questions 1 and 2, respectively. Regarding the evolution of the decision aid format and content over time, more recent trials increasingly studied decision aids that were more practical to deliver (e.g., over the Internet or without human mediation) and more often clarified preferences explicitly. Overall, participants using decision aids had higher knowledge scores compared with those not using decision aids (standardized mean difference, 0.23; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.09 to 0.35; 42 comparison strata with 12,484 participants). Compared with not using decision aids, using decision aids resulted in slightly lower decisional conflict scores (weighted mean difference of -5.3 units [CrI, -8.9 to - 1.8] on the 0-100 Decisional Conflict Scale; 28 comparison strata; 7,923 participants). There was no difference in State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores (weighted mean difference = 0.1; 95% CrI, -1.0 to 0.7 on a 20-80 scale; 16 comparison strata; 2,958 participants). Qualitative synthesis suggested that patients using decision aids are more likely to make informed decisions and have accurate risk perceptions; further, they may make choices that best agree with their values and may be less likely to remain undecided. Because there was insufficient, sparse, or no information about effects of decision aids on patient-provider communication, patient satisfaction with decision-making process, resource use, consultation length, costs, or litigation rates, a quantitative synthesis was not done. There was no evidence for effect modification by population group, by the delivery format or content of the decision aid or other attributes, or by methodological characteristics of the studies. Data on Key Question 2 were very limited.; Conclusions: Cancer-related decision aids have evolved over time, and there is considerable diversity in both format and available evidence. We found strong evidence that cancer-related decision aids increase knowledge without adverse impact on decisional conflict or anxiety. We found moderate- or low-strength evidence that patients using decision aids are more likely to make informed decisions, have accurate risk perceptions, make choices that best agree with their values, and not remain undecided. This review adds to the literature that the effectiveness of cancer-related decision aids does not appear to be modified by specific attributes of decision aid delivery format, content, or other characteristics of their development and implementation. Very limited information was available on other outcomes or on the effectiveness of interventions that target providers to promote shared decision making by means of decision aids.

Objectives: This evidence map on sugars and health outcomes was developed using an iterative process. Evidence Map data are being used to support a stakeholders ‘ decision-making on refining research questions and topic prioritization. The goal of this Future Research Needs project is to characterize the available evidence regarding the intake of sugars and health outcomes and identify priority areas where additional research needs remain.

Objectives: Objectives: We focused on four questions: (1) What are the risks and benefits of an oral diabetes agent (i.e., glyburide), as compared to all types of insulin, for gestational diabetes? (2) What is the evidence that elective labor induction, cesarean delivery, or timing of induction is associated with benefits or harm to the mother and neonate? (3) What risk factors are associated with the development of type 2 diabetes after gestational diabetes? (4) What are the performance characteristics of diagnostic tests for type 2 diabetes in women with gestational diabetes? Data Sources: We searched electronic databases for studies published through January 2007. Additional articles were identified by searching the table of contents of 13 journals for relevant citations from August 2006 to January 2007 and reviewing the references in eligible articles and selected review articles. Review Methods: Paired investigators reviewed abstracts and full articles. We included studies that were written in English, reported on human subjects, contained original data, and evaluated women with appropriately diagnosed gestational diabetes. Paired reviewers performed serial abstraction of data from each eligible study. Study quality was assessed independently by each reviewer. Main Results: The search identified 45 relevant articles. The evidence indicated that (1) maternal glucose levels do not differ substantially in those treated with insulin versus insulin analogues or oral agents; (2) average infant birth weight may be lower in mothers treated with insulin than with glyburide; (3) induction at 38 weeks may reduce the macrosomia rate, with no increase in cesarean delivery rates; (4) anthropometric measures, fasting blood glucose (FBG), and 2-hour glucose value are the strongest risk factors associated with development of type 2 diabetes; (5) FBG had high specificity, but variable sensitivity, when compared to the 75-gm oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes after delivery. Conclusions: The evidence suggests that benefits and a low likelihood of harm are associated with the treatment of gestational diabetes with an oral diabetes agent or insulin. The effect of induction or elective cesarean on outcomes is unclear. The evidence is consistent that anthropometry identifies women at risk of developing subsequent type 2 diabetes; however, no evidence suggested the FBG out-performs the 75-gm OGTT in diagnosing type 2 diabetes after delivery.