Background Surgery is the fundamental curative option for gastric cancer patients. Imaging scans are routinely prescribed in an attempt to stage the disease prior to surgery. Consequently, the correlation between radiology exams and pathology is crucial for appropriate treatment planning. Methods Systematic searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1998 to December 1, 2009. We calculated the accuracy, overstaging rate, understaging rate, Kappa statistic, sensitivity, and specificity for abdominal ultrasound (AUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to the gold standard (pathology). We also compared the performance of CT by detector number and image type. A meta-analysis was performed. Results For pre-operative T staging MRI scans had better performance accuracy than CT and AUS; CT scanners using C4 detectors and multi-planar reformatted (MPR) images had higher staging performances than scanners with \4 detectors and axial images only. For pre-operative N staging PET had the lowest sensitivity, but the highest specificity among modalities; CT performance did not significantly differ by detector number or addition of MPR images. For pre-operative M staging performance did not significantly differ by modality, detector number, or MPR images. Conclusions The agreement between pre-operative TNM staging by imaging scans and post-operative staging by pathology is not perfect and may affect treatment decisions. Operator dependence and heterogeneity of data may Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

BackgroundWe completed a scoping review on the barriers and facilitators to use of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers, including consideration of format and content, to develop recommendations for systematic review authors and to inform research efforts to develop and test formats for systematic reviews that may optimise their uptake.MethodsWe used the Arksey and O’Malley approach for our scoping review. Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo) were searched from inception until September 2014. Any study that identified barriers or facilitators (including format and content features) to uptake of systematic reviews by health care managers and policy makers/analysts was eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the literature results and abstracted data from the relevant studies. The identified barriers and facilitators were charted using a barriers and facilitators taxonomy for implementing clinical practice guidelines by clinicians.ResultsWe identified useful information for authors of systematic reviews to inform their preparation of reviews including providing one-page summaries with key messages, tailored to the relevant audience. Moreover, partnerships between researchers and policy makers/managers to facilitate the conduct and use of systematic reviews should be considered to enhance relevance of reviews and thereby influence uptake.ConclusionsSystematic review authors can consider our results when publishing their systematic reviews. These strategies should be rigorously evaluated to determine impact on use of reviews in decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0370-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.

BackgroundKnowledge translation (KT, also known as research utilization, and sometimes referring to implementation science) is a dynamic and iterative process that includes the synthesis, dissemination, exchange, and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve health. A KT intervention is one which facilitates the uptake of research. The long-term sustainability of KT interventions is unclear. We aimed to characterize KT interventions to manage chronic diseases that have been used for healthcare outcomes beyond 1 year or beyond the termination of initial grant funding.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Campbell from inception until February 2013. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies providing information on the sustainability of KT interventions for managing chronic diseases in adults and focusing on end-users including patients, clinicians, public health officials, health service managers, and policy-makers. Articles were screened and abstracted by two reviewers, independently. The data were charted and results described narratively.ResultsWe included 62 studies reported in 103 publications (total 260,688 patients) plus 41 companion reports after screening 12,328 titles and abstracts and 464 full-text articles. More than half of the studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The duration of the KT intervention ranged from 61 to 522 weeks. Nine chronic conditions were examined across the studies, such as diabetes (34 %), cardiovascular disease (28 %), and hypertension (16 %). Thirteen KT interventions were reported across the studies. Patient education was the most commonly examined (20 %), followed by self-management (17 %). Most studies (61 %) focused on patient-level outcomes (e.g. disease severity), while 31 % included system-level outcomes (e.g. number of eye examinations), and 8 % used both. The interventions were aimed at the patient (58 %), health system (28 %), and healthcare personnel (14 %) levels.ConclusionsWe found few studies focusing on the sustainability of KT interventions. Most of the included studies focused on patient-level outcomes and patient-level KT interventions. A future systematic review can be conducted of the RCTs to examine the impact of sustainable KT interventions on health outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0421-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.