Mindfulness Meditation for the Treatment of Tobacco Use: A Systematic Review

Maglione, Margaret; Hempel, Susanne; Maher, Alicia Ruelaz; Ewing, Brett; Colaiaco, Benjamin; Newberry, Sydne J; Kandrack, Ryan; Shanman, Roberta; Sorbero, Melony E.

doi:10.7249/rr1343

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent good-quality systematic review on the diagnostic accuracy of tests for celiac disease compared with a reference standard of endoscopic duodenal biopsy included 56 original studies and 12 previous systematic reviews (Table 1;eTable1intheSupplement). 17 Sample sizes ranged from 62 to more than 12 000 participants. Three studies in the review focused on diagnostic accuracy of testing in children, adolescents, or both [18][19][20] ; 6 evaluated a mixed population of children and adults [21][22][23][24][25][26] ; and the remainder focused on testing in adults.…”

Section: Data Synthesis and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Celiac Disease

Chou

Bougatsos

Blazina

et al. 2017

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Silent or subclinical celiac disease may result in potentially avoidable adverse health consequences. OBJECTIVE To review the evidence on benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic adults, adolescents, and children 3 years and older for the US Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, searched to June 14, 2016. STUDY SELECTION Randomized clinical trials and cohort or case-control studies on clinical benefits and harms of screening vs no screening for celiac disease or treatment vs no treatment for screen-detected celiac disease; studies on diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS One investigator abstracted data, a second checked data for accuracy, and 2 investigators independently assessed study quality using predefined criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Cancer incidence, gastrointestinal outcomes, psychological outcomes, child growth outcomes, health outcomes resulting from nutritional deficiencies, quality of life, mortality, and harms of screening. No meta-analytic pooling was done. RESULTS One systematic review and 3 primary studies met inclusion criteria. No trials of screening for celiac disease were identified. One recent, good-quality systematic review of 56 original studies and 12 previous systematic reviews (sample sizes of primary studies ranging from 62 to more than 12 000 participants) found IgA tissue transglutaminase was associated with high accuracy (sensitivity and specificity both >90%) for diagnosing celiac disease. IgA endomysial antibodies tests were associated with high specificity. Only 2 studies of serologic tests for celiac disease involving 62 and 158 patients were conducted in asymptomatic populations and reported lower sensitivity (57% and 71%). One fair-quality, small (n = 40) Finnish treatment trial of asymptomatic adults with screen-detected celiac disease based on positive serologic findings found initiation of a gluten-free diet associated with small improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms compared with no gluten-free diet (difference less than 1 point on a scale of 1 to 7) at 1 year, with no differences on most measures of quality of life. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred during the trial; no other harms were reported. No studies were identified that addressed the other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although some evidence was found regarding diagnostic accuracy of tests for celiac disease, little or no evidence was identified to inform most of the key questions related to benefits and harms of screening for celiac disease in asymptomatic individuals. More research is needed to understand the effectiveness of screening and treatment for celiac disease, accuracy of screening tests in asymptomatic persons, and optimal screening strategies.

show abstract

Section: Data Synthesis and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Celiac Disease

Chou

Bougatsos

Blazina

et al. 2017

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, 21 (68% of total) publications refer to 20 unique guidances providing general considerations, frameworks, and recommendations to guide decision‐making for off‐label medicines use 8,14–17,22–37 . Ten papers (32%) provided off‐label use recommendations for specific medicines or therapeutic categories but also described the types of evidence, expertise, and processes used in developing recommendations and thus were included 38–47 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…8,[14][15][16][17][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Ten papers (32%) provided off-label use recommendations for specific medicines or therapeutic categories but also described the types of evidence, expertise, and processes used in developing recommendations and thus were included. [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] 3.1.2 | Thematic concepts of general guidances for off-label medicine use…”

Section: Identification Of Relevant Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing therapeutic decision‐making for off‐label medicines use: A scoping review and consensus recommendations for improving practice and research⁺

Gazarian

Horton

Carleton

et al. 2023

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeOff‐label medicines use is a common and sometimes necessary practice in many populations, with important clinical, ethical and financial consequences, including potential unintended harm or lack of effectiveness. No internationally recognized guidelines exist to aid decision‐makers in applying research evidence to inform off‐label medicines use. We aimed to critically evaluate current evidence informing decision‐making for off‐label use and to develop consensus recommendations to improve future practice and research.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review to summarize the literature on available off‐label use guidance, including types, extent and scientific rigor of evidence incorporated. Findings informed the development of consensus recommendations by an international multidisciplinary Expert Panel using a modified Delphi process. Our target audience includes clinicians, patients and caregivers, researchers, regulators, sponsors, health technology assessment bodies, payers and policy makers.ResultsWe found 31 published guidance documents on therapeutic decision‐making for off‐label use. Of 20 guidances with general recommendations, only 35% detailed the types and quality of evidence needed and the processes for its evaluation to reach sound, ethical decisions about appropriate use. There was no globally recognized guidance. To optimize future therapeutic decision‐making, we recommend: (1) seeking rigorous scientific evidence; (2) utilizing diverse expertise in evidence evaluation and synthesis; (3) using rigorous processes to formulate recommendations for appropriate use; (4) linking off‐label use with timely conduct of clinically meaningful research (including real‐world evidence) to address knowledge gaps quickly; and (5) fostering partnerships between clinical decision‐makers, researchers, regulators, policy makers, and sponsors to facilitate cohesive implementation and evaluation of these recommendations.ConclusionsWe provide comprehensive consensus recommendations to optimize therapeutic decision‐making for off‐label medicines use and concurrently drive clinically relevant research. Successful implementation requires appropriate funding and infrastructure support to engage necessary stakeholders and foster relevant partnerships, representing significant challenges that policy makers must urgently address.

show abstract

“…To date, we have produced or sponsored 25 systematic reviews. Seven systematic reviews27–33 supported the guideline preparation for the VA/DoD CPGs on substance use disorders (SUD) and major depressive disorder 34. Three systematic reviews were provided to the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain CPG workgroup champions 35–37.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three systematic reviews were provided to the posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain CPG workgroup champions 35–37. Two reviews supported a VA directive on best practices for treating SUD and chronic pain 30,33. Six reviews supported a VA directive on best practices for complementary and integrative health for depression, chronic pain, and PTSD 27–29,35–37.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%