Alessandro Liberati

Bio: Alessandro Liberati is an academic researcher from University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Systematic review. The author has an hindex of 46, co-authored 144 publications receiving 167184 citations. Previous affiliations of Alessandro Liberati include Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research & Cochrane Collaboration.

Patient empowerment as a component of health system reforms: rights, benefits and vested interests.

Abstract: Different strategies have been developed across countries to foster citizens’ and patients’ involvement, from health policies to patients’ active participation in decisions regarding their health. The spectrum varies from systems where patients lead the reform of health care services, to others where a paternalistic approach still limits patients’ autonomy in decision-making. This paper describes: (1) different interventions for involving patients; (2) experiences to promote consumer evidence-based advocacy; and (3) barriers to consumer involvement in health system reforms, including vested interests in patients’ associations. Citizens’ involvement in health systems can vary substantially, but is gaining increasing weight.

Diagnosis and First-Line Treatment of Breast Cancer in Italian General Hospitals

Abstract: The quality of the diagnostic and therapeutic process of 1262 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients was evaluated in 63 Italian general hospitals over the period March 1983 - April 1984. Most of the patients (91 %) discovered their own lesion, which was a nodule in 83 % of the cases. Practice of breast self examination was reported by 418 (33 %) patients, only 28 % of whom did that on a regular monthly basis. A diagnostic delay > 3 months was present in 36 % of the patients. Among the preoperative work-up examinations, skeletal X-ray or bone scan was not performed in 20 % of patients, whereas other essential examinations were done in most. The Patey type of radical mastectomy was the most frequent surgical procedure; quadrantectomy was performed in only 26 % of eligible patients, more frequently in younger (34 %) than in older patients (21 %). Adjuvant chemotherapy was recommended for 11 % and 6 % of pre- and postmenopausal N— patients, and for 78 % and 47 % of pre- and postmenopausal N+ patients. Forty-three of the 63 participating hospitals reported they adhered to the guidelines defined by the Italian Breast Cancer Task Force (F.O.N.Ca.M.) but this was not associated with substantial evidence of better quality of care. Similarly, no associations emerged between several hospitals' organizational features and adherence to recommended treatment guidelines. The study is ongoing to assess the quality of postsurgical treatment and to measure its impact on patients' survival.

Is the published literature a reliable guide for deciding between alternative treatments for patients with early cervical cancer

Abstract: The quality of the methodology and reporting of studies on the treatment of early cervical cancer published in English and French language over the period 19752985 were examined using an explicit, pre-defined protocol aimed at assessing their internal validity and generalizability. One hundred and fifty-two articles reporting results on over 40,000 patients treated with surgery, radiotherapy, or the combination of the two, were examined. The astonishing lack of formal comparative studies together with the poor quality of those actually carried out were the two major findings of our study. More than half of the reviewed papers (54%) were single series studies.Among the remaining 46% only a few formally compared the two treatments (i.e. surgery vs. radiotherapy), the remainder dealing with comparisons of specific surgical or radiotherapeutic techniques. With reference to study quality, the existence of a pre-specified research protocol could not be ascertained in most studies. A description of patients' characteristics and information on the source population were deficient in most papers reviewed; information on thetwo aspects was in fact satisfactorily reported in only 7% and 47% of the papers, respectively. Finally, the lack of standardization of follow-up methods (i.e. type and modalities) and of information on treatment compliance were two other severe methodological deficiencies. In view of this poor quality and of the intrinsic difficulty of drawing firm scientific conclusions from non-experimental investigations, the reliability of this literature remains highly dubious. Another possible caveat is that what is published is a biased sample of the overall evidence because of the well known tendency of authors to write about and editors to publish positive results more frequently than negative ones.

The risk of bias from omitted research.

Abstract: The rise of evidence based health care has highlighted the use of ineffective interventions, the risks of uncoordinated research, and the consequences of relying on studies published in prestigious journals while ignoring unpublished ones that have negative findings.1-5 Systematic reviews of the best evidence are now recognised as fundamental tools in overcoming these problems because they highlight questions that need urgent answers.6 But is evidence based health care achieving its goals? Aren't systematic reviews which are based on existing research at risk of amplifying the irrelevant? Should we be more concerned about “bias caused by omitted research” than the well recognised pitfall of publication bias? The increasing awareness of this danger is leading to efforts to correct this imbalance. One such attempt is the Cochrane Collaboration (an international organisation named after Archie Cochrane, the British epidemiologist), which is committed to preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews to map the value of healthcare interventions.7 The public and the media are attracted to alternative medicine, while doctors, who often criticise the use of these unproved …

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …