Limited public money is available for funding research and the majority of clinical research undertaken is funded by industry. Mechanisms to regulate conflicts of interest within the research process have been implemented. However, these policies by themselves do not protect against potential sponsorship bias that would affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of RCTs.

This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of RCTs included in meta-analyses of physical therapy (PT) area were identified. Data extraction including assessments of appropriate influence of funders was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to sponsorship biases and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach.

We analysed 393 trials included in forty-three meta-analyses. The most common sources of sponsorship for this sample of PT trials were government (n = 205, 52.16 percent) followed by academic (n = 44, 11.2 percent), and industry (n = 39, 10 percent). The funding was not declared in a high percentage of the trials (n = 85, 22 percent). The influence of the trial sponsor was assessed as being appropriate in 246 trials (63 percent) and considered inappropriate/unclear in 147 (37 percent) of them. There was a significant difference in effects estimates between trials with appropriate and inappropriate influence of funders (ES= 0.15; 95% CI -0.03, 0.33;). Trials with inappropriate/unclear influence of funders tended to have on average a larger effect size than those with appropriate influence of funding

Treatment effect size estimates were 0.15 larger in trials with lack of appropriate influence of funders. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analyses based on appropriateness of influence of sponsorship in included trials.

Economic evaluations are a growing field of interest in the rehabilitation area. Research has questioned the quality of reporting of health economic evaluations. Poor reporting hinders the ability to provide accurate information for health care decision making. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to document on overall reporting quality of the published literature for rehabilitation economic evaluations; to identify if reporting quality has improved in health economic evaluations within the field of rehabilitation therapy since the publication of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS); and to identify factors that could influence the reporting trends.

We searched databases for economical evaluations performed in the rehabilitation area published between 2013 and 2018. Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers using Covidence software. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer using Microsoft Excel and independently verified by another reviewer. The quality of reporting was evaluated independently by two reviewers using the CHEERS checklist.

The search of the literature resulted in a total of 2195 published articles. Of these, 117 were considered to be potentially relevant. Independent review of these 117 articles led to the inclusion of 88 articles. This study is ongoing and complete results will be presented at the conference. Fifty papers have been analyzed in full. In general, the quality of reporting of the economical evaluations in the rehabilitation field was poor. The total mean and median for the CHEERS checklist was 17 points (out of 25) (range 8-24). Most of the analyzed studies did not report important methodological features of the economical evaluation as evaluated by the CHEERS checklist.

The quality of reporting of economic evaluations in the rehabilitation field is poor and inconsistent. Commonly the methods of the analyzed studies are under reported, thereby creating challenges in determining whether the information presented is sound.

Intention to treat (ITT) is a gold standard strategy to analyze the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ITT analysis has been considered a methodological indicator of the quality of clinical trials. The extent to which the use of ITT is related to the treatment effects observed in RCTs has not been rigorously explored. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to determine the association between biases related to attrition and missing data and the use of intention to treat principle, and changes in effect size estimates in RCTs.

This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of RCTs included in meta-analyses was identified. Data extraction including assessments of the use of intention to treat principle, missing data and drop-outs was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to attrition, missing data, and the use of intention to treat and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach.

Three-hundred and ninety-three trials included in 43 meta-analyses, analyzing 44,622 patients contributed to this study. From these, 134 trials (34.1%) used ITT and 218 (55.5%) did not use ITT. Trials which did not use the ITT principle, or which were assessed as having an inappropriate control of incomplete outcome data (based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool) tended to underestimate the treatment effect when compared with trials with adequate use of ITT (ES= -0.13; 95%CI -0.26, -0.01) or trials which were assessed as having an appropriate control of incomplete outcome (ES= -0.18; 95%CI -0.29, -0.08).

Our results suggest that when evaluating risk of bias of primary RCTs, systematic reviewers should pay attention to these biases since they could underestimate treatment effects. Systematic reviewers should perform sensitivity analysis including trials with low risk of bias in these domains.

The objectives of this study were to systematically review published research on the relationship between nursing staff coverage, care hours, and quality of care (QoC) in long-term care (LTC) facilities; and to conduct a real world evidence (RWE) analysis using Alberta real world data (RWD) to inform policy makers on whether any amendments could be made to current regulations.

A systematic review (SR) of research evidence published between January 2000 and May 2018 on the relationship between nursing staff coverage, care hours, and QoC in LTC facilities was conducted. Panel data regressions using available RWD from Alberta, Canada, were performed to assess associations between nursing care hours and LTC outcomes. Outcomes of interest included quality indicators related to resident outcomes, hospital admissions, emergency room visits and family satisfaction. Nursing care hours considered in SR and RWE analysis included those provided by registered nurses (RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs).

The SR found inconsistent and poor quality evidence relevant to the questions of interest, indicating a great uncertainty about the association between nursing staff time and type of coverage and QoC. Although some positive indications were suggested, major weaknesses of reviewed studies limited interpretation of SR results. RWE analysis found that impact of care hours on LTC outcomes was heterogeneous, dependent on outcome measurements. There was evidence that total staff, RN, and LPN hours had positive effects on some resident outcomes and magnitude of effect differed for different nursing staff.

No definitive conclusion could be drawn on whether changing nursing staff time or nursing staff coverage models would affect residents’ outcomes based on the research evidence gathered in the SR. RWE analysis helped to fill a gap in the available published literature and allowed policy makers to better understand the impact of revising current regulations based on actual outcomes.

The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Program at the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) has conducted rapid assessments (RAs) for 25 years. The presentation draws on this experience to chart the evolution of RAs over a 25-year relationship between a policy maker and an arms-length HTA agency to quantify the effects of this partnership on the RAs produced.

The number, types, and methodological attributes of RAs produced over a 25-year partnership with a single requestor were reviewed. The reasons for developmental changes in RA products over time were charted to document the push-pull tension between requestor needs and HTA best practice. The elements contributing to the relevance and impact, or not, of the RAs were also identified.

Results demonstrated the dynamic relationship required for HTA researchers to meet best practice and requestor needs. As literature search spans lengthened and data analyses became more complex, limitations were imposed on RAs to fulfill the requirements of timeliness, utility, and best practice. Adaptations were driven by requestor, researcher, and the external policy environment. Facilitators of RA utility for HTA requestors include: asking focused, well-articulated questions; specifying the request's purpose; providing detailed information about local context and other relevant issues; and understanding the risk of bias associated with RAs. Considerations for HTA doers include: assembling a team using a triage process; involving requestors throughout RA development; negotiating deliverables and timelines using a HTA product matrix; transparently reporting methods; narratively describing methodological issues; and internally reviewing the draft RAs.

RAs are a useful component of HTA programs. To keep these products relevant and useful, HTA agencies must allow RAs to evolve according to need, but with grounding in good practice. Negotiating the line between rigor and relevance is a key skill for HTA agencies. Having the right team is helpful.

The cost-effectiveness of endovascular therapy (EVT) compared to tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) alone for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has been established in the literature. However, decision-makers still face challenges of how to best deliver EVT in a timely manner to maximize patient outcomes while minimizing the burden to the healthcare system, given that AIS has time-dependent treatment outcomes. The objective of this presentation is to report an optimization approach for improving health system value and outcomes for patients with AIS who are eligible for EVT in Alberta.

An economic model was developed to compare combinations of “mothership” (transport directly to a comprehensive stroke center [CSC] to receive tPA and EVT) and “drip-and-ship” (transport to a primary stroke centre to receive tPA, followed by transport to a CSC to receive EVT) methods across Alberta. The model considered geographical variation and searched for the best delivery methods through a pairwise comparison of all possible strategies. The controlled variables including in the model were population densities, disease epidemiology, time/distance to hospitals, available medical services, treatment eligibility and efficacy, and costs. Patient outcomes were measured by functional independence. The model defined optimal strategies by identifying the transport methods that produced the highest probability of improved health outcomes at the lowest cost.

The analysis produced an optimization map showing optimal strategies for EVT delivery. The lifetime cost (standard deviation [SD]) per patient and likelihood (SD) of good outcomes was CAD 291,769 (CAD 11,576) [USD 226,207 (USD 8,975)] and 41.82 percent (0.013) when considering optimal clinical outcomes, and CAD 287,725 (CAD 4,141) [USD 223,097 (USD 3,211)] and 41.67 percent (0.016) when considering optimal economic efficiency.

Our model reduces the gap that exists between health technology implementation and cost-effectiveness analysis; namely, neither fully addresses relative efficiency driven by geographical variation, which may misrepresent system value in local settings. Implementation strategies generated in our model capture full values in terms of patient outcomes and costs.