Search

Clinical Question: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?, Current Practice: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations., Recommendations: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and β blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids., How This Guideline Was Created: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective., The Evidence: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD., Understanding the Recommendation: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Personal, professional, and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug?, Current Practice: Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens., Recommendations: The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins., How This Guideline Was Created: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation., The Evidence: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/., Understanding the Recommendations: The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in web appendix 1. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Questions: What is the role of plasma exchange and what is the optimal dose of glucocorticoids in the first 6 months of therapy of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV)? This guideline was triggered by the publication of a new randomised controlled trial., Current Practice: Existing guideline recommendations vary regarding the use of plasma exchange in AAV and lack explicit recommendations regarding the tapering regimen of glucocorticoids during induction therapy., Recommendations: The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation against plasma exchange in patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing end stage kidney disease (ESKD), and a weak recommendation in favour of plasma exchange in patients with moderate-high or high risk of developing ESKD. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without renal involvement, the panel suggests not using plasma exchange (weak recommendation). The panel made a strong recommendation in favour of a reduced dose rather than standard dose regimen of glucocorticoids, which involves a more rapid taper rate and lower cumulative dose during the first six months of therapy., How This Guideline Was Created: A guideline panel including patients, a care giver, clinicians, content experts, and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. The recommendations are based on two linked systematic reviews. The panel took an individual patient perspective in the development of recommendations., The Evidence: The systematic review of plasma exchange identified nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 1060 patients with AAV. Plasma exchange probably has little or no effect on mortality or disease relapse (moderate and low certainty). Plasma exchange probably reduces the one year risk of ESKD (approximately 0.1% reduction in those with low risk, 2.1% reduction in those with low-moderate risk, 4.6% reduction in those with moderate-high risk, and 16.0% reduction in those with high risk or requiring dialysis) but increases the risk of serious infections (approximately 2.7% increase in those with low risk, 4.9% increase in those with low-moderate risk, 8.5% increase in those with moderate-high risk, to 13.5% in high risk group) at 1 year (moderate to high certainty). The guideline panel agreed that most patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD would consider the harms to outweigh the benefits, while most of those with moderate-high or high risk would consider the benefits to outweigh the harms. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement, based on indirect evidence, plasma exchange may have little or no effect on death (very low certainty) but may have an important increase in serious infections at 1 year (approximately 6.8% increase, low certainty). The systematic review of different dose regimens of glucocorticoids identified two RCTs at low risk of bias with 704 and 140 patients respectively. A reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoid probably reduces the risk of serious infections by approximately 5.9% to 12.8% and probably does not increase the risk of ESKD at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year (moderate certainty for both outcomes)., Understanding the Recommendation: The recommendations were made with the understanding that patients would place a high value on reduction in ESKD and less value on avoiding serious infections. The panel concluded that most (50-90%) of fully informed patients with AAV and with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would decline plasma exchange, whereas most patients with moderate-high or high risk or requiring dialysis with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would choose to receive plasma exchange. The panel also inferred that the majority of fully informed patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement would decline plasma exchange and that all or almost all (≥90%) fully informed patients with AAV would choose a reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoids during the first 6 months of therapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 4. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?, Current Practice: Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries., Recommendation: The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain., How This Guideline Was Created: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective., The Evidence: This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain., Understanding the Recommendation: The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Personal, professional, and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: What are the benefits and harms of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists when added to usual care (lifestyle interventions and/or other diabetes drugs) in adults with type 2 diabetes at different risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes?, Current Practice: Clinical decisions about treatment of type 2 diabetes have been led by glycaemic control for decades. SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists are traditionally used in people with elevated glucose level after metformin treatment. This has changed through trials demonstrating atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) benefits independent of medications' glucose-lowering potential., Recommendations: The guideline panel issued risk-stratified recommendations concerning the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists in adults with type 2 diabetes• Three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation against starting SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists.• More than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak against starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD or CKD: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists.• Established CVD and CKD: Strong recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors and weak recommendation for starting GLP-1 receptor agonists.• For those committed to further reducing their risk for CVD and CKD outcomes: Weak recommendation for starting SGLT-2 inhibitors rather than GLP-1 receptor agonists., How This Guideline Was Created: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists created these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel applied an individual patient perspective., The Evidence: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (764 randomised trials included 421 346 participants) of benefits and harms found that SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists generally reduce overall death, and incidence of myocardial infarctions, and end-stage kidney disease or kidney failure (moderate to high certainty evidence). These medications exert different effects on stroke, hospitalisations for heart failure, and key adverse events in different subgroups. Absolute effects of benefit varied widely based on patients' individual risk (for example, from five fewer deaths in the lowest risk to 48 fewer deaths in the highest risk, for 1000 patients treated over five years). A prognosis review identified 14 eligible risk prediction models, one of which (RECODe) informed most baseline risk estimates in evidence summaries to underpin the risk-stratified recommendations. Concerning patients' values and preferences, the recommendations were supported by evidence from a systematic review of published literature, a patient focus group study, a practical issues summary, and a guideline panel survey., Understanding the Recommendation: We stratified the recommendations by the levels of risk for CVD and CKD and systematically considered the balance of benefits, harms, other considerations, and practical issues for each risk group. The strong recommendation for SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with CVD and CKD reflects what the panel considered to be a clear benefit. For all other adults with type 2 diabetes, the weak recommendations reflect what the panel considered to be a finer balance between benefits, harms, and burdens of treatment options. Clinicians using the guideline can identify their patient's individual risk for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes using credible risk calculators such as RECODe. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids may support well informed treatment choices, including shared decision making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions. Three authors of the systematic review were on the guideline panel (Li L, Suetonia P, Farid F)., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial., Current Practice: Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use., Recommendations: This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation)., How This Guideline Was Created: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable., The Evidence: The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty)., Understanding the Recommendation: In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 4 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?", Current Practice: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy., Recommendations: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids., How This Guideline Was Created: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations., The Evidence: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk., Understanding the Recommendation: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: Do adults with atraumatic shoulder pain for more than 3 months diagnosed as subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS), also labelled as rotator cuff disease, benefit from subacromial decompression surgery? This guideline builds on to two recent high quality trials of shoulder surgery., Current Practice: SAPS is the common diagnosis for shoulder pain with several first line treatment options, including analgesia, exercises, and injections. Surgeons frequently perform arthroscopic subacromial decompression for prolonged symptoms, with guidelines providing conflicting recommendations., Recommendation: The guideline panel makes a strong recommendation against surgery., How This Guideline Was Created: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE system. The recommendation is based on two linked systematic reviews on ( a ) the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and ( b ) the minimally important differences for patient reported outcome measures. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of surgery in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (www.magicapp.org) to support shared decisions and adaptation., The Evidence: Surgery did not provide important improvements in pain, function, or quality of life compared with placebo surgery or other options. Frozen shoulder may be more common with surgery., Understanding the Recommendation: The panel concluded that almost all informed patients would choose to avoid surgery because there is no benefit but there are harms and it is burdensome. Subacromial decompression surgery should not be offered to patients with SAPS. However, there is substantial uncertainty in what alternative treatment is best., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions. DK Chu, LH-Y Kim, and W Alhazzani co-authored the systematic review that formed the evidence base for this guideline. RAC Siemieniuk, T Agoritsas, PO Vandvik, L Lytvyn, and GH Guyatt are members of the GRADE Working Group: BMJ Rapid Recommendations adheres to GRADE methods.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2 on bmj.com. No authors had relevant financial interests. They declared the following intellectual interests: Elke Hoendermis is co-author of national recommendations on PFO closure and stroke on behalf of the working group of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology. Fred Spencer has published systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic. No panel member had any other intellectual conflict to disclose. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions. Three authors of the systematic review were on the guideline panel (WA, SAA, JB).

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 2 on bmj.com. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

Objective  To estimate the benefits and harms of using corticosteroids as an adjunct treatment for sore throat. Design  Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials. Data sources  Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), trial registries up to May 2017, reference lists of eligible trials, related reviews. Study selection  Randomised controlled trials of the addition of corticosteroids to standard clinical care for patients aged 5 or older in emergency department and primary care settings with clinical signs of acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, or the clinical syndrome of sore throat. Trials were included irrespective of language or publication status. Review methods  Reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the evidence, independently and in duplicate. A parallel guideline committee ( BMJ  Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including the selection of outcomes important to patients. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Quality of evidence was assessed with the GRADE approach. Results  10 eligible trials enrolled 1426 individuals. Patients who received single low dose corticosteroids (the most common intervention was oral dexamethasone with a maximum dose of 10 mg) were twice as likely to experience pain relief after 24 hours (relative risk 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2 to 4.3; risk difference 12.4%; moderate quality evidence) and 1.5 times more likely to have no pain at 48 hours (1.5, 1.3 to 1.8; risk difference 18.3%; high quality). The mean time to onset of pain relief in patients treated with corticosteroids was 4.8 hours earlier (95% confidence interval -1.9 to -7.8; moderate quality) and the mean time to complete resolution of pain was 11.1 hours earlier (-0.4 to -21.8; low quality) than in those treated with placebo. The absolute pain reduction at 24 hours (visual analogue scale 0-10) was greater in patients treated with corticosteroids (mean difference 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.9; moderate quality). Nine of the 10 trials sought information regarding adverse events. Six studies reported no adverse effects, and three studies reported few adverse events, which were mostly complications related to disease, with a similar incidence in both groups. Conclusion  Single low dose corticosteroids can provide pain relief in patients with sore throat, with no increase in serious adverse effects. Included trials did not assess the potential risks of larger cumulative doses in patients with recurrent episodes of acute sore throat. Systematic review registration  PROSPERO CRD42017067808., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work. RACS, AM, and GHG are members of the GRADE working group. There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests form. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations team judged that no panel member declared financial, professional, or academic interests that precluded authorship. The declared interests for each panel member are in appendix 2 on bmj.com. No panel members declared any financial conflicts of interest related to this clinical question. This article was edited by H MacDonald at The BMJ who had no relevant financial or intellectual interests.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests are minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions.

Objective  To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy. Design  Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources  Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016. Study selection  Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy. Review methods  Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee ( BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results  26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty). Conclusions  Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate. Systematic review registration  PROSPERO CRD42016050965., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)