Search

BackgroundRapid adoption of robotic-assisted general surgery procedures, particularly for cholecystectomy, continues while questions remain about its benefits and utility. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease as compared with the laparoscopic approach.MethodsA literature search was performed from January 2010 to March 2020, and a narrative analysis was performed as studies were heterogeneous.ResultsOf 887 articles screened, 44 met the inclusion criteria (range 20-735,537 patients). Four were randomized controlled trials, and four used propensity-matching. There were variable comparisons between operative techniques with only 19 out of 44 studies comparing techniques using the same number of ports. Operating room time was longer for the robot-assisted technique in the majority of studies (range 11-55 min for 22 studies, p < 0.05; 15 studies showed no difference; two studies showed shorter laparoscopic times), while conversion rates and intraoperative complications were not different. No differences were detected for the length of stay, surgical site infection, or readmissions. Across studies comparing single-port robot-assisted to multi-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy, there was a higher rate of incisional hernia; however, no differences were noted when comparing single-port robot-assisted to single-port laparoscopic cholecystectomy.ConclusionsClinical outcomes were similar for benign, elective gallbladder disease for robot-assisted compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Overall, the rates of complications were low. More high-quality studies are needed as the robot-assisted technique expands to more complex gallbladder disease, where its utility may prove increasingly beneficial.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020156945.

BACKGROUND:The correct perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) is often debated by clinicians. American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines recommend postponing elective NCS at least 3 months after stent implantation. Regardless of the timing of surgery, ACC/AHA guidelines recommend continuing at least ASA throughout the perioperative period and ideally continuing dual APT (DAPT) therapy "unless surgery demands discontinuation." The objective of this review was to ascertain the risks and benefits of APT in the perioperative period, to assess how these risks and benefits vary by APT management, and the significance of length of time since stent implantation before operative intervention. METHODS:PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through October 2017. Articles were included if patients were post PCI with stent placement (bare metal [BMS] or drug eluting [DES]), underwent elective NCS, and had rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) or bleeding events associated with pre and perioperative APT therapy. RESULTS:Of 4882 screened articles, we included 16 studies in the review (1 randomized controlled trial and 15 observational studies). Studies were small (150: n = 6). All studies included DES with 7 of 16 also including BMS. Average time from stent to NCS was variable ( 12 months: n = 6). At least six different APT strategies were described. Six studies further utilized bridging protocols using three different pharmacologic agents. Studies typically included multiple surgical fields with varying degrees of invasiveness. Across all APT strategies, rates of MACE/bleeding ranged from 0 to 21% and 0 to 22%. There was no visible trend in MACE/bleeding rates within a given APT strategy. Stratifying the articles by type of surgery, timing of discontinuation of APT therapy, bridging vs. no bridging, and time since stent placement did not help explain the heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence regarding perioperative APT management in patients with cardiac stents undergoing NCS is insufficient to guide practice. Other clinical factors may have a greater impact than perioperative APT management on MACE and bleeding events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42016036607.

BackgroundThe prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA)/degenerative joint disease (DJD) is increasing in the USA. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections report conflicting evidence about the balance of benefits and harms. We review evidence on efficacy and AEs of intraarticular viscosupplementation with HA in older individuals with knee osteoarthritis and account for differences in these conclusions from another systematic review.MethodsWe searched PubMed and eight other databases and gray literature sources from 1990 to December 12, 2014. Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional outcomes or quality-of-life; RCTs and observational studies on delay/avoidance of arthroplasty; RCTs, case reports, and large cohort studies and case series assessing safety; and systematic reviews reporting on knee pain were considered for inclusion. A standardized, pre-defined protocol was applied by two independent reviewers to screen titles and abstracts, review full text, and extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality. We compared our results with those of a prior systematic review and found them to be discrepant; our analysis of why this discrepancy occurred is the focus of this manuscript.ResultsEighteen RCTs reported functional outcomes: pooled analysis of ten placebo-controlled, blinded trials showed a standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to -0.01) favoring HA at 6 months. Studies reported few serious adverse events (SAEs) and no significant differences in non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) (relative risk (RR) [95 % CI] 1.03 [0.93-1.15] or SAEs (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [0.78-2.47]). A recent prior systematic review reported similar functional outcomes, but significant SAE risk. Differences in SAE inclusion and synthesis accounted for the disparate conclusions.ConclusionsTrials show a small but significant effect of HA on function on which recent systematic reviews agree, but lack of AE synthesis standardization leads to opposite conclusions about the balance of benefits and harms. A limitation of the re-analysis of the prior systematic review is that it required imputation of missing data.

BackgroundThis evidence map describes the volume and focus of Tai Chi research reporting health outcomes. Originally developed as a martial art, Tai Chi is typically taught as a series of slow, low-impact movements that integrate the breath, mind, and physical activity to achieve greater awareness and a sense of well-being.MethodsThe evidence map is based on a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched 11 electronic databases from inception to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted with topic experts. We used a bubble plot to graphically display clinical topics, literature size, number of reviews, and a broad estimate of effectiveness.ResultsThe map is based on 107 systematic reviews. Two thirds of the reviews were published in the last five years. The topics with the largest number of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were general health benefits (51 RCTs), psychological well-being (37 RCTs), interventions for older adults (31 RCTs), balance (27 RCTs), hypertension (18 RCTs), fall prevention (15 RCTs), and cognitive performance (11 RCTs). The map identified a number of areas with evidence of a potentially positive treatment effect on patient outcomes, including Tai Chi for hypertension, fall prevention outside of institutions, cognitive performance, osteoarthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pain, balance confidence, and muscle strength. However, identified reviews cautioned that firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to methodological limitations in the original studies and/or an insufficient number of existing research studies.ConclusionsTai Chi has been applied in diverse clinical areas, and for a number of these, systematic reviews have indicated promising results. The evidence map provides a visual overview of Tai Chi research volume and content.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014009907.

BackgroundThe Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act subsidizes implementation by hospitals of electronic health records with computerized provider order entry (CPOE), which may reduce patient injuries caused by medication errors (preventable adverse drug events, pADEs). Effects on pADEs have not been rigorously quantified, and effects on medication errors have been variable. The objectives of this analysis were to assess the effectiveness of CPOE at reducing pADEs in hospital-related settings, and examine reasons for heterogeneous effects on medication errors.MethodsArticles were identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Econlit, web-based databases, and bibliographies of previous systematic reviews (September 2013). Eligible studies compared CPOE with paper-order entry in acute care hospitals, and examined diverse pADEs or medication errors. Studies on children or with limited event-detection methods were excluded. Two investigators extracted data on events and factors potentially associated with effectiveness. We used random effects models to pool data.ResultsSixteen studies addressing medication errors met pooling criteria; six also addressed pADEs. Thirteen studies used pre-post designs. Compared with paper-order entry, CPOE was associated with half as many pADEs (pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.71) and medication errors (RR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.60). Regarding reasons for heterogeneous effects on medication errors, five intervention factors and two contextual factors were sufficiently reported to support subgroup analyses or meta-regression. Differences between commercial versus homegrown systems, presence and sophistication of clinical decision support, hospital-wide versus limited implementation, and US versus non-US studies were not significant, nor was timing of publication. Higher baseline rates of medication errors predicted greater reductions (P

BackgroundSystematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are useful only if up-to-date. Methods for detecting signals of when a systematic review needs updating have face validity, but no proposed method has had an assessment of predictive validity performed.MethodsThe AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review program had produced 13 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), a subcategory of systematic reviews, by 2009, 11 of which were assessed in 2009 using a surveillance system to determine the degree to which individual conclusions were out of date and to assign a priority for updating each report. Four CERs were judged to be a high priority for updating, four CERs were judged to be medium priority for updating, and three CERs were judged to be low priority for updating. AHRQ then commissioned full update reviews for 9 of these 11 CERs. Where possible, we matched the original conclusions with their corresponding conclusions in the update reports, and compared the congruence between these pairs with our original predictions about which conclusions in each CER remained valid. We then classified the concordance of each pair as good, fair, or poor. We also made a summary determination of the priority for updating each CER based on the actual changes in conclusions in the updated report, and compared these determinations with the earlier assessments of priority.ResultsThe 9 CERs included 149 individual conclusions, 84% with matches in the update reports. Across reports, 83% of matched conclusions had good concordance, and 99% had good or fair concordance. The one instance of poor concordance was partially attributable to the publication of new evidence after the surveillance signal searches had been done. Both CERs originally judged as being low priority for updating had no substantive changes to their conclusions in the actual updated report. The agreement on overall priority for updating between prediction and actual changes to conclusions was Kappa = 0.74.ConclusionsThese results provide some support for the validity of a surveillance system for detecting signals indicating when a systematic review needs updating.

BackgroundThere are both theoretical and empirical reasons to believe that design and execution factors are associated with bias in controlled trials. Statistically significant moderator effects, such as the effect of trial quality on treatment effect sizes, are rarely detected in individual meta-analyses, and evidence from meta-epidemiological datasets is inconsistent. The reasons for the disconnect between theory and empirical observation are unclear. The study objective was to explore the power to detect study level moderator effects in meta-analyses.MethodsWe generated meta-analyses using Monte-Carlo simulations and investigated the effect of number of trials, trial sample size, moderator effect size, heterogeneity, and moderator distribution on power to detect moderator effects. The simulations provide a reference guide for investigators to estimate power when planning meta-regressions.ResultsThe power to detect moderator effects in meta-analyses, for example, effects of study quality on effect sizes, is largely determined by the degree of residual heterogeneity present in the dataset (noise not explained by the moderator). Larger trial sample sizes increase power only when residual heterogeneity is low. A large number of trials or low residual heterogeneity are necessary to detect effects. When the proportion of the moderator is not equal (for example, 25% 'high quality', 75% 'low quality' trials), power of 80% was rarely achieved in investigated scenarios. Application to an empirical meta-epidemiological dataset with substantial heterogeneity (I(2) = 92%, τ(2) = 0.285) estimated >200 trials are needed for a power of 80% to show a statistically significant result, even for a substantial moderator effect (0.2), and the number of trials with the less common feature (for example, few 'high quality' studies) affects power extensively.ConclusionsAlthough study characteristics, such as trial quality, may explain some proportion of heterogeneity across study results in meta-analyses, residual heterogeneity is a crucial factor in determining when associations between moderator variables and effect sizes can be statistically detected. Detecting moderator effects requires more powerful analyses than are employed in most published investigations; hence negative findings should not be considered evidence of a lack of effect, and investigations are not hypothesis-proving unless power calculations show sufficient ability to detect effects.

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program.MethodsTwenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and then ceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating.ResultsTwenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts.ConclusionIn this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project.

Background: The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA)/degenerative joint disease (DJD) is increasing in the USA. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections report conflicting evidence about the balance of benefits and harms. We review evidence on efficacy and AEs of intraarticular viscosupplementation with HA in older individuals with knee osteoarthritis and account for differences in these conclusions from another systematic review. Methods: We searched PubMed and eight other databases and gray literature sources from 1990 to December 12, 2014. Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional outcomes or quality-of-life; RCTs and observational studies on delay/avoidance of arthroplasty; RCTs, case reports, and large cohort studies and case series assessing safety; and systematic reviews reporting on knee pain were considered for inclusion. A standardized, pre-defined protocol was applied by two independent reviewers to screen titles and abstracts, review full text, and extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality. We compared our results with those of a prior systematic review and found them to be discrepant; our analysis of why this discrepancy occurred is the focus of this manuscript. Results: Eighteen RCTs reported functional outcomes: pooled analysis of ten placebo-controlled, blinded trials showed a standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to ---0.01) favoring HA at 6 months. Studies reported few serious adverse events (SAEs) and no significant differences in non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) (relative risk (RR) [95 % CI] 1.03 [0.93-1.15] or SAEs (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [0.78-2.47]). A recent prior systematic review reported similar functional outcomes, but significant SAE risk. Differences in SAE inclusion and synthesis accounted for the disparate conclusions. Conclusions: Trials show a small but significant effect of HA on function on which recent systematic reviews agree, but lack of AE synthesis standardization leads to opposite conclusions about the balance of benefits and harms. A limitation of the re-analysis of the prior systematic review is that it required imputation of missing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]