Search

Objectives: To assess whether the use of the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) in systematic reviews (SRs) adheres to RoB2 guidance. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from 2019 to May 2021 to identify SRs using RoB2. We analyzed methods and results sections to see whether risk of bias was assessed at outcome measure level and applied to primary outcomes of the SR as per RoB2 guidance. The relation between SR characteristics and adequacy of RoB2 use was examined by logistic regression analysis. Results: Two hundred-eight SRs were included. We could assess adherence in 137 SRs as 12 declared using RoB2 but actually used RoB1 and 59 did not report the number of primary outcomes. The tool usage was adherent in 69.3% SRs. Considering SRs with multiple primary outcomes, adherence dropped to 28.8%. We found a positive association between RoB2 guidance adherence and the methodological quality of the reviews assessed by AMSTAR2 (p-for-trend 0.007). Multivariable regression analysis suggested journal impact factor [first quartile vs. other quartiles] was associated with RoB2 adherence (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.16-0.72). Conclusions: Many SRs did not adhere to RoB2 guidance as they applied the tool at the study level rather than at the outcome measure level. Lack of adherence was more likely among low and very low quality reviews.

Autoantibodies directed to phospholipids or to phospholipid binding proteins are now studied using a growing number of laboratory tests. However, the history of the interest in this area goes back to the identification of the so-called false positive reactions in the non-treponemal serological test for syphilis (STS) and to the subsequent description of an in vitro coagulation defect called lupus anticoagulant (LAC). In the 1980s the introduction of the anticardiolipin antibody (aCL) immunoassay was a determining factor in the definition of the antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). In addition, lupus prone mice spontaneously producing aCL antibodies and normal mice passively infused with these antibodies provided useful models for the study of the pathogenic role of aPL. When in 1990 a phospholipid binding protein (beta 2glycoprotein I, beta 2GPI) was identified as the cofactor required for aCL antibody binding, the true antigenic target of the antibodies was first discussed. Soon afterwards an anti-beta 2GPI ELISA was developed that has proved to be of great clinical significance. We will discuss here the similarities and differences between these various assays (LAC, aCL, and anti-beta 2GPI), focusing on their specificity, sensitivity and practical applications.

PURPOSE This meta-analysis aims to combine and analyze randomized clinical trials comparing computed tomography lung screening (CTLS) versus either no screening (NS) or chest x-ray (CXR) in subjects with cigarette smoking history, to provide a precise and reliable estimation of the benefits and harms associated with CTLS. MATERIALS AND METHODS Data from all published randomized trials comparing CTLS versus either NS or CXR in a highly tobacco-exposed population were collected, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Subgroup analyses by comparator (NS or CXR) were performed. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CIs were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS Nine eligible trials (88,497 patients) were included. Pooled analysis showed that CTLS is associated with: a significant reduction of lung cancer–related mortality (overall RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98; NS RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92); a significant increase of early-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 2.84; 95% CI 1.76 to 4.58; NS RR, 3.33; 95% CI, 2.27 to 4.89; CXR RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.23); a significant decrease of late-stage tumors diagnosis (overall RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.83; NS RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80); a significant increase of resectability rate (NS RR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.76 to 3.74); a nonsignificant reduction of all-cause mortality (overall RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.05); and a significant increase of overdiagnosis rate (NS, 38%; 95% CI, 14 to 63). The analysis of lung cancer–related mortality by sex revealed nonsignificant differences between men and women ( P = .21; I-squared = 33.6%). CONCLUSION Despite there still being uncertainty about overdiagnosis estimate, this meta-analysis suggested that the CTLS benefits outweigh harms, in subjects with cigarette smoking history, ultimately supporting the systematic implementation of lung cancer screening worldwide.

Introduction The potential advantages of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (BCS) have not been validated in robust studies that constitute high levels of evidence, despite oncoplastic techniques being widely adopted around the globe. There is hence the need to define the precise role of oncoplastic BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer, with consensual recommendations for clinical practice. Methods A panel of world-renowned breast specialists was convened to evaluate evidence, express personal viewpoints and establish recommendations for the use of oncoplastic BCS as primary treatment of unifocal early stage breast cancers using the GRADE approach. Results According to the results of the systematic review of literature, the panelists were asked to comment on the recommendation for use of oncoplastic BCS for treatment of operable breast cancer that is suitable for breast conserving surgery, with the GRADE approach. Based on the voting outcome, the following recommendation emerged as a consensus statement: Oncoplastic breast conserving surgery should be recommended versus standard breast conserving surgery for the treatment of operable breast cancer in adult women who are suitable candidates for breast conserving surgery (with very low certainty of evidence). Discussion This review has revealed a low level of evidence for most of the important outcomes in oncoplastic surgery with lack of any randomized data and absence of standard tools for evaluation of clinical outcomes and especially patients’ values. Despite areas of controversy, about one-third (36%) of panel members expressed a strong recommendation in support of oncoplastic BCS. Presumably, this reflects a synthesis of views on the relative complexity of these techniques, associated complications, impact on quality of life and costs.