Search

Background: Assessing the methodological quality of case reports and case series is challenging due to human judgment variability and time constraints. We evaluated the agreement in judgments between human reviewers and GPT-4 when applying a standard methodological quality assessment tool designed for case reports and series., Methods: We searched Scopus for systematic reviews published in 2023-2024 that cited the appraisal tool by Murad et al. A GPT-4 based agent was developed to assess the methodological quality using the 8 signaling questions of the tool. Observed agreement and agreement coefficient were estimated comparing published judgments of human reviewers to GPT-4 assessment., Results: We included 797 case reports and series. The observed agreement ranged between 41.91% and 80.93% across the eight questions (agreement coefficient ranged from 25.39 to 79.72%). The lowest agreement was noted in the first signaling question about selection of cases. The agreement was similar in articles published in journals with impact factor < 5 vs. ≥ 5, and when excluding systematic reviews that did not use 3 causality questions. Repeating the analysis using the same prompts demonstrated high agreement between the two GPT-4 attempts except for the first question about selection of cases., Conclusions: The study demonstrates a moderate agreement between GPT-4 and human reviewers in assessing the methodological quality of case series and reports using the Murad tool. The current performance of GPT-4 seems promising but unlikely to be sufficient for the rigor of a systematic review and pairing the model with a human reviewer is required., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the safety of triptans in migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk., Patients and Methods: We retrieved data from a multistate US-based health system (January 2000 to August 2022) on adults with migraine and confirmed cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease, or at least two cardiovascular risk factors. We compared the effect of triptans to nontriptan treatments on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and its components at 60 days of starting treatments. We emulated a target trial and used propensity score matching for analysis., Results: The 3518 patients in the triptan group were matched to the 3518 patients in the nontriptan group (median age, 55 years; 80.60% female). At 60 days, 52 patients (1.48%) in the triptan group had MACE, compared with 13 patients (0.37%) in the nontriptan group (relative risk [RR], 4.00; 95% CI, 2.24 to 7.14). Patients treated with triptans also had significantly higher risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction (15 patients (0.43%) vs 0 patients (0.00%)); heart failure (RR, 4.50; 95% CI, 1.91 to 10.61); and nonfatal stroke (RR, 8.00; 95% CI, 1.00 to 63.96). Five patients (0.14%) in each group died. The findings were consistent when analyses were restricted to sumatriptan, oral administration of triptan, patients with chronic migraine, history of cardiovascular disease, or history of cerebrovascular disease., Conclusion: Triptans likely increase the risk of MACE; however, the incidence of MACE remains low in migraine patients with cardiovascular disease or elevated cardiovascular risk., Trial Registration: Treatments of Migraine With Triptans in Individuals With Elevated Cardiovascular Risk and in Pregnant Women., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT05854992 (https://classic., Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT05854992)., (Copyright © 2024 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To support the development of clinical practice guidelines on the management of patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies, a writing committee from the Society for Vascular Surgery has commissioned this systematic review., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and searched multiple databases for studies addressing six questions identified by the Society for Vascular Surgery guideline committee about evaluating and managing patients with genetic aortopathies and arteriopathies. Studies were selected and appraised by pairs of independent reviewers., Results: We included 12 studies in this systematic review. We did not identify studies about the long-term outcomes of endovascular repair for aortic aneurysm in patients with heritable aortopathy or about new aortic events in pregnant women with a history of aortic dissection (AD) or aneurysm. A small case series demonstrated a 100% survival rate and 100% aortic intervention-free survival at 15 months (range, 7-28 months) after endograft repair for type B AD. A positive genetic diagnosis was discovered in 36% of patients with aortic aneurysms and dissections who had no risk factors for hereditary aortopathies, and these patients had a mortality rate of 11% at a median follow-up duration of 5 months. Black patients had lower 30-day mortality than White patients (5.6% vs 9.0%, respectively), but they had a higher overall aortic reintervention rate at 30 days after AD repair (47% vs 27%, respectively). Aortic reinterventions owing to aneurysmal expansion and endoleak at 30 days were higher in Black patients than White patients. The certainty of evidence was judged to be very low across all the outcomes evaluated in this systematic review., Conclusions: The available evidence suggests high survival after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B AD in young patients with heritable aortopathies, but with limited long-term follow-up. Genetic testing in patients with acute aortic aneurysms and dissections had a high yield. It was positive for most patients with risk factors for hereditary aortopathies and in more than one-third for all other patients, and was associated with new aortic events within 15 years., (Copyright © 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To summarize the available evidence about the perioperative management of patients who are receiving long-term antiplatelet therapy and require elective surgery/procedures., Methods: This systematic review supports the development of the American College of Chest Physicians guideline on the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane databases was conducted from each database's inception to July 16, 2020. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible., Results: In patients receiving long-term antiplatelet therapy and undergoing elective noncardiac surgery, the available evidence did not show a significant difference in major bleeding between a shorter vs longer antiplatelet interruption, with low certainty of evidence (COE). Compared with patients who received placebo perioperatively, aspirin continuation was associated with increased risk of major bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.50; high COE) and lower risk of major thromboembolism (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94; moderate COE). During antiplatelet interruption, bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin was associated with increased risk of major bleeding compared with no bridging (RR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.24-2.79; very low COE). Continuation of antiplatelets during minor dental and ophthalmologic procedures was not associated with a statistically significant difference in the risk of major bleeding (very low COE)., Conclusion: This systematic review summarizes the current evidence about the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy and highlights the urgent need for further research, particularly with the increasing prevalence of patients taking 1 or more antiplatelet agents., (© 2022 The Authors.)

A higher risk of thrombosis has been described as a prominent feature of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This systematic review synthesizes current data on thrombosis risk, prognostic implications, and anticoagulation effects in COVID-19. We included 37 studies from 4070 unique citations. Meta-analysis was performed when feasible. Coagulopathy and thrombotic events were frequent among patients with COVID-19 and further increased in those with more severe forms of the disease. We also present guidance on the prevention and management of thrombosis from a multidisciplinary panel of specialists from Mayo Clinic. The current certainty of evidence is generally very low and continues to evolve., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires making rapid decisions based on sparse and rapidly changing evidence. Evidence synthesis programs conduct systematic reviews for guideline developers, health systems clinicians, and decision-makers that usually take an average 6 to 8 months to complete. We present a framework for evidence synthesis programs to respond to pandemics that has proven feasible and practical during the COVID-19 response in a large multistate health system employing more than 78,000 people. The framework includes four components: an approach for conducting rapid reviews, a repository of rapid reviews, a registry for all original studies about COVID-19, and twice-weekly prioritized update of new evidence sent to key stakeholders. As COVID-19 will not be our last pandemic, we share the details of this framework to allow replication in other institutions and re-implementation in future pandemics., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)