Search

Background Randomized control trials (RCTs) stopped early for benefit (truncated RCTs) are increasingly common and, on average, overestimate the relative magnitude of benefit by approximately 30%. Investigators stop trials early when they consider it is no longer ethical to enroll patients in a control group. The goal of this systematic review is to determine how investigators of ongoing or planned RCTs respond to the publication of a truncated RCT addressing a similar question. Methods/design We will conduct systematic reviews to update the searches of 210 truncated RCTs to identify similar trials ongoing at the time of publication, or started subsequently, to the truncated trials ('subsequent RCTs’). Reviewers will determine in duplicate the similarity between the truncated and subsequent trials. We will analyze the epidemiology, distribution, and predictors of subsequent RCTs. We will also contact authors of subsequent trials to determine reasons for beginning, continuing, or prematurely discontinuing their own trials, and the extent to which they rely on the estimates from truncated trials. Discussion To the extent that investigators begin or continue subsequent trials they implicitly disagree with the decision to stop the truncated RCT because of an ethical mandate to administer the experimental treatment. The results of this study will help guide future decisions about when to stop RCTs early for benefit.

Background In 2005, the Endocrine Society (TES) adopted the GRADE system of developing clinical practice guidelines. This system facilitates the formulation of evidence-based recommendations by explicitly describing the confidence in estimates (quality of evidence) and strength of each recommendation. Objectives To describe and characterise the relationship between confidence in estimates and strength of recommendation in TES guidelines. Methods We included all published TES guidelines between 2005 (when TES started using GRADE) and 2011. Independently and in duplicate, reviewers extracted, for each recommendation: disease area, confidence in estimates and design of the studies considered, and strength of recommendation. In strong recommendations with low quality of we developed and applied a taxonomy of appropriate recommendations and identified those we considered inappropriate. Results Most of the 357 recommendations issued were supported by evidence warranting low or very low confidence in estimates (256, 72%). Evidence cited in support of these recommendations came exclusively from observational studies in 233 recommendations (65%). Most recommendations were strong (206, 58%); of these, 121 (59%) were supported by evidence warranting low or very low confidence in estimates. In 101/121 (83%), we identified a compelling rationale for the recommendations; in 20 (17%), we did not. Conclusions Most TES strong recommendation based on low quality evidence are justified and appropriate, but a substantial proportion are not. Implications for Guideline Developers Guideline developers should carefully justify any strong recommendations based on low confidence in effect estimates.

BackgroundShared decision making in pediatrics is unique because it often involves active participation of both the child or adolescent patient and his or her caregiver(s) in the decision making process with the clinician or care team, and the extent to which the patient is involved is commensurate with their developmental level. However, little is known about the nature of pediatric-specific shared decision making interventions and their impact.Methods/DesignWe will perform a systematic review with the objective of summarizing the nature of shared decision making practices, tools, techniques and technologies in the pediatric setting as well as their effects. A literature search will include Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycInfo databases in addition to consultation of a group of shared decision making experts to identify unpublished or in-progress works. We will include original research studies involving patients DiscussionWe anticipate that the paucity of published quantitative data and the heterogeneous nature of the reported results will preclude quantitative analysis. In this event, a meta-narrative approach will be undertaken.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number:CRD42013004761

Background Many drugs and treatments given to patients for various reasons affect their weight. This side effect is of great importance to patients and is also a concern for the treating physician because weight change may lead to the emergence or worsening of other health conditions. Objective The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence about commonly prescribed drugs and their association with weight change. Methods/Design Umbrella systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. We will use an umbrella approach to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We will search for systematic reviews of RCTs that compare any of the drugs that have been associated with weight gain (obesogenic) or weight loss (leptogenic); these have been summarized by our experts’ panel in a predefined list. Two reviewers will independently determine RCT eligibility. Disagreement will be solved by consensus and arbitrated by a third reviewer. We will extract descriptive, methodological, and efficacy data in duplicate. Our primary continuous outcomes will be weight loss or gain expressed as a mean difference (MD) for weight (kg) or BMI (kg/m2). We will calculate the MD considering the mean difference in weight or BMI between baseline and the last available follow-up in both study arms (drugs and placebo). Our primary dichotomous outcome, presented as a relative risk, will compare the ratio of the incidence of weight change in each trial arm. When possible, results will be pooled using classic random-effects meta-analyses and a summary estimate with 95% confidence interval will provided. We will use the I2 statistic and Cochran’s Q test to assess heterogeneity. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Publication bias, if appropriate, will be evaluated, as well as overall strength of the evidence. Discussion This systematic review will offer the opportunity to generate a ranking of commonly prescribed drugs in terms of their effect on weight, allowing guideline developers and patient-physician dyad to choose between available therapies.

Source Citation Bennett WL, Maruthur NM, Singh S, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of medications for type 2 diabetes: an update including new drugs and 2-drug combinations. Ann Intern M...

Summary Background Bartonella henselae , Bartonella quintana , and Bartonella bacilliformis are responsible for the majority of cases of bartonellosis in humans. These species have various unique epidemiologic characteristics, clinical manifestations, and treatment approaches. The objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the treatment for the three most common species of Bartonella in humans. Methods We searched electronic databases through August 2011 for randomized controlled trials and observational studies designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the regimens used to treat diseases produced by B. henselae , B. quintana , and B. bacilliformis . Study selection and appraisal were done in duplicate. Results We found two randomized and seven non-randomized studies at high risk of bias. For cat scratch disease, antibiotics did not significantly affect the cure rate or time to achieve cure. In chronic bacteremia, gentamicin and doxycycline significantly increased the resolution rate. The recommended treatment was not better than other regimens for infectious endocarditis and bacillary angiomatosis. Conclusions Current clinical practice for the treatment of bartonellosis relies mostly on expert opinion and antimicrobial susceptibility data. Randomized controlled trials are needed in the field to compare different treatment options.

Background Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza viruses, which occurs in epidemics worldwide every year. Children are an important target for prevention methods, including vaccination. While evidence about the decision on whether to vaccinate healthy children is robust, evidence supporting the decision of which of available vaccines to use remains unclear. This review will summarize the evidence about the efficacy and safety of the available vaccines for seasonal influenza licensed in the United States for use in healthy children. Methods/design An umbrella systematic review (SR) and network meta-analysis will be conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We will search for SRs to identify parallel RCTs evaluating inactive and/or live attenuated influenza vaccines licensed in the United States for use in healthy children to prevent influenza. Subsequently, we will update the literature search of the selected SRs to the present time to capture recent controlled studies. To complement the work focused on harms, we will also select observational studies focusing on post marketing retrospective studies. Inclusion will not be limited by language, publication date or publication status. To identify additional candidate studies, we will review the reference lists of the eligible primary studies and narrative reviews; we will query the expert members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and review references from their previous statement. Additionally, we will review the reports from the Institute of Medicine on the adverse effects of vaccines. Two reviewers will independently determine study eligibility and will extract descriptive, methodological (using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies) and efficacy data. When possible, we will conduct meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by combining indirect and direct comparisons. We will evaluate heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and the agreement of indirect comparisons and direct evidence. We will report the Cochrane Q test to determine the statistical significance of heterogeneity. The overall quality of evidence will be assessed following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Discussion Our systematic review will allow patients, clinicians, guideline developers and policy makers to make evidence-based choices between the two available vaccine options, by providing information regarding benefits and harms of these types of vaccines.