Search

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is a global health priority. Using a progestogen during high-risk pregnancy could reduce preterm birth and adverse neonatal outcomes.METHODS: We did a systematic review of randomised trials comparing vaginal progesterone, intramuscular 17-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-OHPC), or oral progesterone with control, or with each other, in asymptomatic women at risk of preterm birth. We identified published and unpublished trials that completed primary data collection before July 30, 2016, (12 months before data collection began), by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Maternity and Infant Care Database, and relevant trial registers between inception and July 30, 2019. Trials of progestogen to prevent early miscarriage or immediately-threatened preterm birth were excluded. Individual participant data were requested from investigators of eligible trials. Outcomes included preterm birth, early preterm birth, and mid-trimester birth. Adverse neonatal sequelae associated with early births were assessed using a composite of serious neonatal complications, and individually. Adverse maternal outcomes were investigated as a composite and individually. Individual participant data were checked and risk of bias assessed independently by two researchers. Primary meta-analyses used one-stage generalised linear mixed models that incorporated random effects to allow for heterogeneity across trials. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42017068299.FINDINGS: Initial searches identified 47 eligible trials. Individual participant data were available for 30 of these trials. An additional trial was later included in a targeted update. Data were therefore available from a total of 31 trials (11 644 women and 16185 offspring). Trials in singleton pregnancies included mostly women with previous spontaneous preterm birth or short cervix. Preterm birth before 34 weeks was reduced in such women who received vaginal progesterone (nine trials, 3769 women; relative risk [RR] 0·78, 95% CI 0·68-0·90), 17-OHPC (five trials, 3053 women; 0·83, 0·68-1·01), and oral progesterone (two trials, 181 women; 0·60, 0·40-0·90). Results for other birth and neonatal outcomes were consistently favourable, but less certain. A possible increase in maternal complications was suggested, but this was uncertain. We identified no consistent evidence of treatment interaction with any participant characteristics examined, although analyses within subpopulations questioned efficacy in women who did not have a short cervix. Trials in multifetal pregnancies mostly included women without additional risk factors. For twins, vaginal progesterone did not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks (eight trials, 2046 women: RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·84-1·20) nor did 17-OHPC for twins or triplets (eight trials, 2253 women: 1·04, 0·92-1·18). Preterm premature rupture of membranes was increased with 17-OHPC exposure in multifetal gestations (rupture INTERPRETATION: Vaginal progesterone and 17-OHPC both reduced birth before 34 weeks' gestation in high-risk singleton pregnancies. Given increased underlying risk, absolute risk reduction is greater for women with a short cervix, hence treatment might be most useful for these women. Evidence for oral progesterone is insufficient to support its use. Shared decision making with woman with high-risk singleton pregnancies should discuss an individual's risk, potential benefits, harms and practicalities of intervention. Treatment of unselected multifetal pregnancies with a progestogen is not supported by the evidence.FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Background There is broad recognition of the importance of evidence in informing clinical decisions. When information from all studies included in a systematic review (“review”) does not contribute to a meta-analysis, decision-makers can be frustrated. Our objectives were to use the field of eyes and vision as a case study and examine the extent to which authors of Cochrane reviews conducted meta-analyses for their review’s pre-specified main outcome domain and the reasons that some otherwise eligible studies were not incorporated into meta-analyses. Methods We examined all completed systematic reviews published by Cochrane Eyes and Vision, as of August 11, 2017. We extracted information about each review’s outcomes and, using an algorithm, categorized one outcome as its “main” outcome. We calculated the percentage of included studies incorporated into meta-analyses for any outcome and for the main outcome. We examined reasons for non-inclusion of studies into the meta-analysis for the main outcome. Results We identified 175 completed reviews, of which 125 reviews included two or more studies. Across these 125 reviews, the median proportions of studies incorporated into at least one meta-analysis for any outcome and for the main outcome were 74% (interquartile range [IQR] 0–100%) and 28% (IQR 0–71%), respectively. Fifty-one reviews (41%) could not conduct a meta-analysis for the main outcome, mostly because fewer than two included studies measured the outcome (21/51 reviews) or the specific measurements for the outcome were inconsistent (16/51 reviews). Conclusions Outcome choice during systematic reviews can lead to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses. Core outcome sets and improved reporting of outcomes can help solve some of these problems.

Summary Background Well designed, large comparative effectiveness trials assessing the efficacy of primary interventions for faecal incontinence are few in number. The objectives of this study were to compare different combinations of anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide, education, and oral placebo. Methods In this randomised factorial trial, participants were recruited from eight clinical sites in the USA. Women with at least one episode of faecal incontinence per month in the past 3 months were randomly assigned 0·5:1:1:1 to one of four groups: oral placebo plus education only, placebo plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback, loperamide plus education only, and loperamide plus anorectal manometry-assisted biofeedback. Participants received 2 mg per day of loperamide or oral placebo with the option of dose escalation or reduction. Women assigned to biofeedback received six visits, including strength and sensory biofeedback training. All participants received a standardised faecal incontinence patient education pamphlet and were followed for 24 weeks after starting treatment. The primary endpoint was change in St Mark's (Vaizey) faecal incontinence severity score between baseline and 24 weeks, analysed by intention-to-treat using general linear mixed modelling. Investigators, interviewers, and outcome evaluators were masked to biofeedback assignment. Participants and all study staff other than the research pharmacist were masked to medication assignment. Randomisation took place within the electronic data capture system, was stratified by site using randomly permuted blocks (block size 7), and the sizes of the blocks and the allocation sequence were known only to the data coordinating centre. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008565. Findings Between April 1, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, 377 women were enrolled, of whom 300 were randomly assigned to placebo plus education (n=42), placebo plus biofeedback (n=84), loperamide plus education (n=88), and the combined intervention of loperamide plus biofeedback (n=86). At 24 weeks, there were no differences between loperamide versus placebo (model estimated score change −1·5 points, 95% CI −3·4 to 0·4, p=0·12), biofeedback versus education (−0·7 points, −2·6 to 1·2, p=0·47), and loperamide and biofeedback versus placebo and biofeedback (−1·9 points, −4·1 to 0·3, p=0·092) or versus loperamide plus education (−1·1 points, −3·4 to 1·1, p=0·33). Constipation was the most common grade 3 or higher adverse event and was reported by two (2%) of 86 participants in the loperamide and biofeedback group and two (2%) of 88 in the loperamide plus education group. The percentage of participants with any serious adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. Only one serious adverse event was considered related to treatment (small bowel obstruction in the placebo and biofeedback group). Interpretation In women with normal stool consistency and faecal incontinence bothersome enough to seek treatment, we were unable to find evidence against the null hypotheses that loperamide is equivalent to placebo, that anal exercises with biofeedback is equivalent to an educational pamphlet, and that loperamide and biofeedback are equivalent to oral placebo and biofeedback or loperamide plus an educational pamphlet. Because these are common first-line treatments for faecal incontinence, clinicians could consider combining loperamide, anal manometry-assisted biofeedback, and a standard educational pamphlet, but this is likely to result in only negligible improvement over individual therapies and patients should be counselled regarding possible constipation. Funding Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health

Objective: We examined nonsystematic adverse events (AEs) in Part 2 (of 2) of a study describing the assessment and reporting AEs in clinical trials. Study Design and Setting: We examined 21 trials of gabapentin for neuropathic pain (52 sources) and seven trials of quetiapine for bipolar depression (80 sources) using data from the Multiple Data Sources study. We extracted and compared information about nonsystematic AEs (i.e., AEs that were not assessed for every participant), including AEs categorized as “serious.” We recorded whether AEs were grouped by anatomic or physiological system. Results: Trials of the same drug reported information about different AEs. Information in public sources was inadequate for decision-making. No public source reported all AEs, or all serious AEs, identified in nonpublic sources about the same trial. Of trials with only public sources, 2/15 (13%) gabapentin and 0/3 (0%) quetiapine trials grouped AEs by anatomic or physiological system. Conclusion: Public sources contained little information about nonsystematic AEs, including serious AEs. Grouping might make nonsystematic AEs easier to detect; however, most public sources did not report grouped AEs. Standards are needed to improve the collection and reporting of nonsystematic AEs so that stakeholders can use trials to assess the balance of potential benefits and harms.

Importance Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline’s core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Objectives The objective of this study was to determine whether disagreements among multiple data sources affect systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Study Design and Setting Eligible RCTs examined gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression, reported in public (e.g., journal articles) and nonpublic sources (clinical study reports [CSRs] and individual participant data [IPD]). Results We found 21 gabapentin RCTs (74 reports, 6 IPD) and 7 quetiapine RCTs (50 reports, 1 IPD); most were reported in journal articles (18/21 [86%] and 6/7 [86%], respectively). When available, CSRs contained the most trial design and risk of bias information. CSRs and IPD contained the most results. For the outcome domains “pain intensity” (gabapentin) and “depression” (quetiapine), we found single trials with 68 and 98 different meta-analyzable results, respectively; by purposefully selecting one meta-analyzable result for each RCT, we could change the overall result for pain intensity from effective (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.63 to −0.27) to ineffective (SMD = −0.06; 95% CI: −0.24 to 0.12). We could change the effect for depression from a medium effect (SMD = −0.55; 95% CI: −0.85 to −0.25) to a small effect (SMD = −0.26; 95% CI: −0.41 to −0.1). Conclusions Disagreements across data sources affect the effect size, statistical significance, and interpretation of trials and meta-analyses.

Having more than one chronic condition is common and is associated with greater health care utilization, higher medication burden and complexity of treatment. However, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not routinely address the balance between harms and benefits of treatments for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs).To partner with the Kaiser Permanente Integrated Cardiovascular Health (ICVH) program to engage multiple stakeholders in a mixed-methods approach in order to: 1) identify two high-priority clinical questions related to MCCs, and 2) understand patients' and family caregivers' perceptions of meaningful outcomes to inform benefit/harm assessments for these two high-priority questions. These clinical questions and outcomes will be used to inform CPG recommendations for people with MCCs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The ICVH program provided 130 topics rank-ordered by the potential for finding evidence that would change clinical recommendations regarding the topic. We used a modified Delphi method to identify and reword topics into questions relevant to people with MCCs. We used two sets of focus groups (n = 27) to elicit patient and caregiver perspectives on two important research questions and relevant patient-important outcomes on benefit/harm balance for people with MCCs.Co-investigators, patients and caregivers identified "optimal blood pressure goals" and "diabetes medication management" as important clinical topics for CPGs related to people with MCCs. Stakeholders identified a list of relevant outcomes to be addressed in future CPG development including 1) physical function and energy, 2) emotional health and well-being, 3) avoidance of treatment burden, side effects and risks, 4) interaction with providers and health care system, and 5) prevention of adverse long-term health outcomes.Through the application of a mixed-methods process, we identified the questions regarding optimal blood pressure goals and diabetes medication management, along with related patient-centered outcomes, to inform novel evidence syntheses for those with MCCs. This study provides the lessons learned and a generalizable process for CPG developers to engage patient and caregivers in priority-setting for the translation of evidence into future CPGs. Ultimately, engaging patient and stakeholders around MCCs could improve the relevance of CPGs for the care of people with MCCs.

Background: Adverse events (AEs) in randomized clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials, or across sources for a single trial, may produce inconsistent and confusing information about the adverse events associated with interventions Methods: We sought to compare the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., “selection criteria”) and to determine how selection criteria could impact the AEs reported. We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports [CSRs]) of trials for two drug-indications: gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting. Results: We identified 21 gabapentin trials and 7 quetiapine trials. All CSRs (6 gabapentin, 2 quetiapine) reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs that would be reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion “occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group,” while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion, “occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group.” Conclusions: Selection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might “cherry-pick” AEs based on study results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting of AEs will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems we identified in this study. Keywords: Harms, adverse events, clinical trials, reporting bias, selective outcome reporting, data sharing, trial registration

BACKGROUND: Little is known about short- and long-term pain and functional activity after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. OBJECTIVE: To describe postoperative pain and functional activity after transvaginal native tissue reconstructive surgery with apical suspension and retropubic synthetic midurethral sling and to compare these outcomes between patients receiving two common transvaginal prolapse repairs, uterosacral ligament and sacrospinous ligament vaginal vault suspension. STUDY DESIGN: This planned secondary analysis of a 2×2 factorial randomized trial included 374 women randomized to receive uterosacral (n=188) or sacrospinous (n=186) vaginal vault suspension to treat both Stages 2–4 apical vaginal prolapse and stress urinary incontinence between 2008 and 2013 at 9 medical centers. Participants were also randomized to receive perioperative pelvic muscle therapy or usual care. All patients received transvaginal native tissue repairs and a midurethral sling. Participants completed the Surgical Pain Scales (0–10 numeric rating scales; higher scores = greater pain) and Activity Assessment Scale (0–100; higher score = higher activity) prior to surgery and at 2 weeks, 4–6 weeks, and 3 months postoperatively. The SF-36 was completed at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery; the Bodily Pain, Physical Functioning and Role-Physical subscales were used for this analysis (higher scores = less disability). Self-reported pain medication use was also collected. RESULTS: Before surgery, average pain at rest and during normal activity were (adjusted mean ± standard error) 2.24 ± 0.23 and 2.76 ± 0.25; both increased slightly from baseline at 2 weeks (+0.65, p

Importance Patient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome. Objective To summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases. Data Source The Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database. Study Selection In this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combiningeyesandvisionkeywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter. Data Extraction and Synthesis The study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met. Main Outcomes and Measures The proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability. Results This study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs. Conclusions and Relevance One in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Objectives Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA) is a software for linking items abstracted into a data collection form for a systematic review to their locations in a study report. We conducted a randomized cross-over trial that compared DAA-facilitated single-data abstraction plus verification (“DAA verification”), single data abstraction plus verification (“regular verification”), and independent dual data abstraction plus adjudication (“independent abstraction”). Study Design and Setting This study is an online randomized cross-over trial with 26 pairs of data abstractors. Each pair abstracted data from six articles, two per approach. Outcomes were the proportion of errors and time taken. Results Overall proportion of errors was 17% for DAA verification, 16% for regular verification, and 15% for independent abstraction. DAA verification was associated with higher odds of errors when compared with regular verification (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99–1.17) or independent abstraction (adjusted OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03–1.22). For each article, DAA verification took 20 minutes (95% CI: 1–40) longer than regular verification, but 46 minutes (95% CI: 26 to 66) shorter than independent abstraction. Conclusion Independent abstraction may only be necessary for complex data items. DAA provides an audit trail that is crucial for reproducible research.

Objectives We examined systematic adverse events (AEs) in Part 1 (of 2) of a study describing the assessment and reporting of AEs in clinical trials. Study Design and Setting We examined 52 public and nonpublic data sources about trials of quetiapine for bipolar depression using data from the Multiple Data Sources study. We extracted and compared information about systematic AEs (i.e., AEs assessed for all participants) in six prespecified domains: cardiovascular, cholesterol, endocrine, extrapyramidal symptoms, mania, and weight. Results Eligible trials did not assess and report the same systematic AEs, and most results were not available in public sources. Overall, public sources reported 159 results, of which 92 of 159 (58%) included sufficient statistical information to calculate the treatment effect and its precision. Nonpublic sources reported 636 results; 630 of 636 (99%) reported sufficient statistical information. Conclusion Systematic AEs were defined and analyzed in many ways, which led to many numerical results. Most systematic AEs were not mentioned in public sources. To minimize bias, methods for defining and analyzing potential AEs should be prespecified in trial registers and protocols. All trial results should be publicly available so that stakeholders can compare benefits and AEs. Trials could report core sets of AEs to facilitate decision-making.

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration hosted a workshop on "The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology," on November 21, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. The workshop featured speakers from agencies and organizations applying systematic review approaches to questions in toxicology, speakers with experience in conducting systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, and stakeholders in industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Based on the workshop presentations and discussion, here we address the state of systematic review methods in toxicology, historical antecedents in both medicine and toxicology, challenges to the translation of systematic review from medicine to toxicology, and thoughts on the way forward. We conclude with a recommendation that as various agencies and organizations adapt systematic review methods, they continue to work together to ensure that there is a harmonized process for how the basic elements of systematic review methods are applied in toxicology. published

Purpose Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? Design High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Methods Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. Results Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. Conclusions For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

Topic Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of first-line medical treatments in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments. Clinical Relevance Treatment for POAG currently relies completely on lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Although topical drops, lasers, and surgeries can be considered in the initial treatment of glaucoma, most patients elect to start treatment with eye drops. Methods We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a single active topical medication with no treatment/placebo or another single topical medication. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Food and Drug Administration's website. Two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results We included 114 RCTs with data from 20 275 participants. The overall risk of bias of the included trials is mixed. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals) in IOP in millimeters of mercury at 3 months ordered from the most to least effective drugs were as follows: bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94; 6.29), latanoprost 4.85 (4.24; 5.46), travoprost 4.83 (4.12; 5.54), levobunolol 4.51 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29), carteolol 3.44 (2.42; 4.46), levobetaxolol 2.56 (1.52; 3.62), apraclonidine 2.52 (0.94; 4.11), dorzolamide 2.49 (1.85; 3.13), brinzolamide 2.42 (1.62; 3.23), betaxolol 2.24 (1.59; 2.88), and unoprostone 1.91 (1.15; 2.67). Conclusions All active first-line drugs are effective compared with placebo in reducing IOP at 3 months. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, although the within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in selecting a drug for a given patient.

Women comprise about half of senior epidemiologists, but little is known about whether they are also viewed as leaders (i.e., authorities) in the field. We believe editorial roles are markers of leadership in a field. Our objective was to describe the distribution of gender across authorship of editorials published in 5 high-impact epidemiology journals over the past 8 years. We included editorials and commentaries published in American Journal of Epidemiology, European Journal of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology between 2010 and 2017. We classified genders of all authors as woman, man, or unknown and computed the proportions of women editorial authors over all journals and according to position (e.g., first author). Only 31% (682/2,228) of all editorial authors and 36% (524/1,477) of unique editorial authors (i.e., counting each editorial author name only once) were women. We identified 1,180 editorials; 594 had sole authors, 24% (141/594) of whom were women, and 586 had 2 or more authors, 31% (184/586) of which had women as first authors. If women are underrepresented as editorial authors across epidemiology journals (e.g., as a marker of epidemiology leadership), the situation merits immediate correction.

Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources (“multiplicity”). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Importance Identifying and prioritizing unanswered clinical questions may help to best allocate limited resources for research associated with the treatment of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Objective To identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes for research associated with the treatment of AMD through engagement with professional and patient stakeholders. Design, Setting, and Participants Multiple cross-sectional survey questions were used in a modified Delphi process for panel members of US and international organizations, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Retina/Vitreous Panel (n=7), health care professionals from the American Society of Retinal Specialists (ASRS) (n=90), Atlantic Coast Retina Conference (ACRC) and Macula 2017 meeting (n=34); and patients from MD (Macular Degeneration) Support (n=46). Data were collected from January 20, 2015, to January 9, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures The prioritizing of clinical questions and patient-important outcomes for AMD. Results Seventy clinical questions were derived from the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns for AMD and suggestions by the AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel. The AAO Retina/Vitreous Panel assessed all 70 clinical questions and rated 17 of 70 questions (24%) as highly important. Health care professionals assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated 12 of 17 questions (71%) as high priority for research to answer; 9 of 12 high-priority clinical questions were associated with aspects of anti–vascular endothelial growth factor agents. Patients assessed the 17 highly important clinical questions and rated all as high priority. Additionally, patients identified 6 of 33 outcomes (18%) as most important to them (choroidal neovascularization, development of advanced AMD, retinal hemorrhage, gain of vision, slowing vision loss, and serious ocular events). Conclusions and Relevance Input from 4 stakeholder groups suggests good agreement on which 12 priority clinical questions can be used to underpin research related to the treatment of AMD. The 6 most important outcomes identified by patients were balanced between intended effects of AMD treatment (eg, slowing vision loss) and adverse events. Consideration of these patient-important outcomes may help to guide clinical care and future areas of research.

Background We used various methods for identifying and prioritizing patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) for comparative effectiveness research (CER). Methods We considered potential PCOs (“benefits” and “harms”) related to (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. Part 1 (April 2014 to March 2015): we searched for PCO research and core outcome sets (COSs). We conducted electronic searches of bibliographic databases and key websites and examined FDA prescribing information and reports of clinical trials and systematic reviews. We asked patient and clinician co-investigators to identify PCOs. Part 2 (not part of our original study protocol): in 2015, we surveyed members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., a patient group associated with temporomandibular disorders (4130 invitations sent). Participants prioritized (1) the importance of six potential benefits and (2) 21 potential harms selected by the investigators in part 1, using stated preference methods. We calculated descriptive statistics. Results In part 1, we identified a COS for pain, the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) recommendations. The COS identified several important benefits, but it lacked specific recommendations about which potential harms to include in CER. We did not identify a COS for bipolar depression. Research reports, prescribing information, and patient co-investigators helped identify but not prioritize outcomes. We abandoned our electronic search for PCO research because we found it would be resource-intensive and yield few relevant reports. In part 2, surveying patients was useful for prioritizing PCOs. Members of The TMJ Association, Ltd., completed the survey (N = 746) and successfully prioritized both benefits and harms. Participants did not identify many benefits other than those we identified in part 1; several participants identified additional harms. Conclusions These exploratory results could inform future research about identifying and prioritizing PCOs. We found that stakeholder co-investigators and research reports contributed to identifying PCOs; surveying a patient group contributed to prioritizing PCOs. Prioritizing potential harms was particularly challenging because there are many more potential harms than potential benefits. Methods for identifying and prioritizing potential benefits for CER might not be appropriate for harms. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of these results. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-018-0284-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We find standards useful in everyday life and in science, although we do not always follow them. Adopting new standards can be expensive, so there may be a strong incentive to maintain the status quo rather than adopt new standards. The scientific community has many standards encompassing both doing clinical research and reporting it, including standards for design and measurement. Although existing research standards have improved both research and its reporting, we need to unify existing standards and to fill the gaps between steps throughout the research process. Existing gaps include implementation of standards and links between standards for study registration (to know about all studies undertaken), study protocols (to identify the preplanned study design and methods), data collection (to assess outcomes that are important and comparable across studies), dissemination of findings (to know the results of previous studies), data sharing (to make best use of existing data), and evidence synthesis (to draw appropriate conclusions from the body of evidence). The scientific community must work together to harmonize existing standards, to ensure that standards are kept up to date, to check that standards are followed, and to develop standards where they are still needed. A unified system of standards will make our work more reproducible.

Background Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial. Methods We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., “clinical study reports”) and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources. Systematic review registration CRD42015014037, CRD42015014038

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses.

Data abstraction is a key step in conducting systematic reviews because data collected from study reports form the basis of appropriate conclusions. Recent methodological standards and expectations highlight several principles for data collection. To support implementation of these standards, this article provides a step-by-step tutorial for selecting data collection tools; constructing data collection forms; and abstracting, managing, and archiving data for systematic reviews. Examples are drawn from recent experience using the Systematic Review Data Repository for data collection and management. If it is done well, data collection for systematic reviews only needs to be done by 1 team and placed into a publicly accessible database for future use. Technological innovations, such as the Systematic Review Data Repository, will contribute to finding trustworthy answers for many health and health care questions.

Purpose To set priorities for new systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized clinical trials on the management of primary angle closure (PAC) using clinical practice guidelines and a survey of Asia-Pacific clinicians. Methods We restated the American Academy of Ophthalmology's Preferred Practice Patterns recommendations for management of PAC into answerable clinical questions. We asked participants at the Asia-Pacific Joint Glaucoma Congress 2010 in Taipei to rate the importance of having an answer to each question for providing effective patient care, using a Likert-type scale and scoring from 0 (not important at all) to 10 (highly important). We identified relevant SRs and mapped the evidence to clinical questions to identify evidence gaps. Results We generated 42 clinical questions. One hundred seventy-five individuals agreed to participate in the survey, 132 responded (75.4% response rate) and 96 completed the questionnaire (54.9% usable response rate). Questions rated important include laser iridotomy for the prevention of angle closure in primary angle-closure suspects, further therapies in eyes with plateau iris syndrome after laser iridotomy, and evaluation of the fellow eye in acute angle-closure patients for improving prognosis. Up-to-date and conclusive SR evidence was not available for any of the 42 clinical questions. Conclusions We identified high priority clinical questions on the management of PAC, none of which had reliable SR evidence available. New SRs and randomized clinical trials can be initiated to address these evidence gaps.

Purpose Dry eye, a common yet underrecognized and evolving field, has few recommended treatment algorithms, mostly based on expert consensus rather than robust research evidence. There are high costs associated with managing dry eye and conducting research to identify effective and safe long-term treatments. To support evidence-based management of dry eye, our purpose was to identify and prioritize important clinical research questions for future clinical research. Methods We translated recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology's 2013 Preferred Practice Patterns for dry eye into answerable clinical research questions about treatment effectiveness. Clinicians around the world who manage patients with dry eye rated each question's importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round online Delphi survey. We considered questions as "important" if ≥75% of respondents assigned a rating of 6 or more in round 2. We mapped the identified important clinical research questions to reliable systematic reviews published up to March 2016. Results Seventy-five clinicians from at least 21 countries completed both Delphi rounds. Among the 58 questions, 24 met our definition of "important": 9/24 and 7/24 addressed topical and systemic treatments, respectively. All 4 questions with the highest 25th percentiles addressed topical treatments. Although 6/24 "important" questions were associated with 4 existing reliable systematic reviews, none of these reviews came to a definitive conclusion about treatment effectiveness. Conclusions We identified gaps pertaining to treatment options for dry eye. Future clinical research on the management of dry eye should strongly consider these prioritized questions.

Purpose Prioritizing comparative effectiveness research may contribute to obtaining answers that clinicians perceive they need and may minimize research that could be considered wasteful. Our objective was to identify evidence gaps and set priorities for new systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials for managing diabetic retinopathy (DR), including diabetic macular edema (DME). Design Cross-sectional study. Participants Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network ( DRCR.net ) investigators. Methods We provided recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology’s 2012 Preferred Practice Patterns for Diabetic Retinopathy as 91 answerable clinical research questions about intervention effectiveness to 410 DRCR.net investigators to rate each question’s importance from 0 (not important) to 10 (very important) using a 2-round Delphi survey and to suggest additional questions. We considered questions as high priority if at least 75% of respondents to both rounds assigned an importance rating of 5 or more in round 2. We also extracted outcome measures relevant to DR and asked respondents to identify those that must be measured in all studies. We mapped Cochrane reviews published up to March 2016 to high-priority clinical research questions. Main Outcome Measure Ranking of importance of each clinical question. Results Thirty-two individuals completed rounds 1 and 2 and suggested 15 questions. Among the final list of 106 clinical research questions, 22 questions met our definition of high priority: 9 of 22 concerned the effectiveness of anti-VEGF therapy, and 13 of 22 focused on how often patients should be followed up (re-examination) and treatment effectiveness in patients with specific characteristics (e.g., DME). Outcomes that 75% or more of respondents marked as “must be measured in all studies” included visual acuity and visual loss, death of participants, and intraocular pressure. Only 1 prioritized question was associated with conclusive evidence from a Cochrane systematic review. Conclusions A limited response rate among DRCR.net members identified 22 comparative effectiveness research questions as high priority for the management of DR, including DME, but few were associated with Cochrane reviews. These results support the need of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials to address evidence gaps.

Data for individual trials included in systematic reviews may be available in multiple sources. For example, a single trial might be reported in 2 journal articles and 3 conference abstracts. Because of differences across sources, source selection can influence the results of systematic reviews. We used our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study, and evidence from previous studies, to develop practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews. We recommend the following: (1) Specify which sources you will use. Before beginning a systematic review, consider which sources are likely to contain the most useful data. Try to identify all relevant reports and to extract information from the most reliable sources. (2) Link individual trials with multiple sources. Write to authors to determine which sources are likely related to the same trials. Use a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flowchart to document both the selection of trials and the selection of sources. (3) Follow a prespecified protocol for extracting trial characteristics from multiple sources. Identify differences among sources, and contact study authors to resolve differences if possible. (4) Prespecify outcomes and results to examine in the review and meta-analysis. In your protocol, describe how you will handle multiple outcomes within each domain of interest. Look for outcomes using all eligible sources. (5) Identify which data sources were included in the review. Consider whether the results might have been influenced by data sources used. (6) To reduce bias, and to reduce research waste, share the data used in your review.

Objective To examine how poor reporting and inadequate methods for key methodological features in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed over the past three decades. Design Mapping of trials included in Cochrane reviews. Data sources Data from RCTs included in all Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014 reporting an evaluation of the Cochrane risk of bias items: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, and incomplete outcome data. Data extraction For each RCT, we extracted consensus on risk of bias made by the review authors and identified the primary reference to extract publication year and journal. We matched journal names with Journal Citation Reports to get 2014 impact factors. Main outcomes measures We considered the proportions of trials rated by review authors at unclear and high risk of bias as surrogates for poor reporting and inadequate methods, respectively. Results We analysed 20 920 RCTs (from 2001 reviews) published in 3136 journals. The proportion of trials with unclear risk of bias was 48.7% for sequence generation and 57.5% for allocation concealment; the proportion of those with high risk of bias was 4.0% and 7.2%, respectively. For blinding and incomplete outcome data, 30.6% and 24.7% of trials were at unclear risk and 33.1% and 17.1% were at high risk, respectively. Higher journal impact factor was associated with a lower proportion of trials at unclear or high risk of bias. The proportion of trials at unclear risk of bias decreased over time, especially for sequence generation, which fell from 69.1% in 1986-1990 to 31.2% in 2011-14 and for allocation concealment (70.1% to 44.6%). After excluding trials at unclear risk of bias, use of inadequate methods also decreased over time: from 14.8% to 4.6% for sequence generation and from 32.7% to 11.6% for allocation concealment. Conclusions Poor reporting and inadequate methods have decreased over time, especially for sequence generation and allocation concealment. But more could be done, especially in lower impact factor journals.

Purpose To evaluate the extent to which intraocular pressure and visual field have been reported as outcomes in randomised controlled trials (also referred to as ‘trials’) of medical treatments for open-angle glaucoma. Methods We identified published reports of trials in a systematic review of medical interventions for open-angle glaucoma our group conducted. We assessed whether intraocular pressure and visual field were reported as trial outcomes and classified them to be either completely or incompletely reported for meta-analysis. We also collected data on the length of time patients were followed and source of funding for the trial. Results As of March 2014, we identified 401 trials that had enrolled 76 861 participants. Eighty per cent of 401 trials provided complete information on intraocular pressure and 11% of the 401 trials provided complete information on visual field. Only a minority of trials followed patients for at least 1 year. About half of all reports in our study stated that receiving funding from the industry. Conclusions Although the vast majority of trials provided sufficient data for meta-analysis of the effect of medical management of open-angle glaucoma on intraocular pressure, relatively few provided data for analysing the effect on visual field. We considered this as missed opportunity because the data were not available for evidence synthesis. Investigators have an obligation to patients and providers to determine the comparative effectiveness of glaucoma interventions in terms of patient-important outcomes and not to waste data that could have been collected in trials.