Search

Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined first-line pharmacological agents such as anticholinergics and β3 agonists for the management of overactive bladder symptoms (OAB). Although earlier systematic reviews and (network) meta-analyses aimed to summarize the evidence, a substantial number of trials were not included, so a comprehensive and methodologically rigorous evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of all first-line pharmacological treatments is lacking. We aim to conduct a series of systematic reviews and network meta-analyses (NMAs) for a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness and safety of first-line pharmacological treatments for OAB. Eligible studies will include RCTs comparing anticholinergics and β3 agonists to one another or to placebo in adults with OAB or detrusor overactivity. Pairs of reviewers with methodological training will independently evaluate candidate studies to determine eligibility and extract relevant data. We will incorporate patient-important outcomes, including urinary urgency episodes, urgency incontinence episodes, any type of incontinence episodes, urinary frequency, nocturia, and adverse events. We will conduct the NMAs using a frequentist framework and a graph theory model for each outcome. Analysis will follow rigorous methodologies, including handling of missing data and assessment of the risk of bias. We will conduct sensitivity and subgroup analyses and will apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate evidence certainty. Our approach aims to address the knowledge gap in the treatment of OAB by synthesizing evidence from RCTs worldwide. We will employ robust statistical methods, including frequentist NMA, to general clinically relevant and patient-important insights. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses will enhance the robustness and generalizability of our findings. Our reviews strive to inform evidence-based decisions in the management of OAB, to ultimate improve patient outcomes. Our study results may guide health policy decisions, such as reimbursement policies, and future studies in functional urology.The protocol for the review series is registered on PROSPERO as CRD42023266915.

Workshops or training sessions on medical writing and publishing exist worldwide. We aimed to evaluate published articles about such workshops and examine both the content and teaching strategies employed. We searched ISI Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE, ERIC, Ovid Medline, and the grey literature. We considered no language, geographical location, or time period limitations. We included randomized controlled trials, before–after studies, surveys, cohort studies, and program evaluation and development studies. We descriptively reported the results. Out of 222 articles that underwent a full-text review, 30 were deemed eligible. The educational sessions were sporadic, with researchers often developing their own content and methods. Fifteen articles reported teaching the standard structure of medical articles, ten articles reported on teaching optimal English language use for writing articles, nine articles discussed publication ethics issues, and three articles discussed publication strategies to enhance the chance of publication. Most reports lacked in-depth descriptions of the content and strategies used, and the approach to those topics was relatively superficial. Existing workshops have covered topics such as the standard structure of articles, publication ethics, techniques for improving publication rates, and how to use the English language. However, many other topics are left uncovered. The reports and practice of academic-teaching courses should be improved.

Abstract Background There is a growing body of evidence of systematic reviews (SRs) with varying degrees of methodological quality. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach allows SR authors to assess the certainty of the evidence they found and transparently relay their conclusions. As there appears to be infrequent utilization of GRADE in the field of dentistry, to identify the impact of GRADE, the aim of this study is to evaluate the use of GRADE in the dental literature and determine whether SRs that use GRADE differ from those that do not with respect to their conclusions. Methods/design We will search Ovid MEDLINE for SRs published from 2016 to the present. We will conduct both screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate and use pre-piloted, standardized forms for data extraction. We will determine the frequency of the use of GRADE and the varying levels of certainty in the current literature and evaluate whether GRADE is being used appropriately. We will also evaluate whether SRs not using GRADE differ from those that use GRADE with regard to methodological quality. We will also determine whether the conclusions of SRs that do not use GRADE would change had GRADE been utilized. Additionally, we will evaluate whether SRs using GRADE are more likely to formulate appropriate conclusions compared to SRs that do not use it. Discussion This study will investigate the frequency of GRADE assessments in dentistry SRs and the impact of GRADE assessments on the conclusions of a SR. It has important implications for both SR authors and users of this type of literature.

Objectives To describe how systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) NMA approach addressed intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence.Design Systematic survey.Data sources Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from September 2014 to October 2022.Eligibility criteria Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials with aggregate data NMAs that used the GRADE NMA approach for assessing certainty of evidence.Data extraction and synthesis We documented how reviewers described methods for addressing intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence, how often they rated down for intransitivity and their explanations for rating down.Results Of the 268 eligible systematic reviews, 44.8% (120/268) mentioned intransitivity when describing methods for assessing the certainty of evidence. Of these, 28.3% (34/120) considered effect modifiers and from this subset, 67.6% (23/34) specified the effect modifiers; however, no systematic review noted how they chose the effect modifiers. 15.0% (18/120) mentioned looking for differences between the direct comparisons that inform the indirect estimate. No review specified a threshold for difference in effect modifiers between the direct comparisons that would lead to rating down for intransitivity. Reviewers noted rating down indirect evidence for intransitivity in 33.1% of systematic reviews, and noted intransitivity for network estimates in 23.0% of reviews. Authors provided an explanation for rating down for intransitivity in 59.6% (31/52) of the cases in which they rated down. Of the 31 in which they provided an explanation, 74.2% (23/31) noted they detected differences in effect modifiers and 67.7% (21/31) specified in what effect modifiers they detected differences.Conclusions A third of systematic reviews with NMAs using the GRADE approach rated down for intransitivity. Limitations in reporting of methods to address intransitivity proved considerable. Whether the problem is that reviewers neglected to address rating down for transitivity at all, or whether they did consider but not report, is not clear. At minimum systematic reviews with NMAs need to improve their reporting practices regarding intransitivity; it may well be that they need to improve their practice in transitivity assessment. How to best address intransitivity may remain unclear for many reviewers thus additional GRADE guidance providing practical instructions for addressing intransitivity may be desirable.

Objectives. To estimate the prevalence of missed opportunities for vaccination (MOV) in Latin America and the effect of interventions targeting health systems, health workers, patients, and communities on MOV. Methods. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS electronic databases and relevant organizations were contacted, including the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), to identify studies meeting eligibility criteria. A pair of reviewers identified 27 randomized and non-randomized studies quantifying the effectiveness of any intervention for reducing MOV and 5 studies assessing the rate of MOV in Latin America. Results are reported narratively when criteria to pool results were not met, and the certainty of this evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results. Evidence suggests the rate of MOV in Latin America ranged from 5% to 37% with a pooled estimate of 17% (95% CI [9, 32]) (low certainty) and that monetary incentives to healthcare teams, training for healthcare teams on how to communicate with patients, and educational interventions for caregivers probably reduce MOV (moderate to very low certainty). Conclusions. There is insufficient evidence supporting the implementation of any intervention as policy based only on the potential reduction of MOV without considering several factors, including costs, feasibility, acceptability, and equity.

Objective To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19.Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021).Review methods Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis.Results Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death.Conclusion These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

Objective To assess the trustworthiness (ie, complete and consistent reporting of key methods and results between preprint and published trial reports) and impact (ie, effects of preprints on meta-analytic estimates and the certainty of evidence) of preprint trial reports during the covid-19 pandemic.Design Retrospective review.Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database and the Living Overview of the Evidence (L-OVE) covid-19 platform by the Epistemonikos Foundation (up to 3 August 2021).Main outcome measures Comparison of characteristics of covid-19 trials with and without preprints, estimates of time to publication of covid-19 preprints, and description of differences in reporting of key methods and results between preprints and their later publications. For the effects of eight treatments on mortality and mechanical ventilation, the study comprised meta-analyses including preprints and excluding preprints at one, three, and six months after the first trial addressing the treatment became available either as a preprint or publication (120 meta-analyses in total, 60 of which included preprints and 60 of which excluded preprints) and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework.Results Of 356 trials included in the study, 101 were only available as preprints, 181 as journal publications, and 74 as preprints first and subsequently published in journals. The median time to publication of preprints was about six months. Key methods and results showed few important differences between trial preprints and their subsequent published reports. Apart from two (3.3%) of 60 comparisons, point estimates were consistent between meta-analyses including preprints versus those excluding preprints as to whether they indicated benefit, no appreciable effect, or harm. For nine (15%) of 60 comparisons, the rating of the certainty of evidence was different when preprints were included versus being excluded—the certainty of evidence including preprints was higher in four comparisons and lower in five comparisons.Conclusion No compelling evidence indicates that preprints provide results that are inconsistent with published papers. Preprints remain the only source of findings of many trials for several months—an unsuitable length of time in a health emergency that is not conducive to treating patients with timely evidence. The inclusion of preprints could affect the results of meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence. Evidence users should be encouraged to consider data from preprints.

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIO), limiting research applicability. We aim to investigate if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 pharmacological therapies include PIOs. Methods We will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a living network metanalysis (NMA). The main data sources are the living WHO covid-19 database up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Two reviewers independently will review each citation, full-text article, and abstract data. To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs. Discussion The findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19. Systematic review registrations Open Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz .

Abstract Background In 2017, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) started developing a methodological framework for a guideline-based quality assurance (QA) scheme to improve cancer quality of care. During the first phase of the work, inconsistency emerged about the use of terminology for the definition, the conceptual underpinnings and the way QA relates to health questions that are answered in guidelines. The objective of this final of three articles is to propose a conceptual framework for an integrated approach to guideline and QA development and clarify terms and definitions for key elements. This work will inform the upcoming European Commission Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (ECICC). Methods A multidisciplinary group of 23 experts from key organizations in the fields of guideline development, performance measurement and quality assurance participated in a mixed method approach including face-to-face dialogue and several rounds of virtual meetings. Informed by results of a systematic literature review that indicated absence of an existing framework and practical examples, we first identified the relations of key elements in guideline-based QA and then developed appropriate concepts and terminology to provide guidance. Results Our framework connects the three key concepts of quality indicators, performance measures and performance indicators integrated with guideline development. Quality indicators are constructs used as a guide to monitor, evaluate, and improve the quality of the structure, process and outcomes of healthcare services; performance measures are tools that quantify or describe measurable elements of practice performance; and performance indicators are quantifiable and measurable units or scores of practice, which should be guided by guideline recommendations. Conclusions The inconsistency in the way key terms of QA are used and defined has confused the field. Our conceptual framework defines the role, meaning and interactions of the key elements for improving quality in healthcare. It directly builds on the questions asked in guidelines and answered through recommendations. These findings will be applied in the forthcoming ECICC and for the future updates of ECIBC. These are large-scale integrated projects aimed at improving healthcare quality across Europe through the development of guideline-based QA schemes; this will help in implementing and improving our approach.

Abstract Background Although quality indicators are frequently derived from guidelines, there is a substantial gap in collaboration between the corresponding parties. To optimise workflow, guideline recommendations and quality assurance should be aligned methodologically and practically. Learning from the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC), our objective was to bring the key knowledge and most important considerations from both worlds together to inform European Commission future initiatives. Methods We undertook several steps to address the problem. First, we conducted a feasibility study that included a survey, interviews and a review of manuals for an integrated guideline and quality assurance (QA) scheme that would support the European Commission. The feasibility study drew from an assessment of the ECIBC experience that followed commonly applied strategies leading to separation of the guideline and QA development processes. Secondly, we used results of a systematic review to inform our understanding of methodologies for integrating guideline and QA development. We then, in a third step, used the findings to prepare an evidence brief and identify key aspects of a methodological framework for integrating guidelines QA through meetings with key informants. Results Seven key themes emerged to be taken into account for integrating guidelines and QA schemes: (1) evidence-based integrated guideline and QA frameworks are possible, (2) transparency is key in clearly documenting the source and rationale for quality indicators, (3) intellectual and financial interests should be declared and managed appropriately, (4) selection processes and criteria for quality indicators need further refinement, (5) clear guidance on retirement of quality indicators should be included, (6) risks of an integrated guideline and QA Group can be mitigated, and (7) an extension of the GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist should incorporate QA considerations. Discussion We concluded that the work of guideline and QA developers can be integrated under a common methodological framework and we provided key findings and recommendations. These two worlds, that are fundamental to improving health, can both benefit from integration.

Background To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19.Methods We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach.Results We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo.Discussion Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Background and objective The prognostic value of age and other non-hematological factors in predicting outcomes in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing antileukemic therapy is not well understood. We performed a systematic review to determine the association between these factors and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue among these patients. Methods We searched Medline and Embase through October 2021 for studies in which researchers quantified the relationship between age, comorbidities, frailty, performance status, or functional status; and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue in older patients with AML receiving antileukemic therapy. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, conducted random-effects meta-analyses, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results We included 90 studies. Meta-analysis showed that age (per 5-year increase, HR 1.16 95% CI 1.11–1.21, high-quality evidence), comorbidities (Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 1.60 95% CI 1.31–1.95, high-quality evidence), and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/ World Health Organization (ECOG/WHO): 2+ VS less than 2, HR 1.63 95% CI 1.43–1.86, high-quality evidence; ECOG/WHO: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 2.00 95% CI 1.52–2.63, moderate-quality evidence) were associated with long-term mortality. These studies provided inconsistent and non-informative results on short-term mortality (within 90 days) and quality of life. Conclusion High-quality or moderate-quality evidence support that age, comorbidities, performance status predicts the long-term prognosis of older patients with AML undergoing antileukemic treatment.

Background: Medium cut-off (MCO) membranes enhance large middle-molecule clearance while selectively retaining molecules >45 000 Da. Objectives: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the effects of MCO versus high-flux membranes on biomarkers. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2015 to July 2020, and gray literature sources from 2017. We included randomized (RS) and nonrandomized studies (NRS) comparing MCO and high-flux membranes in adults (>18 years) receiving maintenance hemodialysis. We performed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisals in duplicate and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. Outcomes included solute removal (plasma clearance or dialysate quantitation), reduction ratios, and predialysis serum concentrations for a range of prespecified large middle molecules. Results: We identified 26 eligible studies (10 RS and 16 NRS; N = 1883 patients; patient-years = 1366.3). The mean difference (MD) for albumin removal was 2.31 g per session (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.79 to 1.83; high certainty), with a reduction in predialysis albumin of −0.12 g/dl (95% CI, −0.16 to −0.07; I 2 = 0%; high certainty) in the first 24 weeks, returning to normal (MD = −0.02 g/dl, 95% CI, −0.07 to −0.03; I 2 = 56%; high certainty) after 24 weeks. We also found with high certainty that MCO dialysis resulted in a large increase (standardized mean difference [SMD]> 2.0 for all) in β2-microglobulin, κ- and λ-free light chains, and myoglobin removal, resulting in moderate (SMD > 0.5) to large (SMD > 0.8) reductions in predialysis concentrations for all of these solutes. Medium cut-off dialysis increased the reduction ratio for tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) by 7.7% (95% CI, 4.7 to 10.6; moderate certainty), and reduced predialysis TNF-α by SMD −0.48 (95% CI, −0.91 to −0.04; moderate certainty). We found with moderate certainty that MCO dialysis had little to no effect on predialysis interleukin-6 (IL-6) plasma concentrations. Medium cut-off dialysis reduced mRNA expression of TNF-α and IL-6 in peripheral leukocytes by MD −15% (95% CI, −19.6 to −10.4; moderate certainty) and −8.8% (95% CI, −10.2 to −7.4; moderate certainty), respectively. Conclusion: Medium cut-off dialysis increases the clearance of a wide range of large middle molecules and likely reduces inflammatory mediators with a concomitant transient reduction in serum albumin concentration. The net effect of MCO dialysis on large middle molecules could translate into important clinical effects.

Background: A novel medium cut-off (MCO) dialyzer (Theranova, Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, USA) enhances large middle molecule clearance while retaining selectivity for molecules >45 000 Da. Objective: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating clinical outcomes with MCO vs high-flux membranes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science through July 2020, and gray literature sources from 2017. We included randomized (RS) and nonrandomized studies (NRS) comparing MCO and high-flux membranes in adults receiving maintenance hemodialysis. Pairs of reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses to pool results across studies and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess evidence certainty. Results: We identified 22 eligible studies (6 RS, 16 NRS; N = 1811 patients; patient-years = 1546). The MCO dialyzer improved (estimate; 95% confidence interval [CI]; certainty rating) quality of life (mean difference [MD] = 16.7/100 points; 6.9 to 26.4; moderate), Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument (KDQOL) subscales—burden (MD = 4.0; 1.1 to 6.9; moderate) and effects (MD = 5.4; 3.2 to 7.6; moderate), pruritus (MD = −4.4; −7.1 to −1.7; moderate), recovery time (MD = −420 minutes; −541 to −299; high), and restless legs syndrome (odds ratio = 0.39; 0.29 to 0.53; moderate). There was little to no difference in all-cause mortality (risk difference = −0.4%; −2.8 to 2.1; moderate) and serious adverse events (rate ratio = 0.63; 0.38 to 1.04; low). MCO dialysis reduced hospitalization (rate ratio = 0.48; 0.27 to 0.84; low), infection (rate ratio = 0.38; 0.17 to 0.85; moderate), hospitalization days (MD = −1.5 days; 95% CI, −2.22 to −0.78; moderate), erythropoiesis resistance index (MD = −2.92 U/kg/week/g/L; 95% CI, −4.25 to −1.6; moderate) and cumulative iron use over 12 weeks (MD = −293 mg; 95% CI, −368 to −218; moderate). We found with low certainty that MCO dialysis had little to no effect on KDQOL symptoms/problem list, pain, and physical health and moderate certainty that MCO dialysis likely has no effect on the KDQOL mental health composite. Conclusions: We found with predominantly moderate certainty that the MCO dialyzer improves several patient-important outcomes with no apparent risks or harms. More definitive studies are needed to better quantify the effects of MCO membranes on mortality, hospitalization, and other rare events.

IntroductionElderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia not eligible for intensive antileukemic therapy are treated with less intensive therapies, uncertainty remains regarding their relative merits.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of less intensive antileukemic therapies for older adults with newly diagnosed AML not candidates for intensive therapies.MethodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) comparing less intensive therapies in adults over 55 years with newly diagnosed AML. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to August 2021. We assessed risk of bias of RCTs with a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and NRS with the Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool (ROBINS-I). We calculated pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsWe included 27 studies (17 RCTs, 10 NRS; n = 5,698), which reported 9 comparisons. Patients were treated with azacitidine, decitabine, and low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), as monotherapies or in combination with other agents. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests no convincing difference in overall survival of patients who receive azacitidine monotherapy compared to LDAC monotherapy (HR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.31-1.53), fewer febrile neutropenia events occurred between azacitidine monotherapy to azacitidine combination (RR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.65), and, fewer neutropenia events occurred between LDAC monotherapy to decitabine monotherapy (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.44-0.86). All other comparisons and outcomes had low or very low certainty of evidence.ConclusionThere is no convincing superiority in OS when comparing less intensive therapies. Azacitidine monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than azacitidine combination (febrile neutropenia), and LDAC monotherapy is likely to have fewer adverse events than decitabine monotherapy (neutropenia).

To compare the effectiveness and safety of intensive antileukemic therapy to less-intensive therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and intermediate or adverse cytogenetics, we searched the literature in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify relevant studies through July 2020. We reported the pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Two randomized trials enrolling 529 patients and 23 observational studies enrolling 7296 patients proved eligible. The most common intensive interventions included cytarabine-based intensive chemotherapy, combination of cytarabine and anthracycline, or daunorubicin/idarubicin, and cytarabine plus idarubicin. The most common less-intensive therapies included low-dose cytarabine alone, or combined with clofarabine, azacitidine, and hypomethylating agent-based chemotherapy. Low certainty evidence suggests that patients who receive intensive versus less-intensive therapy may experience longer survival (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99), a higher probability of receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (RR 6.14; 95% CI, 4.03-9.35), fewer episodes of pneumonia (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06-0.98), but a greater number of severe, treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.75), and a longer duration of intensive care unit hospitalization (MD, 6.84 days longer; 95% CI, 3.44 days longer to 10.24 days longer, very low certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence due to confounding in observational studies suggest superior overall survival without substantial treatment-emergent adverse effect of intensive antileukemic therapy over less-intensive therapy in older adults with AML who are candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy.

Introduction Methodological studies (ie, studies that evaluate the design, conduct, analysis or reporting of other studies in health research) address various facets of health research including, for instance, data collection techniques, differences in approaches to analyses, reporting quality, adherence to guidelines or publication bias. As a result, methodological studies can help to identify knowledge gaps in the methodology of health research and strategies for improvement in research practices. Differences in methodological study names and a lack of reporting guidance contribute to lack of comparability across studies and difficulties in identifying relevant previous methodological studies. This paper outlines the methods we will use to develop an evidence-based tool—the MethodologIcal STudy reportIng Checklist—to harmonise naming conventions and improve the reporting of methodological studies.Methods and analysis We will search for methodological studies in the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, check reference lists and contact experts in the field. We will extract and summarise data on the study names, design and reporting features of the included methodological studies. Consensus on study terms and recommended reporting items will be achieved via video conference meetings with a panel of experts including researchers who have published methodological studies.Ethics and dissemination The consensus study has been exempt from ethics review by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. The results of the review and the reporting guideline will be disseminated in stakeholder meetings, conferences, peer-reviewed publications, in requests to journal editors (to endorse or make the guideline a requirement for authors), and on the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network and reporting guideline websites.Registration We have registered the development of the reporting guideline with the EQUATOR Network and publicly posted this project on the Open Science Framework (www.osf.io/9hgbq).

Abstract Background There are diverse opinions and confusion about defining and including patient values and preferences (i.e. the importance people place on the health outcomes) in the guideline development processes. This article aims to provide an overview of a process for systematically incorporating values and preferences in guideline development. Methods In 2013 and 2014, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to adopt, adapt and develop 226 recommendations in 22 guidelines for the Ministry of Health of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. To collect context-specific values and preferences for each recommendation, we performed systematic reviews, asked clinical experts to provide feedback according to their clinical experience, and consulted patient representatives. Results We found several types of studies addressing the importance of outcomes, including those reporting utilities, non-utility measures of health states based on structured questionnaires or scales, and qualitative studies. Guideline panels used the relative importance of outcomes based on values and preferences to weigh the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of alternative intervention options. However, we found few studies addressing local values and preferences. Conclusions Currently there are different but no firmly established processes for integrating patient values and preferences in healthcare decision-making of practice guideline development. With GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks, we provide an empirical strategy to find and incorporate values and preferences in guidelines by performing systematic reviews and eliciting information from guideline panel members and patient representatives. However, more research and practical guidance are needed on how to search for relevant studies and grey literature, assess the certainty of this evidence, and best summarize and present the findings.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the third most common gynecological malignancy in Saudi women with an estimated incidence rate of 1.9 cases per 100 000 women-years. More than 40% of cervical cancer cases are diagnosed at advanced stages due to lack of a routine screening program in Saudi Arabia. Thus, national guidelines for routine screening and treatment of precancerous cervical lesions are needed. METHODS: The Saudi Centre for Evidence-Based Healthcare invited a panel of local experts and partnered them with a team from McMaster University in Canada for methodological support, to develop national clinical practice guidelines on the screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer. After the panel identified key clinical questions, the McMaster University working group updated existing systematic reviews that had been used for the 2013 WHO Guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. Recommendations were based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Those recommendations took into account the available evidence, patient values and preferences, and resource use in the Saudi context. The panel provided recommendations on two major issues: screening for precancerous lesions (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2 & 3) and treatment of those lesions to prevent cervical cancer in women who tested positive after screening. CONCLUSIONS: The Saudi expert panel recommends using the HPV DNA test followed by colposcopy or cytology (Pap test) followed by colposcopy to screen for CIN2+ in women at risk of cervical cancer. The panel recommends cryotherapy or loop excision electrosurgery procedure (LEEP) over cold knife cone biopsy to treat women at risk of cervical cancer that tests positive for CIN2+. Universal screening for precancerous cervical dysplasia in women in Saudi Arabia is recommended using HPV testing and or cytology. Either cryotherapy or LEEP are preferred for treatment. LIMITATIONS: National studies on cervical cancer screening modalities and treatment of precancerous cervical lesions, including HPV prevalence and its association with cervical cancer, are scarce.

Los médicos no disponen del tiempo ni de los recursos para considerar la evidencia subyacente en las innumerables decisiones que tienen que tomar diariamente. En consecuencia, dependen de las recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica. Los paneles de las guías deben considerar todos los criterios relevantes que influyen en una decisión o recomendación de manera estructurada, explícita y transparente, y proporcionar a los médicos recomendaciones factibles. En este artículo describiremos los marcos de la evidencia a la decisión (EtD) para las recomendaciones de práctica clínica. La estructura general de un marco EtD para recomendaciones clínicas es similar a la de los marcos EtD para otras recomendaciones y decisiones, e incluye la formulación de la pregunta, la evaluación de los distintos criterios y las conclusiones. Las recomendaciones clínicas requieren que los criterios se consideren de forma diferente, dependiendo de si se adopta una perspectiva individual o poblacional. Por ejemplo, desde la perspectiva individual, los gastos personales son un aspecto importante a considerar, mientras que desde la perspectiva poblacional son más importantes el uso de recursos (no solo los gastos personales) y el coste-efectividad. Son también importantes desde la perspectiva poblacional la equidad, la aceptabilidad y la factibilidad, mientras que la importancia de estos criterios suele ser limitada en el caso de la perspectiva individual. Los subgrupos específicos para los cuales pueden necesitarse recomendaciones deben estar claramente identificados y considerados con relación a cada criterio, porque los juicios pueden variar entre subgrupos. El siguiente artículo es una traducción del artículo original publicado en British Medical Journal. Los marcos EtD se utilizan actualmente en el Programa de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud, coordinado por GuíaSalud.

Los médicos y quienes elaboran guías y políticas a veces pasan por alto criterios importantes, les dan un peso indebido o no usan la mejor evidencia disponible para informar sus juicios. Los sistemas explícitos y transparentes para la toma de decisiones pueden ayudar a garantizar que se consideren todos los criterios importantes, y que las decisiones estén basadas en la mejor evidencia disponible. El grupo de trabajo GRADE ha desarrollado marcos «de la evidencia a la decisión» (EtD) para los diferentes tipos de recomendaciones o decisiones. El objetivo de los marcos EtD es ayudar a los paneles a usar la evidencia de una manera estructurada y transparente para informar las decisiones respecto de las recomendaciones clínicas, decisiones de cobertura sanitaria y recomendaciones o decisiones sobre el sistema sanitario o sobre salud pública. Los marcos EtD tienen una estructura común: formulación de una pregunta, evaluación de la evidencia y conclusiones. No obstante, existen diferencias entre los marcos para cada tipo de decisión. Los marcos EtD informan a los usuarios sobre los juicios que se han hecho y la evidencia que los apoya dotando de transparencia la base para las decisiones de los que tienen que tomarlas. Los marcos EtD también facilitan la diseminación de las recomendaciones y permiten a los decisores de otros ámbitos adoptar recomendaciones o decisiones, o adaptarlas a su contexto. El siguiente artículo es una traducción del artículo original publicado en British Medical Journal. Los marcos EtD se utilizan actualmente en el marco del Programa de Guías de Práctica Clínica en el Sistema Nacional de Salud, coordinado por GuíaSalud.

To develop guidance on what information to include and how to present it in tables summarizing the evidence from systematic reviews of test accuracy following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.To design and refine the evidence tables, we used an iterative process based on the analysis of data from four rounds of discussions, feedback and user testing. During the final round, we conducted one-on-one user testing with target end users. We presented a number of alternative formats of evidence tables to participants and obtained information about users' understanding and preferences.More than 150 users participated in initial discussions and provided their formal and informal feedback. 20 users completed one-on-one user testing interviews. Almost all participants preferred summarizing the results of systematic reviews of test accuracy in tabular format rather than plain text. Users generally preferred less complex tables but found presenting sensitivity and specificity estimates only as too simplistic. Users found the presentation of test accuracy for several values of prevalence initially confusing but modifying table layout and adding sample clinical scenarios for each prevalence reduced this confusion. Providing information about clinical consequences of testing result was viewed as not feasible for authors of systematic reviews.We present the current formats for tables presenting test accuracy following the GRADE approach. These tables can be developed using GRADEpro guidelines development tool (www.guidelinedevelopment.org or www.gradepro.org) and are being further developed into electronic interactive tables that will suit the needs of different end users. The formatting of these tables, and how they influence result interpretation and decision-making will be further evaluated in a randomized trial.