Search

Hang Cheng,1 Jeffrey W Clymer,1 Rana A Qadeer,2 Nicole Ferko,2 Behnam Sadeghirad,2 Chris G Cameron,2 Joseph F Amaral1 1Ethicon Inc, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 2Cornerstone Research Group, Burlington, ON, Canada Background: As compared to conventional techniques, recent meta-analyses have reported cost savings with Harmonic devices; however, only in thyroidectomy. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the costs associated with Harmonic devices versus conventional techniques across a range of surgical procedures. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to October 01, 2016 without language restrictions to identify randomized controlled trials comparing Harmonic devices to conventional techniques and reporting procedure costs (operating time plus operating equipment/consumables/device costs). Costs were pooled using the ratio of geometric means, and a random effects model was applied. Sensitivity analyses varying statistical methods, number of included studies, and cost outcomes were completed to test the robustness of the results. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 561 and 540 participants had procedures performed with Harmonic devices and conventional methods, respectively, with procedures including gastrectomy, thyroidectomy, colectomy, cholecystectomy, Nissen fundoplication, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. As compared to conventional methods, Harmonic devices reduced total procedure costs by 8.7% (p=0.029), resulting in an absolute reduction of US$227.77 from mean conventional technique costs, derived primarily from a reduction in operating time costs. When operating time costs, excluding operating equipment/consumables/device costs, were analyzed, costs were reduced by $544 per procedure with the use of Harmonic devices. The results from all sensitivity analyses demonstrated cost reductions with Harmonic devices. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that despite a higher device cost, Harmonic devices provide a statistically significant reduction in procedure costs, derived primarily from a reduction in operating time costs, across surgical procedures. In addition to functionality benefits, Harmonic devices may represent a potentially cost saving method to reduce overall hospital resource use. Future research should focus on potential costs and benefits from use of Harmonic devices in procedures not covered here. Keywords: Harmonic, ultrasonic, meta-analysis, costs, surgery, efficiency, operating time

Introduction: Anemia, particularly Iron Deficiency Anemia (IDA), is the most common hematological disorder during pregnancy with considerable complications in both mothers and fetuses. The estimation of anemia prevalence is an important step for health policy makers. Despite being considered a hot topic in epidemiological studies in Iran for the last twenty years, lack of a comprehensive overview on the findings encouraged the authors to carry out this study.Materials and Methods: All published papers in main national and international databases were systematically searched for some specific keywords to find the related studies between the years 1993 and 2007. All published studies which had reported the prevalence of anemia were included in the study except studies on refugees, patients undergoing hemodialysis, patients with thalassemia or cancer or other selective subpopulations. Two trained reviewers independently assessed the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the quality of the selected papers, summarized them and eventually analyzed the data.Results: Ten eligible papers including 11,037 participants were entered into the analysis. The maximum and minimum reported prevalence rates of anemia during pregnancy were 4.3% and 21.5%, respectively. The overall estimate of anemia prevalence in Iranian pregnant women was 13.6 (95% CI: 8.3 - 18.9). Excluding the only out-layer from the meta-analysis, the overall estimated prevalence was 12.4% (95% CI: 9.6% - 17.9%).Conclusion: The prevalence of anemia in Iranian women during pregnancy is considerably lower than that of most EMRO countries or the one reported by WHO for Iran (> 40%) which had been performed on a small group 16 years ago. The lower prevalence rate of anemia in pregnant women versus the regional rates could be due to the improvements of the national health system and prenatal programs in recent years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central to September 2023 for trials that (1) enrolled patients with chronic pain associated with knee OA, and (2) randomized them to MSC therapy vs. placebo or usual care. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence., Results: We included 16 trials (807 participants). At 3-6 months, MSC therapy probably results in little to no difference in pain relief (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.74 cm on a 10 cm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -1.16 to -0.33; minimally important difference [MID] 1.5 cm) or physical functioning (WMD 2.23 points on 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical functioning subscale, 95%CI -0.97 to 5.43; MID 10-points; both moderate certainty). At 12 months, injection of MSCs probably results in little to no difference in pain (WMD -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95%CI -1.69 to 0.24; moderate certainty) and may improve physical functioning (WMD 19.36 points on 100-point SF-36 PF subscale, 95%CI -0.19 to 38.9; low certainty). MSC therapy may increase risk of any adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 2.67, 95%CI 1.19 to 5.99; low certainty) and pain and swelling of the knee joint (RR 1.58, 95%CI 1.04 to 2.38; low certainty)., Conclusions: Intra-articular injection of MSCs for chronic knee pain associated with OA probably provides little to no improvement in pain or physical function., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. C. Forsmark: Consultant for Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research grant from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions for preventing upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in people admitted to intensive care units (ICUs)., Design and Setting: Systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane for screening of records, data extraction and analysis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence., Participants: Randomised controlled trials involving patients admitted to ICUs for longer than 24 hours were included., Search Methods: The Cochrane Gut Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (LILACS) databases were searched from August 2017 to March 2022. The search in MEDLINE was updated in April 2023. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP)., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the prevention of clinically important upper GI bleeding., Results: We included 123 studies with 46 996 participants. Cimetidine (relative risk (RR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.77, moderate certainty), ranitidine (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76, moderate certainty), antacids (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.68, moderate certainty), sucralfate (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, moderate certainty) and a combination of ranitidine and antacids (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.62, moderate certainty) are likely effective in preventing upper GI bleeding.The effect of any intervention on the prevention of nosocomial pneumonia, all-cause mortality in the ICU or the hospital, duration of the stay in the ICU, duration of intubation and (serious) adverse events remains unclear., Conclusions: Several interventions seem effective in preventing clinically important upper GI bleeding while there is limited evidence for other outcomes. Patient-relevant benefits and harms need to be assessed under consideration of the patients' underlying conditions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Identifying key differences between manufacturers' submitted analysis and economic reanalysis by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) is an important step toward understanding reimbursement recommendations. We compared economic values reported in manufacturers' analysis with the CADTH reanalysis and also assessed methodological critiques., Methods: Two reviewers extracted data from the clinical and economic reports in publicly available CADTH reports from 2018 to 2022. We used the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to assess the difference between mean economic values, and the Chi-square test to assess the association between the CADTH critique final recommendations., Results: Of the total submissions, 99.4% included effectiveness critiques, 88.8% included model structure critiques, 69.1% included utility score critiques, and 78.7% included cost critiques. The median incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) in the manufacturers' analyses was $138,658/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), 2.5-fold lower than the CADTH's reanalysis at $380,251/QALY (p < 0.001). The median CADTH reanalysis for 3-year budget impact analysis (BIA) was $4,575,102, which was 27% higher than the manufacturers' submitted 3-year BIA (p < 0.001). CADTH requested a price reduction for 95% of all submissions, and the median price reduction request was 63.5%. In 2021 and 2022, the willingness-to-pay threshold identified in CADTH reports remained constant at $50,000 per QALY gained for all medications., Conclusion: There was high frequency of CADTH critiques on manufacturers' submissions in all four aspects of economic submissions: effectiveness, cost, utility score and structure. We observed a higher median incremental cost and lower median incremental QALYs in the CADTH reanalysis compared with the manufacturers' submissions. The resulting higher ICUR in the CADTH reanalysis often leads to a recommendation that the manufacturer needs to reduce its price. The 3-year budget impact was higher in the CADTH reanalyses compared with manufacturers' submissions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and safety of alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis., Data Sources: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023., Study Eligibility Criteria: RCTs., Participants: Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP., Interventions: Any empiric antibiotic regimen vs. another, placebo, or no treatment., Assessment of Risk of Bias: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials., Methods of Data Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects network meta-analyses for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach., Results: Thirty-nine RCTs proved eligible. Thirty RCTs involving 4807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs. antipseudomonal cephalosporins. Eleven RCTs involving 2531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis., Conclusions: For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. Empiric methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality., Registration: PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224)., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Evidence regarding the comparative efficacy of the different methods to determine the significance of coronary stenoses in the catheterization laboratory is lacking. We aimed to compare all available methods guiding the decision to perform percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL until October 5, 2023. We included trials that randomized patients with greater than 30% stenoses who were considered for PCI and reported major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We performed a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 15 trials with 16,333 participants with a mean weighted follow-up of 34 months. The trials contained a median of 49.3% (interquartile range: 32.6%, 100%) acute coronary syndrome participants. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with coronary angiography (CA) (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.82, high certainty), fractional flow reserve (FFR) (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92, moderate certainty), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.82, moderate certainty), and ranked first for MACE (88.1% probability of being the best). FFR (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.06, moderate certainty) and iFR (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.28, moderate certainty) likely did not decrease the risk of MACE compared with CA. Intravascular imaging may not be associated with a significant decrease in MACE compared with CA (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17, low certainty) when used to guide the decision to perform PCI. In conclusion, a decision to perform PCI based on QFR was associated with a decreased risk of MACE compared with CA, FFR, and iFR in a mixed stable coronary disease and acute coronary syndrome population. These hypothesis-generating findings should be validated in large, randomized, head-to-head trials., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Marc-André d'Entremont is a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canada Graduate Scholarship Doctoral awardee. Sanjit Jolly reports receiving grants or contracts from Boston Scientific and consultation and advisory fees from Penumbra, Teleflex, and Abiomed. Gregg W. Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Abiomed, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim, Germany); has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Cardiomech, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Apollo Therapeutics, Elucid Bio, Cardiac Success, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia BioPharma, Oxitope, HighLife, Elixir, Remote Cardiac Enablement, Aria; and has equity/options from Cardiac Success, Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, BioStar (Waltham, Massachusetts) family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra® Biomed, Aria, Valfix, Xenter. Dr. Stone's employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Shockwave, Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) technique that best balance successful extubation with the risk for reintubation is unknown. We sought to determine the comparative efficacy and safety of alternative SBT techniques., Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to February 2023 for randomized or quasi-randomized trials comparing SBT techniques in critically ill adults and children and reported initial SBT success, successful extubation, reintubation (primary outcomes) and mortality (ICU, hospital, most protracted; secondary outcome) rates. Two reviewers screened, reviewed full-texts, and abstracted data. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis., Results: We included 40 RCTs (6716 patients). Pressure Support (PS) versus T-piece SBTs was the most common comparison. Initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS [risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05-1.11)], PS/automatic tube compensation (ATC) [1.12 (1.01 -1.25), high flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) [1.07 (1.00-1.13) (all moderate certainty), and ATC [RR 1.11, (1.03-1.20); low certainty] SBTs compared to T-piece SBTs. Similarly, initial successful SBT rates were increased with PS, ATC, and PS/ATC SBTs compared to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) SBTs. Successful extubation rates were increased with PS [RR 1.06, (1.03-1.09); high certainty], ATC [RR 1.13, (1.05-1.21); moderate certainty], and HFNC [RR 1.06, (1.02-1.11); high certainty] SBTs, compared to T-piece SBTs. There was little to no difference in reintubation rates with PS (vs. T-piece) SBTs [RR 1.05, (0.91-1.21); low certainty], but increased reintubation rates with PS [RR 2.84, (1.61-5.03); moderate certainty] and ATC [RR 2.95 (1.57-5.56); moderate certainty] SBTs compared to HFNC SBTs., Conclusions: SBTs conducted with pressure augmentation (PS, ATC, PS/ATC) versus without (T-piece, CPAP) increased initial successful SBT and successful extubation rates. Although SBTs conducted with PS or ATC versus HFNC increased reintubation rates, this was not the case for PS versus T-piece SBTs., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Assessment of the certainty of evidence (CoE) from network meta-analysis is critical to convey the strength of inferences for clinical decision-making. Both the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group (GWG) and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework have been designed to assess the CoE of treatment effects informed by network meta-analysis; however, the concordance of results is uncertain., Study Design and Setting: We assessed the CoE for treatment effects of individual opioids on pain relief and physical functioning from a network meta-analysis for chronic noncancer pain using the GWG approach and the CINeMA framework. Both approaches evaluate the CoE as high, moderate, low or very low. We quantified the number of discrepant CoE ratings between approaches and the magnitude of the difference (ie, one level, two levels, or three levels)., Results: Across 105 comparisons among individual opioids for pain relief, the GWG and CINeMA approaches provided different CoE ratings in 34% of cases (36 of 105). Across 66 comparisons for physical functioning, there was discordance in 17% of cases (11 of 66). All discrepancies were separated by one level. The CINeMA framework typically provided lower CoE ratings compared to the GWG approach, predominantly because of differences in the assessment of transitivity and heterogeneity., Conclusion: Our findings suggest there are differences between the CoE ratings provided by the GWG and CINeMA approaches when applied to network meta-analyses. Further research is needed to replicate or refute our findings in other network meta-analyses and assess the implications for clinical decision-making., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest BS and GHG are members of the GRADE working group. GHG is a member of the JCE Editorial Board. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is common following musculoskeletal and orthopedic surgeries and is associated with impairment and reduced quality of life. Several interventions have been proposed to reduce CPSP; however, there remains uncertainty regarding which, if any, are most effective. We will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials to assess the comparative benefits and harms of perioperative pharmacological and psychological interventions directed at preventing chronic pain after musculoskeletal and orthopedic surgeries., Methods: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to present, without language restrictions. We will include randomised controlled trials that as follows: (1) enrolled adult patients undergoing musculoskeletal or orthopedic surgeries; (2) randomized them to any pharmacological or psychological interventions, or their combination directed at reducing CPSP, placebo, or usual care; and (3) assessed pain at 3 months or more after surgery. Screening for eligible trials, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2.0) will be performed in duplicate and independently. Our main outcome of interest will be the proportion of surgical patients reporting any pain at ≥ 3 months after surgery. We will also collect data on other patient important outcomes, including pain severity, physical functioning, emotional functioning, dropout rate due to treatment-related adverse event, and overall dropout rate. We will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis to determine the relative treatment effects. When possible, the modifying effect of sex, surgery type and duration, anesthesia type, and veteran status on the effectiveness of interventions will be investigated using network meta-regression. We will use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty evidence and categorize interventions from most to least beneficial using GRADE minimally contextualised approach., Discussion: This network meta-analysis will assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions directed at preventing CPSP after orthopedic surgery. Our findings will inform clinical decision-making and identify promising interventions for future research., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023432503., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Mother-to-child transmission is the primary cause of HIV cases among children. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) plays a critical role in preventing mother-to-child transmission and reducing HIV progression, morbidity, and mortality among mothers. However, after more than two decades of ART during pregnancy, the comparative effectiveness and safety of ART medications during pregnancy are unclear, and existing evidence is contradictory. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different ART regimens among pregnant women living with HIV at preconception or during pregnancy., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. We included randomized trials that enrolled pregnant women living with HIV and randomized them to receive ART for at least four weeks. Pairs of reviewers independently completed screening for eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Our outcomes of interest included low birth weight, stillbirth, preterm birth, mother-to-child transmission of HIV, neonatal death, and congenital anomalies. Network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects frequentist model, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach., Results: We found 14 eligible randomized trials enrolling 9,561 pregnant women. The median duration of ART uptake ranged from 6.0 to 17.4 weeks. No treatment was statistically better than a placebo in reducing the rate of neonatal mortality, stillbirth, congenital defects, preterm birth, or low birth weight deliveries. Compared to placebo, zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC) and ZDV monotherapy likely reduce mother-to-child transmission (odds ratio (OR): 0.13; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.31, high-certainty; and OR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.74, moderate-certainty). Moderate-certainty evidence suggested that ZDV/3TC was associated with decreased odds of stillbirth (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.09 to 2.60)., Conclusions: Our analysis provides high- to moderate-certainty evidence that ZDV/3TC and ZDV are more effective in reducing the odds of mother-to-child transmission, with ZDV/3TC also demonstrating decreased odds of stillbirth. Notably, our findings suggest an elevated odds of stillbirth and preterm birth associated with all other ART regimens., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT., Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects., Results: We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07)., Interpretation: Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc)., Competing Interests: Competing interests:: Behnam Sadeghirad reports funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Michael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, and the Chronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2024 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of various i.v. pharmacologic agents used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the emergency department (ED) and ICU. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to enable direct and indirect comparisons between available medications., Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed from inception to 2 March 2023 for RCTs comparing two or more procedural sedation and analgesia medications in all patients (adults and children >30 days of age) requiring emergent procedures in the ED or ICU. We focused on the outcomes of sedation recovery time, patient satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs). We performed frequentist random-effects model network meta-analysis and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty in estimates., Results: We included 82 RCTs (8105 patients, 78 conducted in the ED and four in the ICU) of which 52 studies included adults, 23 included children, and seven included both. Compared with midazolam-opioids, recovery time was shorter with propofol (mean difference 16.3 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4-24.3 fewer minutes; high certainty), and patient satisfaction was better with ketamine-propofol (mean difference 1.5 points, 95% CI 0.3-2.6 points, high certainty). Regarding AEs, compared with midazolam-opioids, respiratory AEs were less frequent with ketamine (relative risk [RR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96; high certainty), gastrointestinal AEs were more common with ketamine-midazolam (RR 3.08, 95% CI 1.15-8.27; high certainty), and neurological AEs were more common with ketamine-propofol (RR 3.68, 95% CI 1.08-12.53; high certainty)., Conclusion: When considering procedural sedation and analgesia in the ED and ICU, compared with midazolam-opioids, sedation recovery time is shorter with propofol, patient satisfaction is better with ketamine-propofol, and respiratory adverse events are less common with ketamine., (Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite recent systematic reviews suggesting their benefit for postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV) prevention, benzodiazepines have not been incorporated into guidelines for PONV prophylaxis because of concerns about possible adverse effects. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to inform future practice guidelines., Methods: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of all languages comparing benzodiazepines with non-benzodiazepine comparators in adults undergoing inpatient surgery. Our outcomes were postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both. We assessed risk of bias for RCTs using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We pooled data using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: We screened 31 413 abstracts and 950 full texts. We included 119 RCTs; 104 were included in quantitative synthesis. Based on moderate certainty evidence, we found that perioperative benzodiazepine administration reduced the incidence of PONV (52 studies, n=5086, relative risk [RR]: 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-0.89; number needed to treat [NNT] 16; moderate certainty), postoperative nausea (55 studies, n=5916, RR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.83; NNT 21; moderate certainty), and postoperative vomiting (52 studies, n=5909, RR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91; NNT 55; moderate certainty)., Conclusions: Moderate quality evidence shows that perioperative benzodiazepine administration decreases the incidence of PONV. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will inform future clinical practice guidelines., Systematic Review Protocol: The protocol for this systematic review was pre-registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022361088) and published in BMJ Open (PMID 31831540)., (Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment failure is considered to be an important factor in relation to the increase in scabies incidence over the last decade. However, the regional and temporal differences, in addition to the predictors of therapy failure, are unclear., Objectives: We aimed to conduct a systematic review of the prevalence of treatment failure in patients with scabies and investigation of associated factors., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, Global Health and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2021 for randomized and quasi-randomized trials, in addition to observational studies that enrolled children or adults diagnosed with confirmed or clinical scabies treated with permethrin, ivermectin, crotamiton, benzyl benzoate, malathion, sulfur or lindane, and measured treatment failure or factors associated with treatment failure. We performed a random effects meta-analysis for all outcomes reported by at least two studies., Results: A total of 147 studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of treatment failure was 15.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.9-17.6; I2 = 95.3%, moderate-certainty evidence] with regional differences between World Health Organization regions (P = 0.003) being highest in the Western Pacific region (26.9%, 95% CI 14.5-41.2). Oral ivermectin (11.8%, 95% CI 8.4-15.4), topical ivermectin (9.3%, 95% CI 5.1-14.3) and permethrin (10.8%, 95% CI 7.5-14.5) had relatively lower failure prevalence compared with the overall prevalence. Failure prevalence was lower in patients treated with two doses of oral ivermectin (7.1%, 95% CI 3.1-12.3) compared with those treated with one dose (15.2%, 95% CI 10.8-20.2; P = 0.021). Overall and permethrin treatment failure prevalence in the included studies (1983-2021) increased by 0.27% and 0.58% per year, respectively. Only three studies conducted a multivariable risk factor analysis; no studies assessed resistance., Conclusions: A second dose of ivermectin showed lower failure prevalence than single-dose ivermectin, which should be considered in all guidelines. The increase in treatment failure over time hints at decreasing mite susceptibility for several drugs, but reasons for failure are rarely assessed. Ideally, scabicide susceptibility testing should be implemented in future studies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest B.S. and L.M. received funding from Robert Koch Institute to perform this review., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the comparative benefits and harms of opioids and cannabis for medical use for chronic non-cancer pain., Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis., Data Sources: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 2021., Study Selection: Randomised trials comparing any type of cannabis for medical use or opioids, against each other or placebo, with patient follow-up ≥4 weeks., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently extracted data. We used Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence and communicate our findings., Results: Ninety trials involving 22 028 patients were eligible for review, among which the length of follow-up ranged from 28 to 180 days. Moderate certainty evidence showed that opioids provide small improvements in pain, physical functioning and sleep quality versus placebo; low to moderate certainty evidence supported similar effects for cannabis versus placebo. Neither was more effective than placebo for role, social or emotional functioning (all high to moderate certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed there is probably little to no difference between cannabis for medical use and opioids for physical functioning (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.47 on the 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey physical component summary score, 95% credible interval (CrI) -1.97 to 2.99), and cannabis resulted in fewer discontinuations due to adverse events versus opioids (OR 0.55, 95% CrI 0.36 to 0.83). Low certainty evidence suggested little to no difference between cannabis and opioids for pain relief (WMD 0.23 cm on a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), 95% CrI -0.06 to 0.53) or sleep quality (WMD 0.49 mm on a 100 mm VAS, 95% CrI -4.72 to 5.59)., Conclusions: Cannabis for medical use may be similarly effective and result in fewer discontinuations than opioids for chronic non-cancer pain., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020185184., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)., Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023., Study Selection: Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial., Results: 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty., Conclusion: When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain., Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021258567)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare: no financial support from any industry for the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Clinical Question: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?, Current Practice: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations., Recommendations: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and β blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids., How This Guideline Was Created: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective., The Evidence: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD., Understanding the Recommendation: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interests disclosure form, and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in appendix 1. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Personal, professional, and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects., Objective: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments., Methods: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s)., Results: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus., Conclusions: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Cannabis use has increased since the Government of Canada legalized nonmedical use in October 2018. We investigated demographic factors associated with initiating cannabis use after legalization. Materials and Methods: We used data from the 2018 and 2019 National Cannabis Survey and constructed multivariable regression models. Respondents' data were weighted and bootstrapped. We report relative measures of association as adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and absolute measures of association as adjusted risk increases (RIs). Results: Among the 58,195 households surveyed, 28,566 provided complete data (49%) and our weighted analysis represented 27,904,258 Canadians aged ≥ 15 years. Approximately one in five Canadians endorsed use of cannabis (19.8%), predominantly for nonmedical (9.5%) or combined medical and nonmedical (5.8%) reasons. Those who initiated cannabis use in the past 3 months (1.9%) were more likely to be younger (25-34 years vs. ≥ 65 years; adjusted OR 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.8; adjusted RI 1.1%, 95% CI 0.1-2.0%), endorse poor to fair versus good to excellent physical health (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.1; adjusted RI 1.7%, 95% CI 0.3-3.1%), and reside outside of Quebec (adjusted OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-2.0; adjusted RI 0.1%, 95% CI 0.6-1.1%). The 1% of Canadians who endorsed initiating use of cannabis due to legalization were more likely to reside outside of Quebec (adjusted OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2; adjusted RI 0.5%, 95% CI 0.2-0.9%). Conclusion: Canadians initiating cannabis use after nonmedical legalization were likely to be younger and endorse worse physical health, and half of those using cannabis reported therapeutic use. Stricter policies, lower social acceptance, and less availability of cannabis in Quebec appear to have curtailed initiation of use after legalization.

Importance: Modulation of intestinal microbiome by administering probiotics, prebiotics, or both may prevent morbidity and mortality in premature infants., Objective: To assess the comparative effectiveness of alternative prophylactic strategies through a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized clinical trials., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar from inception until May 10, 2023., Study Selection: Eligible trials tested probiotics, prebiotics, lactoferrin, and combination products for prevention of morbidity or mortality in preterm infants., Data Extraction and Synthesis: A frequentist random-effects model was used for the NMA, and the certainty of evidence and inferences regarding relative effectiveness were assessed using the GRADE approach., Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality, severe necrotizing enterocolitis, culture-proven sepsis, feeding intolerance, time to reach full enteral feeding, and duration of hospitalization., Results: A total of 106 trials involving 25 840 preterm infants were included. Only multiple-strain probiotics were associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared with placebo (risk ratio [RR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.86; risk difference [RD], -1.7%; 95% CI, -2.4% to -0.8%). Multiple-strain probiotics alone (vs placebo: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.50; RD, -3.7%; 95% CI, -4.1% to -2.9%) or in combination with oligosaccharides (vs placebo: RR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.37; RD, -5.1%; 95% CI, -5.6% to -3.7%) were among the most effective interventions reducing severe necrotizing enterocolitis. Single-strain probiotics in combination with lactoferrin (vs placebo RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.78; RD, -10.7%; 95% CI, -13.7% to -3.5%) were the most effective intervention for reducing sepsis. Multiple-strain probiotics alone (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80; RD, -10.0%; 95% CI, -13.9% to -5.1%) or in combination with oligosaccharides (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.67; RD, -14.1%; 95% CI, -18.3% to -8.5%) and single-strain probiotics (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.72; RD, -10.0%; 95% CI, -12.6% to -7.2%) proved of best effectiveness in reduction of feeding intolerance vs placebo. Single-strain probiotics (MD, -1.94 days; 95% CI, -2.96 to -0.92) and multistrain probiotics (MD, -2.03 days; 95% CI, -3.04 to -1.02) proved the most effective in reducing the time to reach full enteral feeding compared with placebo. Only single-strain and multistrain probiotics were associated with greater effectiveness compared with placebo in reducing duration of hospitalization (MD, -3.31 days; 95% CI, -5.05 to -1.58; and MD, -2.20 days; 95% CI, -4.08 to -0.31, respectively)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and NMA, moderate- to high-certainty evidence demonstrated an association between multistrain probiotics and reduction in all-cause mortality; these interventions were also associated with the best effectiveness for other key outcomes. Combination products, including single- and multiple-strain probiotics combined with prebiotics or lactoferrin, were associated with the largest reduction in morbidity and mortality.

Importance: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a common and serious complication after surgery. Various predisposing factors are associated with POD, but their magnitude and importance using an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis have not been assessed., Objective: To identify perioperative factors associated with POD and assess their relative prognostic value among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception to May 2020., Study Selection: Studies were included that (1) enrolled adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, (2) assessed perioperative risk factors for POD, and (3) measured the incidence of delirium (measured using a validated approach). Data were analyzed in 2020., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual patient data were pooled from 21 studies and 1-stage meta-analysis was performed using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression after a multivariable imputation via chained equations model to impute missing data., Main Outcomes and Measures: The end point of interest was POD diagnosed up to 10 days after a procedure. A wide range of perioperative risk factors was considered as potentially associated with POD., Results: A total of 192 studies met the eligibility criteria, and IPD were acquired from 21 studies that enrolled 8382 patients. Almost 1 in 5 patients developed POD (18%), and an increased risk of POD was associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 4 (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.42-4.14), older age (OR for 65-85 years, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.16-3.29; OR for >85 years, 6.24; 95% CI, 4.65-8.37), low body mass index (OR for body mass index <18.5, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.64-3.09), history of delirium (OR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.69-5.66), preoperative cognitive impairment (OR, 3.99; 95% CI, 2.94-5.43), and preoperative C-reactive protein levels (OR for 5-10 mg/dL, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.59-3.50; OR for >10 mg/dL, 3.56; 95% CI, 2.46-5.17). Completing a college degree or higher was associated with a decreased likelihood of developing POD (OR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data, several important factors associated with POD were found that may help identify patients at high risk and may have utility in clinical practice to inform patients and caregivers about the expected risk of developing delirium after surgery. Future studies should explore strategies to reduce delirium after surgery.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Epinephrine is the most commonly used drug in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) resuscitation, but evidence supporting its efficacy is mixed., Research Question: What are the comparative efficacy and safety of standard dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, epinephrine plus vasopressin, and placebo or no treatment in improving outcomes after OHCA?, Study Design and Methods: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, we searched six databases from inception through June 2022 for randomized controlled trials evaluating epinephrine use during OHCA resuscitation. We performed frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis and present ORs and 95% CIs. We used the the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), survival to hospital admission, survival to discharge, and survival with good functional outcome., Results: We included 18 trials (21,594 patients). Compared with placebo or no treatment, high-dose epinephrine (OR, 4.27; 95% CI, 3.68-4.97), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 3.32-4.10), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 3.54; 95% CI, 2.94-4.26) all increased ROSC. High-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.97-4.20), standard-dose epinephrine (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 2.66-3.38), and epinephrine plus vasopressin (OR, 2.79; 95% CI, 2.27-3.44) all increased survival to hospital admission as compared with placebo or no treatment. However, none of these agents may increase survival to discharge or survival with good functional outcome as compared with placebo or no treatment. Compared with placebo or no treatment, standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.21-3.63), but not in those with shockable rhythm (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.39-1.85)., Interpretation: Use of standard-dose epinephrine, high-dose epinephrine, and epinephrine plus vasopressin increases ROSC and survival to hospital admission, but may not improve survival to discharge or functional outcome. Standard-dose epinephrine improved survival to discharge among patients with nonshockable rhythm, but not those with shockable rhythm., Trial Registry: Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/arxwq., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures The authors have reported to CHEST the following: B. S. reports receiving funding from PIPRA AG, outside of the submitted work. B. H. reports receiving research support from Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Bayer, outside of the submitted work. L. M. is associate editor of Intensive Care Medicine. E. F. reports receiving personal fees from ALung Technologies, Baxter, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Fresenius Medical Care, MC3 Cardiopulmonary, and Vasomune, outside of the submitted work. D. B. receives research support from ALung Technologies, outside of the submitted work, and has been on the medical advisory boards for Abiomed, Xenios, Medtronic, LivaNova, Inspira, and Cellenkos. S. C. reports receiving research support from Zoll Medical Inc., outside of the submitted work. N. D. F. reports consulting for Baxter and Xenios, outside of the submitted work. C. S. is associate editor of Intensive Care Medicine. G. D. P. receives support from Elsevier for roles as an editor for Resuscitation and editor-in-chief of Resuscitation Plus. J. P. N. receives support from Elsevier for his role as editor-in-chief of Resuscitation. None declared (S. M. F., R. M., B. R., P. D. S., A. T., S. L. M., C. V., D. C. S., S. L., J. S., P. D.)., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a frequent complication in older adults, characterised by disturbances in attention, awareness and cognition, and associated with prolonged hospitalisation, poor functional recovery, cognitive decline, long-term dementia and increased mortality. Early identification of patients at risk of POD can considerably aid prevention., Methods: We have developed a preoperative POD risk prediction algorithm using data from eight studies identified during a systematic review and providing individual-level data. Ten-fold cross-validation was used for predictor selection and internal validation of the final penalised logistic regression model. The external validation used data from university hospitals in Switzerland and Germany., Results: Development included 2,250 surgical (excluding cardiac and intracranial) patients 60 years of age or older, 444 of whom developed POD. The final model included age, body mass index, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score, history of delirium, cognitive impairment, medications, optional C-reactive protein (CRP), surgical risk and whether the operation is a laparotomy/thoracotomy. At internal validation, the algorithm had an AUC of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) with CRP and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.77-0.82) without CRP. The external validation consisted of 359 patients, 87 of whom developed POD. The external validation yielded an AUC of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.68-0.80)., Conclusions: The algorithm is named PIPRA (Pre-Interventional Preventive Risk Assessment), has European conformity (ce) certification, is available at http://pipra.ch/ and is accepted for clinical use. It can be used to optimise patient care and prioritise interventions for vulnerable patients and presents an effective way to implement POD prevention strategies in clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is an increasingly popular statistical method of synthesising evidence to assess the comparative benefits and harms of multiple treatments in a single analysis. Several automated software packages facilitate conducting NMA using either of two alternative approaches, Bayesian or frequentist frameworks. Researchers must choose a framework for conducting NMA (Bayesian or frequentist) and select appropriate model(s), and those conducting NMA need to understand the assumptions and limitations of different approaches. Bayesian models are more frequently used and can be more flexible but require checking additional assumptions and greater statistical expertise that are often ignored. The present paper describes the important theoretical aspects of Bayesian and frequentist models for NMA and the applications and considerations of contrast-synthesis and arm-synthesis NMAs. In addition, we present evidence from a limited number of simulation and empirical studies that compared different frequentist and Bayesian models and provide an overview of available automated software packages to perform NMA. We will conclude that when analysts choose appropriate models, there are seldom important differences in the results of Bayesian and frequentist approaches and that network meta-analysts should therefore focus on model features rather than the statistical framework., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Approximately one in four total knee replacement patients develop persistent pain. Identification of those at higher risk could help inform optimal management., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO for observational studies that explored the association between risk factors and persistent pain (≥3 months) after total knee replacement. We pooled estimates of association for all independent variables reported by >1 study., Results: Thirty studies (26,517 patients) reported the association of 151 independent variables with persistent pain after knee replacement. High certainty evidence demonstrated an increased risk of persistent pain with pain catastrophizing (absolute risk increase [ARI] 23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 35), younger age (ARI for every 10-year decrement from age 80, 4%, 95% CI 2 to 6), and moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain (ARI 30%, 95% CI 20 to 39). Moderate certainty evidence suggested an association with female sex (ARI 7%, 95% CI 3 to 11) and higher pre-operative pain (ARI 35%, 95% CI 7 to 58). Studies did not adjust for both peri-operative pain severity and pain catastrophizing, which are unlikely to be independent. High to moderate certainty evidence demonstrated no association with pre-operative range of motion, body mass index, bilateral or unilateral knee replacement, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score., Conclusions: Rigorously conducted observational studies are required to establish the relative importance of higher levels of peri-operative pain and pain catastrophizing with persistent pain after knee replacement surgery., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Academy of Pain Medicine. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease., Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials., Data Sources: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021., Study Selection: Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment., Outcomes and Measures: All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions)., Review Methods: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome., Results: 40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence., Conclusions: Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016047939., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from Dalhousie University for the submitted work; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. BCJ received a grant from Texas A&M AgriLife Research to fund investigator initiated research related to saturated and polyunsaturated fats. The grant was from Texas A&M AgriLife institutional funds from interest and investment earnings, not a sponsoring organisation, industry, or company., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: The authors certify that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Purpose: To compare the relative efficacy of supportive therapies (inotropes, vasopressors, and mechanical circulatory support [MCS]) for adult patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction., Source: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis and searched six databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We evaluated inotropes, vasopressors, and MCS in separate networks. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to rate the certainty in findings. The critical outcome of interest was 30-day all-cause mortality., Principal Findings: We included 17 RCTs. Among inotropes (seven RCTs, 1,145 patients), levosimendan probably reduces mortality compared with placebo (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.87; moderate certainty), but primarily in lower severity shock. Milrinone (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.19 to 1.39; low certainty) and dobutamine (OR, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49; low certainty) may have no effect on mortality compared with placebo. With regard to MCS (eight RCTs, 856 patients), there may be no effect on mortality with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.28; low certainty) or percutaneous MCS (pMCS) (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.98; low certainty), compared with a strategy involving no MCS. Intra-aortic balloon pump use was associated with less major bleeding compared with pMCS. We found only two RCTs evaluating vasopressors, yielding insufficient data for meta-analysis., Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and network meta-analysis indicate that levosimendan reduces mortality compared with placebo among patients with low severity cardiogenic shock. Intra-aortic balloon pump and pMCS had no effect on mortality compared with a strategy of no MCS, but pMCS was associated with higher rates of major bleeding., Study Registration: Center for Open Science ( https://osf.io/ky2gr ); registered 10 November 2020., (© 2022. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.)