QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Acute complications and mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Insufficient uptake of systematic search methods in oncological clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of systematic review methods are widely recognized to be essential in the development of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines to prove their trustworthiness. The objective of this study was to assess the use of systematic search methods by authors of guidelines published in the oncology field. METHODS: We analyzed 590 guidance documents identified in PubMed, NGC, GIN and web sites for guidelines in 2009-2015 in oncology. The main outcome measure used was incidence of guidance documents supported by a systematic search of the literature. In addition to descriptive analyses, logistic regression was used to evaluate if adequate search methods were explained by guideline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 590 guidance documents included in the study, 305 (51.7%) declared the use of systematic search methods but only 168 (28.5%) applied methods meeting minimum standards for quality and provided sufficient details to allow classification. 164 (27.8%) guidance documents did not report any use of literature evaluation. Guidance documents produced by a Government Agency in North America (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.16-4.17) and those with a focused scope (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.97-5.56) were positively associated with the use of systematic search methods. We found no association between the year of publication and use of systematic search methods. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small number of guidance documents was informed by scientific evidence identified through adequate systematic search methods. We observed substantial room for improvement of applied methods and reporting, especially in documents with a broad focus, or those produced by professional societies or independent expert panels in other continents than North America.

Identification of behaviour change techniques in deprescribing interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Deprescribing interventions safely and effectively optimize medication use in older people. However, questions remain about which components of interventions are key to effectively reduce inappropriate medication use. This systematic review examines the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of deprescribing interventions and summarizes intervention effectiveness on medication use and inappropriate prescribing. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Academic Search Complete and grey literature were searched for relevant literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported on interventions in people aged ≥65 years. The BCT taxonomy was used to identify BCTs frequently observed in deprescribing interventions. Effectiveness of interventions on inappropriate medication use was summarized in meta-analyses. Medication appropriateness was assessed in accordance with STOPP criteria, Beers' criteria and national or local guidelines. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated by I-squared and Chi-squared statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for randomized controlled studies. RESULTS: Of the 1561 records identified, 25 studies were included in the review. Deprescribing interventions were effective in reducing number of drugs and inappropriate prescribing, but a large heterogeneity in effects was observed. BCT clusters including goals and planning; social support; shaping knowledge; natural consequences; comparison of behaviour; comparison of outcomes; regulation; antecedents; and identity had a positive effect on the effectiveness of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In general, deprescribing interventions effectively reduce medication use and inappropriate prescribing in older people. Successful deprescribing is facilitated by the combination of BCTs involving a range of intervention components.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.

Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set.

AIM: Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

The Effects of High Insertion Torque Versus Low Insertion Torque on Marginal Bone Resorption and Implant Failure Rates: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to analyze the data about the effects on marginal bone resorption and implant failure rates between implants inserted with high or low insertion torque values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search until July 2015 was conducted. Data were summarized qualitatively in descriptive tables and quantitatively by performing random effects meta-analyses of effect sizes (ESs) for bone resorption and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and relative risks (RRs) for implant failures. Risk of bias assessments were performed using the Cochrane tool for human studies and the SYRCLE's tool for animal studies. RESULTS: Four studies in humans and 6 quasirandomized animal studies were included. A total of 591 implants were evaluated qualitatively: 348 installed with high insertion torque (>25 Ncm, up to 176 Ncm) and 243 implants inserted with low torque values (<30-35 Ncm). No significant differences were detected for bone resorption (ES, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.38 in human studies; ES predictive interval from 35.03 to 34.50 in animal studies), implant failure (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.01-20.77 in human studies; RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.19-21.71 in animal studies), or BIC (ES predictive interval from -3.84 to 5.13 in animal studies). CONCLUSION: The current review indicated that there is no significant difference in marginal bone resorption and implant failure rate between implants inserted with high or low insertion torque values.

Treatment for superficial infusion thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity.

BACKGROUND: Although superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity represents a frequent complication of intravenous catheters inserted into the peripheral veins of the forearm or hand, no consensus exists on the optimal management of this condition in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from randomised clinical trials (RCTs) concerning the efficacy and safety of (topical, oral or parenteral) medical therapy of superficial thrombophlebitis of the upper extremity. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (2015, Issue 3). Clinical trials registries were searched up to April 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing any (topical, oral or parenteral) medical treatment to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different medical interventions (e.g. a different variant scheme or regimen of the same intervention or a different pharmacological type of treatment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on methodological quality, patient characteristics, interventions and outcomes, including improvement of signs and symptoms as the primary effectiveness outcome, and number of participants experiencing side effects of the study treatments as the primary safety outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 13 studies (917 participants). The evaluated treatment modalities consisted of a topical treatment (11 studies), an oral treatment (2 studies) and a parenteral treatment (2 studies). Seven studies used a placebo or no intervention control group, whereas all others also or solely compared active treatment groups. No study evaluated the effects of ice or the application of cold or hot bandages. Overall, the risk of bias in individual trials was moderate to high, although poor reporting hampered a full appreciation of the risk in most studies. The overall quality of the evidence for each of the outcomes varied from low to moderate mainly due to risk of bias and imprecision, with only single trials contributing to most comparisons. Data on primary outcomes improvement of signs and symptoms and side effects attributed to the study treatment could not be statistically pooled because of the between-study differences in comparisons, outcomes and type of instruments to measure outcomes.An array of topical treatments, such as heparinoid or diclofenac gels, improved pain compared to placebo or no intervention. Compared to placebo, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduced signs and symptoms intensity. Safety issues were reported sparsely and were not available for some interventions, such as notoginseny creams, parenteral low-molecular-weight heparin or defibrotide. Although several trials reported on adverse events with topical heparinoid creams, Essaven gel or phlebolan versus control, the trials were underpowered to adequately measure any differences between treatment modalities. Where reported, adverse events with topical treatments consisted mainly of local allergic reactions. Only one study of 15 participants assessed thrombus extension and symptomatic venous thromboembolism with either oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or low-molecular-weight heparin, and it reported no cases of either. No study reported on the development of suppurative phlebitis, catheter-related bloodstream infections or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence about the treatment of acute infusion superficial thrombophlebitis is limited and of low quality. Data appear too preliminary to assess the effectiveness and safety of topical treatments, systemic anticoagulation or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac and thoracic surgery are associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing these types of surgery is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of primary thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of symptomatic VTE and major bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac or thoracic surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 4). The authors searched the reference lists of relevant studies, conference proceedings, and clinical trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 RCTs and one quasi-RCT (6923 participants), six for cardiac surgery (3359 participants) and seven for thoracic surgery (3564 participants). No study evaluated fondaparinux, the new oral direct thrombin, direct factor Xa inhibitors, or caval filters. All studies had major study design flaws and most lacked a placebo or no treatment control group. We typically graded the quality of the overall body of evidence for the various outcomes and comparisons as low, due to imprecise estimates of effect and risk of bias. We could not pool data because of the different comparisons and the lack of data. In cardiac surgery, 71 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 3040 participants from four studies. In a study of 2551 participants, representing 85% of the review population in cardiac surgery, the combination of unfractionated heparin with pneumatic compression stockings was associated with a 61% reduction of symptomatic VTE compared to unfractionated heparin alone (1.5% versus 4.0%; risk ratio (RR) 0.39; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.64). Major bleeding was only reported in one study, which found a higher incidence with vitamin K antagonists compared to platelet inhibitors (11.3% versus 1.6%, RR 7.06; 95% CI 1.64 to 30.40). In thoracic surgery, 15 symptomatic VTEs occurred in 2890 participants from six studies. In the largest study evaluating unfractionated heparin versus an inactive control the rates of symptomatic VTE were 0.7% versus 0%, respectively, giving a RR of 6.71 (95% CI 0.40 to 112.65). There was insufficient evidence to determine if there was a difference in the risk of major bleeding from two studies evaluating fixed-dose versus weight-adjusted low molecular weight heparin (2.7% versus 8.1%, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.07 to 1.60) and unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin (6% and 4%, RR 1.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 8.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of thromboprophylaxis in cardiac and thoracic surgery is limited. Data for important outcomes such as pulmonary embolism or major bleeding were often lacking. Given the uncertainties around the benefit-to-risk balance, no conclusions can be drawn and a case-by-case risk evaluation of VTE and bleeding remains preferable.

Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

Safety and feasibility of a diagnostic algorithm combining clinical probability, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis: a prospective management study.

BACKGROUND: Although well-established for suspected lower limb deep venous thrombosis, an algorithm combining a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography has not been evaluated for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT). OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and feasibility of a new diagnostic algorithm in patients with clinically suspected UEDVT. DESIGN: Diagnostic management study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01324037) SETTING: 16 hospitals in Europe and the United States. PATIENTS: 406 inpatients and outpatients with suspected UEDVT. MEASUREMENTS: The algorithm consisted of the sequential application of a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography. Patients were first categorized as likely or unlikely to have UEDVT; in those with an unlikely score and normal d-dimer levels, UEDVT was excluded. All other patients had (repeated) compression ultrasonography. The primary outcome was the 3-month incidence of symptomatic UEDVT and pulmonary embolism in patients with a normal diagnostic work-up. RESULTS: The algorithm was feasible and completed in 390 of the 406 patients (96%). In 87 patients (21%), an unlikely score combined with normal d-dimer levels excluded UEDVT. Superficial venous thrombosis and UEDVT were diagnosed in 54 (13%) and 103 (25%) patients, respectively. All 249 patients with a normal diagnostic work-up, including those with protocol violations (n = 16), were followed for 3 months. One patient developed UEDVT during follow-up, for an overall failure rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0% to 2.2%). LIMITATIONS: This study was not powered to show the safety of the substrategies. d-Dimer testing was done locally. CONCLUSION: The combination of a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography can safely and effectively exclude UEDVT. If confirmed by other studies, this algorithm has potential as a standard approach to suspected UEDVT. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Common challenges and suggestions for risk of bias tool development: a systematic review of methodological studies.

OBJECTIVES: To review the findings of studies that have evaluated the design and/or usability of key risk of bias (RoB) tools for the assessment of RoB in primary studies, as categorized by the Library of Assessment Tools and InsTruments Used to assess Data validity in Evidence Synthesis Network (a searchable library of RoB tools for evidence synthesis): Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASessment Tool (PROBAST) , Risk of Bias-2 (RoB2), Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative (QUADAS-C), Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies (QUAPAS), Risk Of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Exposures (ROBINS-E), and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB checklist. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of methodological studies. We conducted a forward citation search from the primary report of each tool, to identify primary studies that aimed to evaluate the design and/or usability of the tool. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. We extracted tool features into Microsoft Word and used NVivo for document analysis, comprising a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. We summarized findings within each tool and explored common findings across tools. RESULTS: We identified 13 tool evaluations meeting our inclusion criteria: PROBAST (3), RoB2 (3), ROBINS-I (4), and QUADAS-2 (3). We identified no evaluations for the other tools. Evaluations varied in clinical topic area, methodology, approach to bias assessment, and tool user background. Some had limitations affecting generalizability. We identified common findings across tools for 6/14 themes: (1) challenging items (eg, RoB2/ROBINS-I "deviations from intended interventions" domain), (2) overall RoB judgment (concerns with overall risk calculation in PROBAST/ROBINS-I), (3) tool usability (concerns about complexity), (4) time to complete tool (varying demands on time, eg, depending on number of outcomes assessed), (5) user agreement (varied across tools), and (6) recommendations for future use (eg, piloting) and development (add intermediate domain answer to QUADAS-2/PROBAST; provide clearer guidance for all tools). Of the other eight themes, seven only had findings for the QUADAS-2 tool, limiting comparison across tools, and one ("reorganization of questions") had no findings. CONCLUSION: Evaluations of key RoB tools have posited common challenges and recommendations for tool use and development. These findings may be helpful to people who use or develop RoB tools. Guidance is necessary to support the design and implementation of future RoB tool evaluations.

Thrombophilia and outcomes of assisted reproduction technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Thrombophilia has been associated with pregnancy complications and recurrent miscarriage. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the controversial association between thrombophilia and failures of assisted reproduction technology (ART). A systematic search of the literature for studies reporting on thrombophilia in women undergoing ART up to April 2011 yielded 33 studies (23 evaluating anti-phospholipid antibodies, 5 inherited thrombophilia, and 5 both) involving 6092 patients. Overall, methodologic quality of the studies was poor. Combined results from case-control studies showed that factor V Leiden was significantly more prevalent among women with ART failure compared with fertile parous women or those achieving pregnancy after ART (odds ratio = 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.77-5.36). The prothrombin mutation, methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase mutation, deficiency of protein S, protein C, or anti-thrombin were all not associated with ART failure. Women with ART failure tested more frequently positive for anti-phospholipids antibodies (odds ratio = 3.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.77-6.26) with evidence of high degree of between-study heterogeneity (I(2) = 75%; P < .00001). Prospective cohort studies did not show significant associations between thrombophilia and ART outcomes. Although case-control studies suggest that women experiencing ART failures are more frequently positive for factor V Leiden and anti-phospholipid antibodies, the evidence is inconclusive and not supported by cohort studies.

Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test may vary with disease prevalence. Our objective was to investigate the associations between disease prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity using studies of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We used data from 23 meta-analyses, each of which included 10-39 studies (416 total). The median prevalence per review ranged from 1% to 77%. We evaluated the effects of prevalence on sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model for each meta-analysis, with prevalence as a covariate. We estimated the overall effect of prevalence by pooling the effects using the inverse variance method. RESULTS: Within a given review, a change in prevalence from the lowest to highest value resulted in a corresponding change in sensitivity or specificity from 0 to 40 percentage points. This effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for either sensitivity or specificity in 8 meta-analyses (35%). Overall, specificity tended to be lower with higher disease prevalence; there was no such systematic effect for sensitivity. INTERPRETATION: The sensitivity and specificity of a test often vary with disease prevalence; this effect is likely to be the result of mechanisms, such as patient spectrum, that affect prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. Because it may be difficult to identify such mechanisms, clinicians should use prevalence as a guide when selecting studies that most closely match their situation.

Viscosupplementation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Viscosupplementation, the intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid, is widely used for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and risks of viscosupplementation for adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (1980 to January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to January 2012), and other sources. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials in any language that compared viscosupplementation with sham or nonintervention control in adults with knee osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes were pain intensity and flare-ups. Secondary outcomes included function and serious adverse events. Reviewers used duplicate abstractions, assessed study quality, pooled data by using a random-effects model, examined funnel plots, and explored heterogeneity by using meta-regression. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighty-nine trials involving 12 667 adults met inclusion criteria. Sixty-eight had a sham control, 40 had a follow-up duration greater than 3 months, and 22 used cross-linked forms of hyaluronic acid. Overall, 71 trials (9617 patients) showed that viscosupplementation moderately reduced pain (effect size, -0.37 [95% CI, -0.46 to -0.28]). There was important between-trial heterogeneity and an asymmetrical funnel plot: Trial size, blinded outcome assessment, and publication status were associated with effect size. Five unpublished trials (1149 patients) showed an effect size of -0.03 (CI, -0.14 to 0.09). Eighteen large trials with blinded outcome assessment (5094 patients) showed a clinically irrelevant effect size of -0.11 (CI, -0.18 to -0.04). Six trials (811 patients) showed that viscosupplementation increased, although not statistically significantly, the risk for flare-ups (relative risk, 1.51 [CI, 0.84 to 2.72]). Fourteen trials (3667 patients) showed that viscosupplementation increased the risk for serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.41 [CI, 1.02 to 1.97]). LIMITATIONS: Trial quality was generally low. Safety data were often not reported. CONCLUSION: In patients with knee osteoarthritis, viscosupplementation is associated with a small and clinically irrelevant benefit and an increased risk for serious adverse events. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Arco Foundation.

Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance. OBJECTIVE: To report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method. METHOD: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs). RESULTS: We included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%-59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%-36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%-53.8% and 6.9%-91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%-33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%-96.2% and 4.5%-98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%-91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies. CONCLUSION: The reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results.

Age- versus clinical pretest probability-adjusted D-dimer to rule out lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis in ambulatory patients with active cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), D-dimer thresholds adjusted to age or clinical pretest probability (CPTP) increase the proportion of patients in whom DVT can be safely excluded compared to a standard approach using a fixed D-dimer threshold. Performance of these diagnostic strategies among cancer patients is uncertain. AIM: To compare the performance of age- and CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approaches among cancer outpatients with clinically suspected DVT, and derive a cancer-specific CPTP rule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive ambulatory patients with active cancer and clinically suspected DVT of the lower extremity underwent CPTP assessment using the Wells rule, D-dimer testing, and whole-leg compression ultrasonography. Patients with normal ultrasonography were followed-up for 3 months for the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Upon referral, DVT was diagnosed in 48 of 239 (20.1 %) patients. The age-adjusted approach showed higher specificity and efficiency than the standard approach. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted strategies, the CPTP-adjusted approach had 35 % and 21 % higher specificity, and 34 % and 21 % higher efficiency, respectively. Failure rate, sensitivity, and predictive values were similar across strategies. A simplified CPTP score derived from the Wells rule reduced unnecessary imaging with similar accuracy and efficiency, but higher failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort of ambulatory cancer patients with clinically suspected DVT, the CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approach held the highest specificity and efficiency, potentially safely reducing unnecessary ultrasonography examinations compared to other approaches. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the use of a simplified clinical prediction rule in this setting.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer disease. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 3 May 2011) and CENTRAL (2011, Issue 2). The authors searched clinical trials registries and reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), direct thrombin inhibitors, direct factor Xa inhibitors or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo; or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: Nine RCTs with a total of 3538 patients were considered. None of the RCTs tested UFH, fondaparinux, direct factor Xa inhibitors or mechanical interventions. Overall, the risk of bias was low in most of the studies. LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.93) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat to prevent a symptomatic VTE was 60. LMWH was associated with a 60% increase in major bleeding when compared with inactive control, although this was not statistically significant (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.60; I(2) = 10%). There was a 45% reduction in overall VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%) while for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, asymptomatic VTE, minor bleeding and one-year mortality the differences between the LMWH and control groups were not statistically significant. The effect of the vitamin K antagonist warfarin on preventing symptomatic VTE, measured in only one study, was not statistically significant (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). In one RCT of patients with myeloma, LMWH was associated with a 67% reduction in symptomatic VTE (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83) compared with warfarin, with no differences in major bleeding. Antithrombin, evaluated in one study on paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the lack of power hampers definite conclusions on the effects on major safety outcomes, which mandates additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting.