Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE). RESULTS: We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022308267.

Alternative tests versus measurement of fasting plasma glucose and oral glucose tolerance test for diagnosis of pediatric type 2 pre-diabetes: a systematic review protocol.

REVIEW QUESTION/OBJECTIVE: The gold standard for the diagnosis of pre-diabetes is the measurement of fasting plasma glucose and the oral glucose tolerance test. The objective of this systematic review is to identify all alternative tests currently in use for the diagnosis of type 2 pre-diabetes mellitus in children and establish their accuracy relative to this gold standard.

Comparing the accuracy of quantitative versus qualitative analyses of interim PET to prognosticate Hodgkin lymphoma: a systematic review protocol of diagnostic test accuracy.

INTRODUCTION: Hodgkin lymphoma is an effectively treated malignancy, yet 20% of patients relapse or are refractory to front-line treatments with potentially fatal outcomes. Early detection of poor treatment responders is crucial for appropriate application of tailored treatment strategies. Tumour metabolic imaging of Hodgkin lymphoma using visual (qualitative) 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) is a gold standard for staging and final outcome assessment, but results gathered during the interim period are less accurate. Analysis of continuous metabolic-morphological data (quantitative) FDG-PET may enhance the robustness of interim disease monitoring, and help to improve treatment decision-making processes. The objective of this review is to compare diagnostic test accuracy of quantitative versus qualitative interim FDG-PET in the prognostication of patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: The literature on this topic will be reviewed in a 3-step strategy that follows methods described by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). First, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases will be searched. Second, listed databases for published literature (MEDLINE, Tripdatabase, Pedro, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and WoS) and unpublished literature (Open Grey, Current Controlled Trials, MedNar, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cos Conference Papers Index and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO) will be queried. Third, 2 independent reviewers will analyse titles, abstracts and full texts, and perform hand search of relevant studies, and then perform critical appraisal and data extraction from selected studies using the DATARI tool (JBI). If possible, a statistical meta-analysis will be performed on pooled sensitivity and specificity data gathered from the selected studies. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed. Funnel plots, Begg's rank correlations and Egger's regression tests will be used to detect and/or correct publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical assessment will not be needed; only existing sources of literature will be searched. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016027953.

Effectiveness of ß-blockers in physically active patients with hypertension: protocol of a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Based on more than 5 decades of epidemiological studies, it is now widely accepted that higher physical activity patterns and levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are associated with better health outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to consider how treatment methods affect these two components. Clinically, one very important question concerns the influence of aerobic performance on patients being treated for hypertension. The administration of ß-blockers can significantly reduce maximal-and especially submaximal-aerobic exercise capacity. The objective of this review is to determine, by comparison of existing mono and combination therapy, which ß-blockers are less physically limiting for patients with hypertension who are physically active. METHODS: A three-step strategy will be adopted in the review, following the methods used by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The initial search will be conducted using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. The second search will involve the listed databases for the published literature (MEDLINE, Biomedica Czechoslovaca, Tripdatabase, Pedro, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cinahl, WoS) and the unpublished literature (Open Grey, Current Controlled Trials, MedNar, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cos Conference Papers Index, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform of the WHO). Following the JBI methodology, analysis of title/abstracts and full texts, critical appraisal and data extraction will be carried out on selected studies using the JBI tool, MAStARI. This will be performed by two independent reviewers. If possible, statistical meta-analysis will be pooled. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed. Subgroup analysis will be used for different age and gender characteristics. Funnel plots, Begg's rank correlation and Egger's regression test will be used to detect or correct publication bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated by publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Ethical assessment is not needed-we will search/evaluate the existing sources of literature. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015026914.