Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

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).

Complications, Symptoms, Presurgical Predictors in Patients With Chronic Hypoparathyroidism: A Systematic Review.

The complications and symptoms of hypoparathyroidism remain incompletely defined. Measuring serum parathyroid hormone (PTH) and calcium levels early after total thyroidectomy may predict the development of chronic hypoparathyroidism. The study aimed (i) to identify symptoms and complications associated with chronic hypoparathyroidism and determine the prevalence of those symptoms and complications (Part I), and (ii) to examine the utility of early postoperative measurements of PTH and calcium in predicting chronic hypoparathyroidism (Part II). We searched Medline, Medline In-Process, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify complications and symptoms associated with chronic hypoparathyroidism. We used two predefined criteria (at least three studies reported the complication and symptom and had statistically significantly greater pooled relative estimates). To estimate prevalence, we used the median and interquartile range (IQR) of the studies reporting complications and symptoms. For testing the predictive values of early postoperative measurements of PTH and calcium, we used a bivariate model to perform diagnostic test meta-analysis. In Part I, the 93 eligible studies enrolled a total of 18,973 patients and reported on 170 complications and symptoms. We identified nine most common complications or symptoms probably associated with chronic hypoparathyroidism. The complications or symptoms and the prevalence are as follows: nephrocalcinosis/nephrolithiasis (median prevalence among all studies 15%), renal insufficiency (12%), cataract (17%), seizures (11%), arrhythmia (7%), ischemic heart disease (7%), depression (9%), infection (11%), and all-cause mortality (6%). In Part II, 18 studies with 4325 patients proved eligible. For PTH measurement, regarding the posttest probability, PTH values above 10 pg/mL 12-24 hours postsurgery virtually exclude chronic hypoparathyroidism irrespective of pretest probability (100%). When PTH values are below 10 pg/mL, posttest probabilities range from 3% to 64%. Nine complications and symptoms are probably associated with chronic hypoparathyroidism. A PTH value above a threshold of 10 pg/mL 12-24 hours after total thyroidectomy is a strong predictor that the patients will not develop chronic hypoparathyroidism. Patients with PTH values below the threshold need careful monitoring as some will develop chronic hypoparathyroidism. © 2022 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Electronic cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy for smoking cessation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Nicotine-replacement therapy (NRT) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have been frequently used for smoking cessation. The aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes versus NRT for smoking cessation. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library from inception to 10 October 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing e-cigarettes versus NRT for smoking cessation. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for eligibility. Paired authors extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to rate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: The study included five RCTs with 1748 participants. The meta-analysis suggested the e-cigarettes versus NRT increased the ≥6 months continuous abstinence rate (RR=1.67; 95% CI: 1.21-2.28; 55 more per 1000 participants, low certainty), and 7-day point abstinence rate at ≥6 months follow-up (RR=1.43; 95% CI: 1.19-1.72; 84 more per 1000, low certainty). However, we found no evidence that e-cigarettes versus NRT increased 3-6 months continuous abstinence rate (RR=1.07; 95% CI: 0.73-1.57; 10 more per 1000, very low certainty) and <3 months continuous abstinence rate (RR=1.20; 95% CI: 0.90-1.60; 54 more per 1000, low certainty); similar results were found at <3 months follow-up (RR=1.19; 95% CI: 0.92-1.54; 55 more per 1000, very low certainty) and 3-6 months follow-up in 7-day point abstinence rate (RR=1.01; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44; 2 more per 1000, very low certainty). The adverse events were not significant between e-cigarettes and NRT other than throat irritation (RR=1.27; 95% CI: 1.13-1.42; 118 more per 1000, low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: E-cigarettes appeared to be superior to NRT in ≥6 months continuous abstinence rate and 7-day point abstinence rate. At short-term duration, we found no evidence that e-cigarettes compared to NRT increased the <6 months continuous abstinence rate and 7-day point abstinence rate.

Long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain: a systematic review of non-randomised studies.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the prevalence of long-term and serious harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CENTRAL from inception to 1 April 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Non-randomised studies reporting on harms of medical cannabis or cannabinoids in adults or children living with chronic pain with ≥4 weeks of follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A parallel guideline panel provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of adverse events for consideration. Two reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, screened the search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses and the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 39 eligible studies that enrolled 12 143 adult patients with chronic pain. Very low certainty evidence suggests that adverse events are common (prevalence: 26.0%; 95% CI 13.2% to 41.2%) among users of medical cannabis for chronic pain, particularly any psychiatric adverse events (prevalence: 13.5%; 95% CI 2.6% to 30.6%). Very low certainty evidence, however, indicates serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, cognitive adverse events, accidents and injuries, and dependence and withdrawal syndrome are less common and each typically occur in fewer than 1 in 20 patients. We compared studies with <24 weeks and ≥24 weeks of cannabis use and found more adverse events reported among studies with longer follow-up (test for interaction p<0.01). Palmitoylethanolamide was usually associated with few to no adverse events. We found insufficient evidence addressing the harms of medical cannabis compared with other pain management options, such as opioids. CONCLUSIONS: There is very low certainty evidence that adverse events are common among people living with chronic pain who use medical cannabis or cannabinoids, but that few patients experience serious adverse events.

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW METHODS: Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018106181.

Comparative efficacy and safety of alternative glucocorticoids regimens in patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of alternative glucocorticoids (GCs) regimens as induction therapy for patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (ANCA)-associated vasculitis. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to 10 April 2020. STUDY SELECTION AND REVIEW METHODS: RCTs comparing two (or more) different dose regimens of GC in ANCA-associated vasculitis during induction of remission, regardless of other therapies. Pairs of reviewers independently screened records, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Two reviewers rated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Of 3912 records identified, the full texts of two records met the eligibility criteria. Due to the heterogeneity of population and dose regimen of GCs between the two trials, we descriptively presented the two trials and did not combine the results using meta-analysis. Compared with the standard-dose regimen, the reduced-dose regimen of GC may reduce death risk difference (RD): from -1.7% to -2.1%, low certainty), while not increasing end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) (RD: from -1.5% to 0.4%, moderate certainty). The reduced-dose regimen probably has an important reduction in serious infections at 1 year (RD: from -12.8% to -5.9%, moderate certainty). Reduced-dose regimen of GCs probably has trivial or no effect in disease remission, relapse or health-related quality of life (moderate to high certainty). CONCLUSIONS: The reduced-dose regimen of GC may reduce death at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year and serious infections while not increasing ESKD. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020179087.

High quality (certainty) evidence changes less often than low-quality evidence, but the magnitude of effect size does not systematically differ between studies with low versus high-quality evidence.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: It is generally believed that evidence from low quality of evidence generate inaccurate estimates about treatment effects more often than evidence from high (certainty) quality evidence (CoE). As a result, we would expect that (a) estimates of effects of health interventions initially based on high CoE change less frequently than the effects estimated by lower CoE (b) the estimates of magnitude of effect size differ between high and low CoE. Empirical assessment of these foundational principles of evidence-based medicine has been lacking. METHODS: We reviewed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2016 through May 2021 for pairs of original and updated reviews for change in CoE assessments based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We assessed the difference in effect sizes between the original versus updated reviews as a function of change in CoE, which we report as a ratio of odds ratio (ROR). We compared ROR generated in the studies in which CoE changed from very low/low (VL/L) to moderate/high (M/H) versus M/H to VL/L. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were assessed using the tau and I2 statistic. We also assessed the change in precision of effect estimates (by calculating the ratio of standard errors) (seR), and the absolute deviation in estimates of treatment effects (aROR). RESULTS: Four hundred and nineteen pairs of reviews were included of which 414 (207 × 2) informed the CoE appraisal and 384 (192 × 2) the assessment of effect size. We found that CoE originally appraised as VL/L had 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19-4.12; p = 0.0091] times higher odds to be changed in the future studies than M/H CoE. However, the effect size was not different (p = 1) when CoE changed from VL/L → M/H [ROR = 1.02 (95% CI: 0.74-1.39)] compared with M/H → VL/L (ROR = 1.02 [95% CI: 0.44-2.37]). Similar overlap in aROR between the VL/L → M/H versus M/H → VL/L subgroups was observed [median (IQR): 1.12 (1.07-1.57) vs. 1.21 (1.12-2.43)]. We observed large inconsistency across ROR estimates (I2 = 99%). There was larger imprecision in treatment effects when CoE changed from VL/L → M/H (seR = 1.46) than when it changed from M/H → VL/L (seR = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: We found that low-quality evidence changes more often than high CoE. However, the effect size did not systematically differ between the studies with low versus high CoE. The finding that the effect size did not differ between low and high CoE indicate urgent need to refine current EBM critical appraisal methods.

Evaluation of Benefits and Harms of Surgical Treatments for Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No meta-analysis has comprehensively addressed both benefits and harms, or the certainty of evidence of the implantable continence devices used in men to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefits and harms of surgical treatments for patients suffering from PPI and assess the certainty of evidence. The primary benefit was cure (one or fewer pad per day), and the primary harm was reoperations defined by surgical procedures following implantation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We perform a search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and gray literature. We included observational studies addressing PPI surgical interventions if they involved cohorts of ≥50 participants. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach provided the framework for certainty of evidence assessment informed by value and preference judgments provided by patients, and an advocacy group member (Canadian Cancer Society). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 85 observational studies involving 13 100 patients, three addressed bulking agents, 35 male synthetic slings, ten adjustable continence therapies (ACTs), and 37 artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs). Cure was 26.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.6-51.4, I2 = 92.8%, very-low-quality evidence) for bulking agents, 58.6% (95% CI: 51.3-65.5, I2 = 89.1%, low-quality evidence) for slings, 63.2% (95% CI: 57.6-68.5, I2 = 22.5%, very-low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 74.0% (95% CI:61.2-83.7, I2 = 92.1%, very-low-quality evidence) for AUS. Estimated rates of reoperation were 5.8% (95% CI: 1.9-11.6, I2 = 94.1%, moderate-quality evidence) for slings, 23.8% (95% CI: 5.9-61.0, I2 = 95.5%, low-quality evidence) for ACT, and 22.2% (95% CI: 15.2-31.3, I2 = 92.3%, high-quality evidence) for AUS. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence regarding the benefits of surgical interventions for PPI remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. These results should guide consent procedures for PPI surgery in the context of shared decision-making, with disclosure of the uncertainty of evidence. PATIENT SUMMARY: Despite being used worldwide, available evidence regarding the benefits of surgeries to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence remains mainly uncertain while suggesting important harms. This highlights the need for a more rigorous evaluation process for commercially available surgical devices.

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines. DESIGN: Empirical analysis. DATA SOURCE: Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness). RESULTS: The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach. CONCLUSION: Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

BACKGROUND: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. METHODS: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. RESULTS: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. CONCLUSION: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.(AU)