Nonpharmacological Interventions for Treating Breastfeeding Nipple Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nonpharmacological topical interventions for treating breastfeeding nipple pain. Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing lactating women suffering from breastfeeding painful nipples were included. Primary outcomes were pain, healing process, and adverse events. A comprehensive search was conducted on June 02, 2023, without date or language restrictions. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the certainty of the evidence, the GRADE approach. Results: Nineteen RCTs with unclear to high risk of bias were included. There was uncertain evidence regarding the effects of photobiomodulation versus placebo on pain reduction (mean difference [MD] -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -1 0.49 to 1.19; 139 participants, 2 RCTs). There are uncertainties concerning the effects of lanolin versus breast milk on pain (MD -1.80; 95% CI -2.43 to -1.17; 1 RCT; 180 participants), wound healing (MD 0.10; 95% CI -0.26 to -0.46; 1 RCT; 180 participants), and any adverse events (zero events in both groups). Similar effects were observed by the other interventions assessed. Conclusion: The evidence of nonpharmacological topical interventions for painful nipples is imprecise, and future RCTs with higher methodological quality are needed to support recommendations. Considering the accessibility and low cost of these alternative treatments, the findings of this evidence synthesis could support clinical decision-making and guide future research. PROSPERO CRD42020170320.

High certainty evidence is stable and trustworthy, whereas evidence of moderate or lower certainty may be equally prone to being unstable.

OBJECTIVES: To assess to what extent the overall quality of evidence indicates changes to observe intervention effect estimates when new data become available. METHODS: We conducted a meta-epidemiological study. We obtained evidence from meta-analyses of randomized trials of Cochrane reviews addressing the same health-care question that was updated with inclusion of additional data between January 2016 and May 2021. We extracted the reported effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from meta-analyses and corresponding GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) assessments of any intervention comparison for the primary outcome in the first and the last updated review version. We considered the reported overall quality (certainty) of evidence (CoE) and specific evidence limitations (no, serious or very serious for risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, and/or indirectness). We assessed the change in pooled effect estimates between the original and updated evidence using the ratio of odds ratio (ROR), absolute ratio of odds ratio (aROR), ratio of standard errors (RoSE), direction of effects, and level of statistical significance. RESULTS: High CoE without limitations characterized 19.3% (n = 29) out of 150 included original Cochrane reviews. The update with additional data did not systematically change the effect estimates (mean ROR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.02), which deviated 1.06-fold from the older estimates (median aROR; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.01-1.15), gained precision (median RoSE 0.87; IQR 0.76-1.00), and maintained the same direction with the same level of statistical significance in 93% (27 of 29) of cases. Lower CoE with limitations characterized 121 original reviews and graded as moderate CoE in 30.0% (45 of 150), low CoE in 32.0% (48 of 150), and very low CoE in 18.7% (28 of 150) reviews. Their update had larger absolute deviations (median aROR 1.12 to 1.33) and larger gains in precision (median RoSE 0.78-0.86) without clear and consistent differences between these categories of CoE. Changes in effect direction or statistical significance were also more common in the lower quality evidence, again with a similar extent across categories (without change in 75.6%, 64.6%, and 75.0% for moderate, low, very low CoE). As limitations increased, effect estimates deviated more (aROR 1.05 with zero, 1.11 with one, 1.25 with two, 1.24 with three limitations) and changes in direction or significance became more frequent (93.2% stable with no limitations, 74.5% with one, 68.2% with two, and 61.5% with three limitations). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence without methodological deficiencies is trustworthy and stable, providing reliable intervention effect estimates when updated with new data. Evidence of moderate and lower quality may be equally prone to being unstable and cannot indicate if available effect estimates are true, exaggerated, or underestimated.

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dockworkers are exposed to physical overloads that can contribute to the development of musculoskeletal disorders, leading to functional disability and absenteeism. OBJECTIVE: to map, critically appraise, and synthesize the available evidence on the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases associated with port occupational activities. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in structured and unstructured databases in August 2023, with no date or language restriction, to identify observational studies evaluating the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders in dockworkers' occupational activity. The risk of bias was assessed using validated tools based on the included study designs. Data from studies were pooled in meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 analytical cross-sectional studies involving 7821 participants in ports of five countries. Most studies (75%) had a moderate methodological quality according to the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Considering the overall worker categories and any musculoskeletal disorders, the meta-analysis showed a prevalence of 58% (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] 37% to 78%), with degenerative spinal diseases 42% (95% CI -0.6% to 91%) and low back pain 36% (95% CI 21% to 50%) being the most prevalent conditions. Symptoms were predominantly in foremen and stevedores. The certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal disorders seem prevalent among dockworkers, mainly degenerative spinal diseases and low back pain. Studies with greater methodological consistency are still needed to validate these hypotheses and assist in decision-making for implementing preventive and informational policies in maritime port management organizations. PROSPERO registry CRD42021257677.

The methodological and reporting quality of randomized controlled trials of tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced differentiated thyroid cancer: Meta-research study.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) treatment have shown an improvement in overall and progression-free survival in patients with advanced differentiated thyroid cancer. However, it is necessary to evaluate these studies to assess methodological biases and inconsistencies that may impact the effects. OBJECTIVE: To map and assess the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) regarding randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, and selective reporting bias. METHODS: RCTs assessing the efficacy and safety of TKI for the treatment of advanced differentiated thyroid cancer were included. The search was performed in the MEDLINE database. The included RCTs were assessed for the adequacy of the methodological steps, as recommended by the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Nine studies were analyzed, of which 77.7% were classified as low risk of bias regarding selective reporting and 33.3% as high risk of reporting bias. The mean time between protocol registration and study publication was approximately 5.11 years. Moreover, 66.7% were classified as low risk of bias for randomization and allocation concealment, and 33.3% did not specify the randomization process and allocation concealment in a way that would allow the identification of occurrences of bias. Concerning blinding of participants and outcome assessors, 77.8% of the RCTs reported adequate blinding and were classified as having a low risk of bias, 11.1% had a high risk of bias, and 11.1% had insufficient information and were classified as having unclear risk of bias. Regarding the blinding of the outcome assessors, 33.3% did the blinding correctly, 11.1% did not blind, and 55.6% did not provide enough information. CONCLUSION: Overall, the assessed RCTs were predominantly at low risk of bias. The critical evaluation of these studies is essential to have confidence in the treatment estimated effect that will support clinical decision-making and provide information to preclude future clinical study flaws.

Definition and reporting of composite outcomes are often inadequate in randomized clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency and critically appraise the use and reporting of composite outcomes in randomized clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for coronary artery disease. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A metaresearch study. A search strategy was developed to retrieve references from MEDLINE. We considered articles, published from 1st January 2020, to December 31, 2021, reporting results of clinical primary outcomes from randomized clinical trials which assessed pharmacological interventions, used alone or in combination, for the treatment or secondary prevention (previous coronary event) of coronary artery disease. RESULTS: From the 34 included studies, 28 (82.35%) had a primary composite outcome. Thirteen unique composite primary outcomes were used with the most frequent being "cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke" (12/28, 42.86%). The term major adverse cardiac events was used for five distinct composite primary outcomes. A combination of 12 different components resulted in the 28 primary composite outcomes, with stroke being the most frequent component present in 96.43% (27/28) of the primary composite outcomes. From the included studies, 60.71% (17/28) reported the estimates for each individual component and the direction of the effect was consistent between all components and the composite outcomes in 58.82% (10/17) of them. Additionally, no included study discussed potential limitations and/or related advantages of the composite outcomes. CONCLUSION: In randomized clinical trials on pharmacological interventions for coronary artery disease, composite outcomes are frequently used, but the definition of their components is very heterogeneous. The estimate for individual components within the composite outcome is often not fully reported, which prevents a complete analysis of their adequacy for clinical practice. The term major adverse cardiac events was used inconsistently and to refer to different set of components, which can also be misleading and confusing.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. OBJECTIVE: This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. RESULTS: According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.

What is an "ongoing" clinical trial? An analysis of different sources revealed heterogeneous definitions of when a clinical trial starts and ends: a meta-research study

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Although the concept of an "ongoing study" seems self-explanatory, it is difficult to determine whether a trial is underway. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the definitions of "ongoing clinical trial" across different clinical trial registries, methodological guidelines, and other sources. DESIGN AND SETTING: This meta-research study was conducted at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of relevant clinical trial registry databases, methodological guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, and other sources that would define or regulate clinical trials. RESULTS: We identified various heterogeneous definitions used by eligible sources at both the start and end of a clinical trial. The starting criteria used were as follows: when the team is planning the protocol, when permission is given to conduct the study, or when the first participant is enrolled. Some sources used the time at which the last outcome data was collected as a criterion to determine the end of the trial. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that a study is still "ongoing" during the analysis process. Several sources use a vague definition or present no clear criteria for defining the start or end of a study. CONCLUSION: The concept of "ongoing clinical trials" lacks a transparent and homogeneous definition across relevant sources. A consensus on this concept is important to facilitate the evaluation of available evidence and conduct research synthesis. Further efforts are necessary to determine the best definition for the start and end of a clinical trial.

Quality of systematic reviews on the treatment of vesiculobullous skin diseases. A meta-epidemiological study

Abstract Background Systematic reviews of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered high-level evidence to support a decision on therapeutic interventions, and their methodological quality is essential to provide reliable and applicable results. Objective This meta-epidemiological study aimed to map and critically appraise systematic reviews assessing treatments for vesiculobullous skin diseases. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search strategy on MEDLINE (via Pubmed) in December 2022 without restrictions to find systematic reviews evaluating pharmacological interventions for vesiculobullous skin diseases. The methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool, and additional information was extracted. We identified nine systematic reviews published between 2002 and 2021, seven assessing pemphigus. Results According to the AMSTAR-2 tool, 55.6% were classified as critically low quality, 22.2% as moderate quality, 11.1% as low and 11.1% as high quality. No review assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE); 86% of pemphigus reviews had at least two overlapping RCTs. There were some limitations regarding methodological flaws and the AMSTAR-2 tool use Conclusions These findings reveal a frail methodological quality of systematic reviews about vesiculobullous diseases treatment that may impact the results. Therefore, methodological rigor is mandatory for future systematic reviews to avoid duplication of effort and increase the certainty of the evidence supporting decision-making.

Cost analysis of photobiomodulation in tibia fracture in the Brazilian public health system.

Managing tibial fractures requires substantial health resources, which costs the health system. This study aimed to describe the costs of photobiomodulation (PBM) with LEDs in the healing process of soft tissue lesions associated with tibial fracture compared to a placebo. Economic analysis was performed based on a randomized controlled clinical trial, with a simulation of the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost model. Adults (n = 27) hospitalized with tibia fracture awaiting definitive surgery were randomized into two distinct groups: the PBM Group (n = 13) and the Control Group with simulated phototherapy (n = 14). To simulate the cost-effectiveness and incremental cost model, the outcome was the evolution of wound resolution by the BATES-JENSEN scale and time of wound resolution in days. The total cost of treatment for the Control group was R$21,164.56, and a difference of R$7,527.10 more was observed when compared to the treatment of the PBM group. The proposed intervention did not present incremental cost since the difference in the costs to reduce measures between the groups was smaller for the PBM group. When analyzing the ICER (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio), it would be possible to save R$3,500.98 with PBM and decrease by 2.15 points in the daily average on the BATES-JENSEN scale. It is concluded, therefore, that PBM can be a supportive therapy of clinical and economic interest in a hospital setting.

What is an "ongoing" clinical trial? An analysis of different sources revealed heterogeneous definitions of when a clinical trial starts and ends: a meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: Although the concept of an "ongoing study" seems self-explanatory, it is difficult to determine whether a trial is underway. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the definitions of "ongoing clinical trial" across different clinical trial registries, methodological guidelines, and other sources. DESIGN AND SETTING: This meta-research study was conducted at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazil. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of relevant clinical trial registry databases, methodological guidelines for conducting systematic reviews, and other sources that would define or regulate clinical trials. RESULTS: We identified various heterogeneous definitions used by eligible sources at both the start and end of a clinical trial. The starting criteria used were as follows: when the team is planning the protocol, when permission is given to conduct the study, or when the first participant is enrolled. Some sources used the time at which the last outcome data was collected as a criterion to determine the end of the trial. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors stated that a study is still "ongoing" during the analysis process. Several sources use a vague definition or present no clear criteria for defining the start or end of a study. CONCLUSION: The concept of "ongoing clinical trials" lacks a transparent and homogeneous definition across relevant sources. A consensus on this concept is important to facilitate the evaluation of available evidence and conduct research synthesis. Further efforts are necessary to determine the best definition for the start and end of a clinical trial.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of adults with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause thrombotic events that lead to severe complications or death. Antiplatelet agents, such as acetylsalicylic acid, have been shown to effectively reduce thrombotic events in other diseases: they could influence the course of COVID-19 in general. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of antiplatelets given with standard care compared to no treatment or standard care (with/without placebo) for adults with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, medRxiv, CENTRAL), Web of Science, WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antiplatelet agents for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, gender or ethnicity. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Antiplatelets plus standard care versus standard care (with/without placebo) Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19 We included four studies (17,541 participants) that recruited hospitalised people with a confirmed diagnosis of moderate to severe COVID-19. A total of 8964 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (either with cyclooxygenase inhibitors or P2Y12 inhibitors) and 8577 participants in the control arm. Most people were older than 50 years and had comorbidities such as hypertension, lung disease or diabetes. The studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income countries prior to wide-scale vaccination programmes. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05; 3 studies, 17,249 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In absolute terms, this means that for every 177 deaths per 1000 people not receiving antiplatelets, there were 168 deaths per 1000 people who did receive the intervention (95% CI 151 to 186 per 1000 people); - probably result in little to no difference in worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.01; 2 studies, 15,266 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in little to no difference in improvement (participants discharged alive up to day 28) (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 studies, 15,454 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - probably result in a slight reduction of thrombotic events at longest follow-up (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 4 studies, 17,518 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); - may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events at longest follow-up (Peto odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% CI 0.48 to 5.14; 1 study, 1815 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events during study treatment were not reported; - probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events at longest follow-up (Peto OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.19; 4 studies, 17,527 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adults with a confirmed diagnosis of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 We included two RCTs allocating participants, of whom 4209 had confirmed mild COVID-19 and were not hospitalised. A total of 2109 participants were analysed in the antiplatelet arm (treated with acetylsalicylic acid) and 2100 participants in the control arm. No study included people with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antiplatelets compared to standard care: - may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality at day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.22; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may slightly decrease the incidence of new thrombotic events up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 2 studies, 4209 participants; low-certainty evidence); - may make little or no difference to the incidence of serious adverse events up to day 45 (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.64; 1 study, 3881 participants; low-certainty evidence), but non-serious adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of antiplatelets on the following outcomes (compared to standard care plus placebo): - admission to hospital or death up to day 45 (Peto OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.10; 2 studies, 4209 participants; very low-certainty evidence); - major bleeding events up to longest follow-up (no event occurred in 328 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Quality of life and adverse events during study treatment were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease, we found moderate-certainty evidence that antiplatelets probably result in little to no difference in 28-day mortality, clinical worsening or improvement, but probably result in a slight reduction in thrombotic events. They probably increase the occurrence of major bleeding events. Low-certainty evidence suggests that antiplatelets may result in a slight increase in serious adverse events. In people with confirmed COVID-19 and mild symptoms, we found low-certainty evidence that antiplatelets may result in little to no difference in 45-day mortality and serious adverse events, and may slightly reduce thrombotic events. The effects on the combined outcome admission to hospital or death up to day 45 and major bleeding events are very uncertain. Quality of life was not reported. Included studies were conducted in high- to lower middle-income settings using antiplatelets prior to vaccination roll-outs. We identified a lack of evidence concerning quality of life assessments, adverse events and people with asymptomatic infection. The 14 ongoing and three completed, unpublished RCTs that we identified in trial registries address similar settings and research questions as in the current body of evidence. We expect to incorporate the findings of these studies in future versions of this review.

Strategies for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and the population: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Health evidence needs to be communicated and disseminated in a manner that is clearly understood by decision-makers. As an inherent component of health knowledge translation, communicating results of scientific studies, effects of interventions and health risk estimates, in addition to understanding key concepts of clinical epidemiology and interpreting evidence, represent a set of essential instruments to reduce the gap between science and practice. The advancement of digital and social media has reshaped the concept of health communication, introducing new, direct and powerful communication platforms and gateways between researchers and the public. The objective of this scoping review was to identify strategies for communicating scientific evidence in healthcare to managers and/or population. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Library, Embase®, MEDLINE® and other six electronic databases, in addition to grey literature, relevant websites from related organizations for studies, documents or reports published from 2000, addressing any strategy for communicating scientific evidence on healthcare to managers and/or population. RESULTS: Our search identified 24 598 unique records, of which 80 met the inclusion criteria and addressed 78 strategies. Most strategies focused on risk and benefit communication in health, were presented by textual format and had been implemented and somehow evaluated. Among the strategies evaluated and appearing to yield some benefit are (i) risk/benefit communication: natural frequencies instead of percentages, absolute risk instead relative risk and number needed to treat, numerical instead nominal communication, mortality instead survival; negative or loss content appear to be more effective than positive or gain content; (ii) evidence synthesis: plain languages summaries to communicate the results of Cochrane reviews to the community were perceived as more reliable, easier to find and understand, and better to support decisions than the original summaries; (iii) teaching/learning: the Informed Health Choices resources seem to be effective for improving critical thinking skills. CONCLUSION: Our findings contribute to both the knowledge translation process by identifying communication strategies with potential for immediate implementation and to future research by recognizing the need to evaluate the clinical and social impact of other strategies to support evidence-informed policies. Trial registration protocol is prospectively available in MedArxiv (doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.04.21265922).

Alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune, T-cell-dependent, inflammatory, demyelinating disease of the central nervous system, with an unpredictable course. Current MS therapies focus on treating and preventing exacerbations, and avoiding the progression of disability. At present, there is no treatment that is capable of safely and effectively reaching these objectives. Clinical trials suggest that alemtuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody, could be a promising option for MS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of alemtuzumab alone or associated with other treatments in people with any form of MS. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 21 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with any subtype of MS comparing alemtuzumab alone or associated with other medications versus placebo; another active drug; or alemtuzumab in another dose, regimen, or duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our co-primary outcomes were 1. relapse-free survival, 2. sustained disease progression, and 3. number of participants experiencing at least one adverse event. Our secondary outcomes were 4. participants free of clinical disability, 5. quality of life, 6. change in disability, 7. fatigue, 8. new or enlarging lesions on resonance imaging, and 9. dropouts. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs (1713 participants) comparing intravenous alemtuzumab versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a for relapsing-remitting MS. Participants were treatment-naive (two studies) or had experienced at least one relapse after interferon or glatiramer (one study). Alemtuzumab was given at doses of 12 mg/day or 24 mg/day for five days at months 0 and 12, or 24 mg/day for three days at months 12 and 24. Participants in the interferon beta-1a group received 44 µg three times weekly. Alemtuzumab 12 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18 to 0.53; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02; 1 study, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (mean difference [MD] -0.70, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.36; 1 study, 223 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.14; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Alemtuzumab 24 mg: 1. may improve relapse-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 2. may improve sustained disease progression-free survival at 36 months (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.69; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 3. may make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event at 36 months (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence), although the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event was high with both drugs; 4. may slightly reduce disability at 36 months (MD -0.83, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.50; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence); 5. may reduce the risk of dropouts at 36 months (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.57; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence). For quality of life, fatigue, and participants free of clinical disease activity, the studies either did not consider these outcomes or they used different measuring tools to those planned in this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with interferon beta-1a, alemtuzumab may improve relapse-free survival and sustained disease progression-free survival, and make little to no difference on the proportion of participants with at least one adverse event for people with relapsing-remitting MS at 36 months. The certainty of the evidence for these results was very low to low.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Abnormal Activity of Masticatory Muscles in Patients with Diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

AIMS: to map and synthesize the results from studies that assessed whether individuals diagnosed with cerebral palsy (CP) have abnormal masseter and temporal muscles activation during the masticatory cycle. METHODS: Six databases were searched for comparative observational studies assessing masticatory muscles activation in individuals with CP through electromyography analysis. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist. Outcome data were combined in meta-analysis using the Review Manager software. RESULTS: We included five cross-sectional studies with an overall low risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no difference between CP and healthy individuals regarding maximum voluntary isometric contraction: right masseter (Standard mean difference [SMD] - 0.95; 95% CI -2.03 to 0.13); left masseter (SMD -0.92; 95% CI -1.93 to 0.09); right temporal (SMD -0.72; 95% CI -1.63 to 0.18); and left temporal (SMD -0.68; 95% CI -1.76 to 0.40). Electrical activity amplitude in the inactive period was superior in the CP group, and maximum bite pressure presented higher values in the control group (Mean difference [MD] - 17.38; CI 95% -26.62 to -10.15). CONCLUSIONS: Based on observational studies with a lower level of evidence, individuals with CP seem to present difficulties activating masticatory muscles. Future prospective cohort studies with rigorous methodology are still necessary to support these findings. PROSPERO register CRD42020208444.

Most Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols did not adhere to the Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the frequency of Cochrane systematic reviews and Cochrane systematic reviews protocols using (or planning to use) the risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN: This is a meta-research study. METHODS: We included Cochrane systematic reviews or Cochrane systematic reviews protocols that planned to include randomized clinical trials. We assessed the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and screened for issues published after the launch of risk of bias 2.0 tool (2019-2022). Two independent investigators performed the study selection and data extraction. RESULTS: We analyzed 440 Cochrane systematic reviews and 536 Cochrane systematic reviews protocols. Overall, 4.8% of the Cochrane systematic reviews and 28.5% of the Cochrane systematic reviews protocols used or planned to use risk of bias 2.0 tool. Although low, adherence is increasing over time. In 2019, 0% of Cochrane systematic reviews used risk of bias 2.0 tool, compared to 24.1% in 2022. In Cochrane systematic reviews protocols, adherence increased from 6.9% in 2019 to 41.5% in 2022. A total of 274 (62.1%) Cochrane systematic reviews had their protocols published before 2018; only one used risk of bias 2.0 tool and reported the change of versions in the "Differences between protocol and revision" section. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane's risk of bias 2.0 tool has low adherence among Cochrane protocols and systematic reviews. Further efforts are necessary to facilitate the implementation of this new tool.

Effects of multiwavelength photobiomodulation for the treatment of traumatic soft tissue injuries associated with bone fractures: A double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial.

This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of multiwavelength photobiomodulation (MPBM) in healing soft tissue injuries associated with tibial and/or ankle fractures. Participants were randomized into the MPBM or control group. Primary outcome was wound healing, measured by the Bates-Jensen scale. Assessments were performed daily. Twenty-seven hospitalized adults were included. MPBM showed an improvement in the daily mean Bates-Jensen scale (MPBM 32.1 vs. control 34.2; p = 0.029), daily mean pain score change (MPBM 0.5 vs. control 0.2; p = 0.04) and occurrence of infection at the site of the external fixator pins (MPBM 15.3% vs. control 57.1%; p = 0.02). MPBM group also showed faster-wound resolution (MPBM 13.1 vs. control 23.1 days). Subgroup analysis showed improvement in the MPBM group among less severe patients on the Bates-Jensen scale (MPBM 27.4 vs. control 34.7; p = 0.0081) and mean time for wound resolution (MPBM 7.0 vs. control 14.6 days; p = 0.03). MPBM appears safe and effective in reducing wound resolution time, infection in the surgical pin sites, reported pain and time before definitive surgery.

Functional orthopedic treatment for anterior open bite in children. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to assess the effects of orthopedic functional appliances for anterior open bite (AOB) in primary or mixed dentition children. METHODS: A search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) was conducted in November 2020 in electronic databases with no data or language restrictions. Primary outcomes were skeletal cephalometric variables and adverse events. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess methodological quality and the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified five RCTs (220 participants). Very low certainty evidence showed an improvement in overbite (mean difference [MD] 3.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63-4.57) and in the angulation of the upper incisors to the palatal plane (MD 3.70; 95% CI 0.85-6.55) with Frankel's functional regulator, compared to no treatment. There was no difference in the measured cephalometric variables when comparing removable palatal crib to fixed palatal crib, bonded spurs, and chin cup. When comparing removable versus magnetic bite blocks, a beneficial effect was observed in overbite, overjet, skeletal anteroposterior angular measurements, and skeletal vertical linear measures in the magnetic group. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: There was insufficient evidence to infer the effects of these treatments for AOB, and high-quality RCTs are needed to increase the estimated effects. PROSPERO REGISTER: CRD42020175634, prospectively registered (05 July 2020).