Pralsetinib for RET Fusion-Positive Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer (Roche) of pralsetinib (Gavreto®), as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process, to submit evidence for the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of pralsetinib for the treatment of adult patients with rearranged during transfection (RET) fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with a RET inhibitor. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with University Medical Center Groningen, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This paper summarizes the company submission (CS), presents the ERG's critical review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the CS, highlights the key methodological considerations, and describes the development of the NICE guidance by the Appraisal Committee. The CS reported data from the ARROW trial. ARROW is a single-arm, multicenter, non-randomized, open-label, multi-cohort study in patients with RET fusion-positive NSCLC and other advanced solid tumors. The CS included both untreated and pre-treated RET fusion-positive NSCLC patients, among other disease types. The comparators in the untreated population were pembrolizumab + pemetrexed + chemotherapy and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The comparators for the pre-treated population were docetaxel monotherapy, docetaxel + nintedanib, and platinum-based chemotherapy ± pemetrexed. As no comparators were included in ARROW, an indirect treatment comparison was conducted to estimate relative effectiveness. The ERG's concerns included the immaturity of data, small sample size, and lack of comparative safety evidence. The ERG considers the clinical evidence presented to be insufficiently robust to inform the economic model. Even when all the ERG preferred assumptions were implemented in the model, uncertainty remained on a number of issues, such as the appropriateness of the hazard ratios and the methods and data used to derive them, long-term efficacy of pralsetinib, and direct evidence for health-related quality of life (HRQoL). NICE did not recommend pralsetinib within its marketing authorization for treating RET fusion-positive advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in adults who have not had a RET inhibitor before. The uncertainty of the clinical evidence and the estimates of cost effectiveness were too high to be considered a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Therefore, pralsetinib was not recommended for routine use.

PROBAST: A Tool to Assess the Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies.

Clinical prediction models combine multiple predictors to estimate risk for the presence of a particular condition (diagnostic models) or the occurrence of a certain event in the future (prognostic models). PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool), a tool for assessing the risk of bias (ROB) and applicability of diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies, was developed by a steering group that considered existing ROB tools and reporting guidelines. The tool was informed by a Delphi procedure involving 38 experts and was refined through piloting. PROBAST is organized into the following 4 domains: participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis. These domains contain a total of 20 signaling questions to facilitate structured judgment of ROB, which was defined to occur when shortcomings in study design, conduct, or analysis lead to systematically distorted estimates of model predictive performance. PROBAST enables a focused and transparent approach to assessing the ROB and applicability of studies that develop, validate, or update prediction models for individualized predictions. Although PROBAST was designed for systematic reviews, it can be used more generally in critical appraisal of prediction model studies. Potential users include organizations supporting decision making, researchers and clinicians who are interested in evidence-based medicine or involved in guideline development, journal editors, and manuscript reviewers.

PROBAST: A Tool to Assess Risk of Bias and Applicability of Prediction Model Studies: Explanation and Elaboration.

Prediction models in health care use predictors to estimate for an individual the probability that a condition or disease is already present (diagnostic model) or will occur in the future (prognostic model). Publications on prediction models have become more common in recent years, and competing prediction models frequently exist for the same outcome or target population. Health care providers, guideline developers, and policymakers are often unsure which model to use or recommend, and in which persons or settings. Hence, systematic reviews of these studies are increasingly demanded, required, and performed. A key part of a systematic review of prediction models is examination of risk of bias and applicability to the intended population and setting. To help reviewers with this process, the authors developed PROBAST (Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool) for studies developing, validating, or updating (for example, extending) prediction models, both diagnostic and prognostic. PROBAST was developed through a consensus process involving a group of experts in the field. It includes 20 signaling questions across 4 domains (participants, predictors, outcome, and analysis). This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale for including each domain and signaling question and guides researchers, reviewers, readers, and guideline developers in how to use them to assess risk of bias and applicability concerns. All concepts are illustrated with published examples across different topics. The latest version of the PROBAST checklist, accompanying documents, and filled-in examples can be downloaded from www.probast.org.

Ixekizumab for Treating Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, the company manufacturing ixekizumab (tradename Taltz®), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ixekizumab. Ixekizumab was compared with tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab), ustekinumab, secukinumab, best supportive care and, if non-biological treatment or phototherapy is suitable, also compared with systemic non-biological therapies and phototherapy with ultraviolet B radiation for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the independent Evidence Review Group. This article presents a summary of the company submission, the Evidence Review Group report and the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the Appraisal Committee. The Evidence Review Group produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of ixekizumab based on the company submission. The company submission presented three randomised controlled trials identified in a systematic review. All randomised controlled trials were phase III, multicentre placebo-controlled trials including 3866 participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Two trials also included an active comparator (etanercept). All randomised controlled trials showed statistically significant increases in two primary outcomes, static Physician Global Assessment (0,1) and improvement of 75% from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. Ixekizumab was generally well tolerated in the randomised controlled trials, with similar discontinuation rates because of adverse events as placebo or etanercept. The most frequent adverse events of special interest were infections and injection-site reactions. The company submission also included a network meta-analysis of relevant comparators. The Evidence Review Group highlighted some issues regarding the systematic review process and an issue with the generalisability of the findings in that the trials failed to include patients with moderate psoriasis according to a widely used definition. This issue was considered by the Appraisal Committee and the population was deemed generalisable to patients in England and Wales. Based on the network meta-analysis, the Appraisal Committee concluded that ixekizumab was more clinically effective than adalimumab and ustekinumab, and agreed it was likely that ixekizumab was similarly effective compared with secukinumab and infliximab while tolerability was similar to other biological treatments approved for treating psoriasis. The Evidence Review Group's critical assessment of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns, including (1) the use of relative outcomes such as Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response to model the cost effectiveness; (2) the exclusion of the consequences of adverse events; (3) the assumption of no utility gain in the induction phase; (4) equal annual discontinuation rates for all treatments; (5) the selection of treatment sequences for consideration in the analyses and; (6) the transparency of the Visual Basic for Applications code used to develop the model. Although some of these issues were adjusted in the Evidence Review Group base case, the Evidence Review Group could not estimate the impact of all of these issues, and thus acknowledges that there are still uncertainties concerning the cost-effectiveness evidence. In the Evidence Review Group base-case incremental analysis, the treatment sequence incorporating ixekizumab in the second line has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £25,532 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs. the etanercept sequence. Ixekizumab in the first-line sequence has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £39,129 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with the treatment sequence incorporating ixekizumab in the second line. Consistent with its conclusion regarding clinical effectiveness, the Appraisal Committee concluded that the cost effectiveness of ixekizumab for treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis was similar to that of other biological treatments, already recommended in previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. The committee concluded that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was within the range that could be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.

Guidance in author instructions of hematology and oncology journals: A cross sectional and longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The debate about the value of biomedical publications led to recommendations for improving reporting quality. It is unclear to what extent these recommendations have been endorsed by journals. We analyzed whether specific recommendations were included in author instructions, which journal characteristics were associated with their endorsement, how endorsement of the domains changed and whether endorsement was associated with change of impact factor between 2010 and 2015. METHODS: We considered two study samples consisting of "Hematology" and "Oncology" journals of the Journal Citation Report 2008 and 2014, respectively. We extracted information regarding endorsement of the (1) recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, of (2) reporting guidelines, (3) requirement for trial registration and (4) disclosure of conflicts of interest. Data extraction was done by reading the author instructions before conducting a text search with keywords. We calculated a global generalized linear mixed effects model for endorsement of each of the four domains followed by separate multivariable logistic regression models and a longitudinal analysis. We defined endorsement as the author instructions saying that they approve the use of the recommendations. RESULTS: In 2015, the ICMJE recommendations were mentioned in author instructions of 156 journals (67.5%). CONSORT was referred to by 77 journals (33.3%); MOOSE, PRISMA, STARD and STROBE were referred to by less than 15% of journals. There were 99 journals (42.9%) that recommended or required trial registration, 211 (91.3%) required authors to disclose conflicts of interest. Journal impact factor, journal start year and geographical region were positively associated with endorsement of any of the four domains. The overall endorsement of all domains increased between 2010 and 2015. The endorsement of any domain in 2010 seemed to be associated with an increased impact factor in 2014. CONCLUSION: Hematology and oncology journals endorse major recommendations to various degrees. Endorsement is increasing slowly over time and might be positively associated with the journals' impact factor.

A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer death in males. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of radiotherapy and other non-pharmacological management options for localised prostate cancer was undertaken. METHODS: A search of thirteen databases was carried out until March 2014. RCTs comparing radiotherapy (brachytherapy (BT) or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT)) to other management options i.e. radical prostatectomy (RP), active surveillance, watchful waiting, high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), or cryotherapy; each alone or in combination, e.g. with adjuvant hormone therapy (HT), were included. Methods followed guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Cochrane Collaboration. Indirect comparisons were calculated using the Bucher method. RESULTS: Thirty-six randomised controlled trials (RCTs, 134 references) were included. EBRT, BT and RP were found to be effective in the management of localised prostate cancer. While higher doses of EBRT seem to be related to favourable survival-related outcomes they might, depending on technique, involve more adverse events, e.g. gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity. Combining EBRT with hormone therapy shows a statistically significant advantage regarding overall survival when compared to EBRT alone (Relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.30). Aside from mixed findings regarding urinary function, BT and radical prostatectomy were comparable in terms of quality of life and biochemical progression-free survival while favouring BT regarding patient satisfaction and sexual function. There might be advantages of EBRT (with/without HT) compared to cryoablation (with/without HT). No studies on HIFU were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this systematic review, there is no strong evidence to support one therapy over another as EBRT, BT and RP can all be considered as effective monotherapies for localised disease with EBRT also effective for post-operative management. All treatments have unique adverse events profiles. Further large, robust RCTs which report treatment-specific and treatment combination-specific outcomes in defined prostate cancer risk groups following established reporting standards are needed. These will strengthen the evidence base for newer technologies, help reinforce current consensus guidelines and establish greater standardisation across practices.

Cannabinoids for Medical Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Cannabis and cannabinoid drugs are widely used to treat disease or alleviate symptoms, but their efficacy for specific indications is not clear. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the benefits and adverse events (AEs) of cannabinoids. DATA SOURCES: Twenty-eight databases from inception to April 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the following indications: nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or paraplegia, depression, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, psychosis, glaucoma, or Tourette syndrome. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All review stages were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-relevant/disease-specific outcomes, activities of daily living, quality of life, global impression of change, and AEs. RESULTS: A total of 79 trials (6462 participants) were included; 4 were judged at low risk of bias. Most trials showed improvement in symptoms associated with cannabinoids but these associations did not reach statistical significance in all trials. Compared with placebo, cannabinoids were associated with a greater average number of patients showing a complete nausea and vomiting response (47% vs 20%; odds ratio [OR], 3.82 [95% CI, 1.55-9.42]; 3 trials), reduction in pain (37% vs 31%; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 0.99-2.00]; 8 trials), a greater average reduction in numerical rating scale pain assessment (on a 0-10-point scale; weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.46 [95% CI, -0.80 to -0.11]; 6 trials), and average reduction in the Ashworth spasticity scale (WMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.69 to -0.05]; 7 trials). There was an increased risk of short-term AEs with cannabinoids, including serious AEs. Common AEs included dizziness, dry mouth, nausea, fatigue, somnolence, euphoria, vomiting, disorientation, drowsiness, confusion, loss of balance, and hallucination. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: There was moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity. There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome. Cannabinoids were associated with an increased risk of short-term AEs.

F-18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography imaging in primary staging of patients with malignant melanoma: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to systematically assess the potential patient-relevant benefit (primary aim) and diagnostic and prognostic accuracy (secondary aim) of positron emission tomography (PET) and PET/computed tomography (CT) in primary staging of malignant melanoma. This systematic review updates the previous evidence for PET(/CT) in malignant melanoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the first aim, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating patient-relevant outcomes and comparing PET and PET(/CT) with each other or with conventional imaging were considered. For the secondary aim, a review of reviews was conducted, which was amended by an update search for primary studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE and four databases of the Cochrane Library were searched. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified QUADAS tool. RESULTS: No RCTs investigating the patient-relevant benefit of PET(/CT) and no prognostic accuracy studies were found. Seventeen diagnostic accuracy studies of varying quality were identified. For patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stages I and II, sensitivity mostly ranged from 0 to 67%. Specificity ranged from 77 to 100%. For AJCC stages III and IV, sensitivity ranged from 68 to 87% and specificity from 92 to 98%. CONCLUSION: There is currently no evidence of a patient-relevant benefit of PET(/CT) in the primary staging of malignant melanoma. RCTs investigating patient-relevant outcomes are therefore required. The diagnostic accuracy of PET(/CT) appears to increase with higher AJCC stages.

Systematic review of efficacy and safety of buprenorphine versus fentanyl or morphine in patients with chronic moderate to severe pain.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess efficacy and safety of buprenorphine patch versus fentanyl patch in patients with chronic moderate to severe pain. METHODS: Fifteen databases were searched up to December 2010. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials assessing the efficacy in patients with chronic pain were included. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used and two network meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Fourteen unique trials (17 publications) were included. No head-to-head randomised trials of buprenorphine patch compared with fentanyl patch were identified. Therefore, less robust evidence from indirect comparisons was used. Results from a network meta-analysis of non-enriched designs (eight trials), using trials versus placebo and trials versus morphine for indirect comparisons, indicated that transdermal fentanyl, in comparison with transdermal buprenorphine, showed significantly more nausea (odds ratio [OR] 4.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 20.39), a significantly higher number of treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (OR 5.94, 95% CI 1.78 to 19.87), and non-significant differences on all other outcomes, including pain measures. In comparison with morphine, transdermal buprenorphine had a significantly higher decrease of pain intensity (MD [mean difference] -16.20, 95% CI -28.92 to -3.48) while morphine caused more cases of constipation (OR 7.50, 95% CI 1.45 to 38.85) and a significantly higher number of treatment discontinuations due to adverse events (OR 5.80, 95% CI 1.68 to 20.11). All other outcomes showed non-significant differences between transdermal buprenorphine and morphine. The results were similar when also including six trials using enriched designs with the exception of more cases of vomiting for fentanyl (OR 17.32, 95% CI 4.43 to 67.71) and morphine (OR 15.85, 95% CI 3.92 to 64.13) compared to buprenorphine. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate comparability of transdermal buprenorphine and transdermal fentanyl for pain measures with significantly fewer adverse events (nausea and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events) caused by transdermal buprenorphine.

Systematic review of adverse events of buprenorphine patch versus fentanyl patch in patients with chronic moderate-to-severe pain.

SUMMARY This systematic review compares convenience of administration, adverse events and tolerability of buprenorphine patch with fentanyl patch in patients with chronic pain. Methods of quantitative and qualitative research were combined. Seventeen databases were searched up to December 2010. A total of 49 unique trials (56 publications) were included. Patients regarded the use of patches, both transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl, as easy and convenient. Compared with buprenorphine patch, fentanyl can cause more cases of constipation and could lead to a higher number of serious adverse events. There were no differences between buprenorphine patch and fentanyl patch regarding dizziness, somnolence, nausea and treatment discontinuation. Overall, transdermal administration of buprenorphine and fentanyl can be seen as an alternative pathway for delivering these drugs. Use of transdermal buprenorphine might be favorable in certain groups of patients, such as renally impaired, elderly and immunosuppressed patients.

Distribution of country of origin in studies used in Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Inclusion in systematic reviews is one important component in judging the potential impact of clinical studies upon practice and hence the 'value for money' of spending for clinical research. This study aims to quantify the distribution of countries of origin of clinical studies used in Cochrane Reviews (CRs), and to link these data to the size of a country and to its spending on research. METHODS: Random sample of publications used for CRs published in Issue 1 2008 and of publications used in CRs in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Publications without original data were excluded. Likely countries of origin determined based on abstracts/full texts. CIA World Factbook (population data) and OECD database (economic data) were used. RESULTS: 1,000 random entries out of 140,005 references available in all specialities. In 876 (91.4%) of 959 eligible studies, country of origin was determined. The USA was the leading contributor (36.0% of the studies), followed by UK (13.4%), Canada (5.3%), Australia and Sweden (3.7%). In the CAM sample, country of origin was determined in 458 (93.5%) of 497 assessed studies. Again, the USA was the leading contributor (24.9%), with China also emerging as a significant contributor (24.7%) in this field. For both samples, the contribution of smaller countries (especially Scandinavian countries, Greece, and Ireland) became more noteworthy when considered in relation to population size and research spending. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the leading roles of both the USA and the UK in publishing clinical papers. The emerging role of China can be seen, particularly related to CAM studies. Taking into account size of population and economic power, countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain provide small contributions. In contrast, smaller countries like Australia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, and Sweden also play major roles.

Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions.

BACKGROUND: Several studies analyzed whether conventional journals in general medicine or specialties such as pediatrics endorse recommendations aiming to improve publication practice. Despite evidence showing benefits of these recommendations, the proportion of endorsing journals has been moderate to low and varied considerably for different recommendations. About half of pediatric journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report referred to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) but only about a quarter recommended registration of trials. We aimed to investigate to what extent pediatric open-access (OA) journals endorse these recommendations. We hypothesized that a high proportion of these journals have adopted recommendations on good publication practice since OA electronic publishing has been associated with a number of editorial innovations aiming at improved access and transparency. METHODS: We identified 41 journals publishing original research in the subject category "Health Sciences, Medicine (General), Pediatrics" of the Directory of Open Access Journals http://www.doaj.org. From the journals' online author instructions we extracted information regarding endorsement of four domains of editorial policy: the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts, trial registration, disclosure of conflicts of interest and five major reporting guidelines such as the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement. Two investigators collected data independently. RESULTS: The Uniform Requirements were mentioned by 27 (66%) pediatric OA journals. Thirteen (32%) required or recommended trial registration prior to publication of a trial report. Conflict of interest policies were stated by 25 journals (61%). Advice about reporting guidelines was less frequent: CONSORT was referred to by 12 journals (29%) followed by other reporting guidelines (MOOSE, PRISMA or STARD) (8 journals, 20%) and STROBE (3 journals, 7%). The EQUATOR network, a platform of several guideline initiatives, was acknowledged by 4 journals (10%). Journals published by OA publishing houses gave more guidance than journals published by professional societies or other publishers. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric OA journals mentioned certain recommendations such as the Uniform Requirements or trial registration more frequently than conventional journals; however, endorsement is still only moderate. Further research should confirm these exploratory findings in other medical fields and should clarify what the motivations and barriers are in implementing such policies.

5% lidocaine medicated plaster in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN): a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Several pharmacological treatments are used to manage painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). OBJECTIVE: To compare 5% lidocaine medicated plaster (5%LMP) for the relief of DPN with other relevant interventions and placebo. METHODS: Six databases were searched up to June 2009. Quantitative methods for data synthesis were used and a network meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (38 publications) were included. One study compared 5%LMP with pregabalin and indicated the non-inferiority of 5%LMP for pain reduction. DPN patients experienced a greater improvement in quality of life when using 5%LMP compared to pregabalin. Adverse events were significantly fewer in patients treated with 5%LMP. In the network meta-analysis, all interventions remained effective in comparison with placebo (mean difference in change of pain from baseline compared with placebo, amitriptyline: -12.58 [95% CI -16.66 to -8.50]; capsaicin: -9.40 [95% CI -13.92 to -4.88]; gabapentin: -10.22 [95% CI -17.25 to -3.19]; pregabalin: -10.53 [95% CI -14.74 to -6.32]; 5%LMP: -9.10 [95% CI -13.93 to -4.26]) and 5%LMP was comparable to all other interventions (amitriptyline: 3.48 [95% CI -0.78 to 7.75]; capsaicin: 0.31 [95% CI -4.39 to 5.00]; gabapentin: 1.12 [95% CI -6.02 to 8.27]; pregabalin: 1.43 [95% CI -2.96 to 5.83]). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the effects in pain reduction of 5% lidocaine medicated plaster are comparable to those of amitriptyline, capsaicin, gabapentin and pregabalin. Topical agents such as 5%LMP may be associated with fewer and less clinically significant adverse events than is the case for systemic agents. However, the results are limited by the number and size of studies included, and thus further studies are needed.

Editorial policies of pediatric journals: survey of instructions for authors.

OBJECTIVE: To study whether specific recommendations aiming to improve publication practice were included in author instructions of pediatric journals. DESIGN: We identified 69 journals in the subject category "pediatrics" of the Journal Citation Report 2007 that publish original research articles. From the journals' online author instructions, we extracted information regarding endorsement of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM) of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and of 5 major reporting guidelines such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and trial registration. Two investigators collected data independently. RESULTS: The URM were mentioned in author instructions of 38 of the 69 journals (55%). Endorsement of reporting guidelines was low: CONSORT was referred to most frequently (14 journals; 20%); each of the other 4 reporting guidelines was mentioned in less than 10% of author instructions. Fifty-four journals (78%) explicitly required authors to disclose conflicts of interest, and 16 (23%) either recommended or required trial registration. The odds of endorsing the URM increased by 2.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-4.34) per additional impact factor point. Similarly, the odds increased by 2.32 (95% CI, 0.95-5.70) for requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest and by 3.66 (95% CI, 1.74-7.71) for requiring trial registration. CONCLUSIONS: Many pediatric journals do not include recommendations that aim to improve publication practice in their author instructions. About one-fifth of journals do not require authors to disclose conflicts of interest on manuscript submission and more than three-quarters do not require/recommend trial registration.

Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: This empirical study analyzes the current status of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and their strength of recommendation for evidence-based decision making in the field of general surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration's homepage to identify available CRs on surgical topics. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics, utilization, and formulated treatment recommendations were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Association of review characteristics with treatment recommendation was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-three CRs, including 1,403 primary studies and 246,473 patients, were identified. Mean number of included primary studies per CR was 15.1 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) including 2,650 (SD 3,340) study patients. Two and a half (SD 8.3) nonrandomized trials were included per analyzed CR. Seventy-two (77%) CRs were published or updated in 2005 or later. Explicit treatment recommendations were given in 45 (48%). Presence of a treatment recommendation was associated with the number of included primary studies and the proportion of randomized studies. Utilization of surgical CRs remained low and showed large inter-country differences. The most surgical CRs were accessed in UK, USA, and Australia, followed by several Western and Eastern European countries. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of available CRs address surgical questions and their current usage is low. Instead of unsystematically increasing the number of surgical CRs it would be far more efficient to focus the review process on relevant surgical questions. Prioritization of CRs needs valid methods which should be developed by the scientific surgical community.