Standards for design and measurement would make clinical research reproducible and usable.

We find standards useful in everyday life and in science, although we do not always follow them. Adopting new standards can be expensive, so there may be a strong incentive to maintain the status quo rather than adopt new standards. The scientific community has many standards encompassing both doing clinical research and reporting it, including standards for design and measurement. Although existing research standards have improved both research and its reporting, we need to unify existing standards and to fill the gaps between steps throughout the research process. Existing gaps include implementation of standards and links between standards for study registration (to know about all studies undertaken), study protocols (to identify the preplanned study design and methods), data collection (to assess outcomes that are important and comparable across studies), dissemination of findings (to know the results of previous studies), data sharing (to make best use of existing data), and evidence synthesis (to draw appropriate conclusions from the body of evidence). The scientific community must work together to harmonize existing standards, to ensure that standards are kept up to date, to check that standards are followed, and to develop standards where they are still needed. A unified system of standards will make our work more reproducible.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Outcome choice and definition in systematic reviews leads to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses: a case study.

BACKGROUND: There is broad recognition of the importance of evidence in informing clinical decisions. When information from all studies included in a systematic review ("review") does not contribute to a meta-analysis, decision-makers can be frustrated. Our objectives were to use the field of eyes and vision as a case study and examine the extent to which authors of Cochrane reviews conducted meta-analyses for their review's pre-specified main outcome domain and the reasons that some otherwise eligible studies were not incorporated into meta-analyses. METHODS: We examined all completed systematic reviews published by Cochrane Eyes and Vision, as of August 11, 2017. We extracted information about each review's outcomes and, using an algorithm, categorized one outcome as its "main" outcome. We calculated the percentage of included studies incorporated into meta-analyses for any outcome and for the main outcome. We examined reasons for non-inclusion of studies into the meta-analysis for the main outcome. RESULTS: We identified 175 completed reviews, of which 125 reviews included two or more studies. Across these 125 reviews, the median proportions of studies incorporated into at least one meta-analysis for any outcome and for the main outcome were 74% (interquartile range [IQR] 0-100%) and 28% (IQR 0-71%), respectively. Fifty-one reviews (41%) could not conduct a meta-analysis for the main outcome, mostly because fewer than two included studies measured the outcome (21/51 reviews) or the specific measurements for the outcome were inconsistent (16/51 reviews). CONCLUSIONS: Outcome choice during systematic reviews can lead to few eligible studies included in meta-analyses. Core outcome sets and improved reporting of outcomes can help solve some of these problems.

Development, implementation and evaluation of an online course on evidence-based healthcare for consumers.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) principles are essential knowledge for patient and consumer ("consumer") engagement as research and research implementation stakeholders. The aim of this study was to assess whether participation in a free, self-paced online course affects confidence in explaining EBHC topics. The course comprises six modules and evaluations which together take about 6 h to complete. METHODS: Consumers United for Evidence-based Healthcare (CUE) designed, tested and implemented a free, online course for consumers, Understanding Evidence-based Healthcare: A Foundation for Action ("Understanding EBHC"). The course is offered through the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Participants rated their confidence in explaining EBHC topics on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), using an online evaluation provided before accessing the course ("Before") and after ("After") completing all six course modules. We analyzed data from those who registered for the course from May 31, 2007 to December 31, 2018 (n = 15,606), and among those persons, the 11,522 who completed the "Before" evaluation and 4899 who completed the "After" evaluation. Our primary outcome was the overall mean of within-person change ("overall mean change") in self-reported confidence levels on EBHC-related topics between "Before" and "After" evaluations among course completers. Our secondary outcomes were the mean within-person change for each of the 11 topics (mean change by topic). RESULTS: From May 31, 2007 to December 31, 2018, 15,606 individuals registered for the course: 11,522 completed the "Before" evaluation, and 4899 of these completed the "After" evaluation (i.e., completed the course). The overall mean change in self-reported confidence levels (ranging from 1 to 5) from the "Before" to "After" evaluation was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.24-1.30). The mean change by topic ranged from 1.00 (95% CI, 0.96-1.03) to 1.90 (95% CI, 1.87-1.94). CONCLUSION: Those who seek to involve consumer stakeholders can offer Understanding EBHC as a step toward meaningful consumer engagement. Future research should focus on long-term impact assessment of online course such as ours to understand whether confidence is retained post-course and applied appropriately.

Gender and Editorial Authorship in High-Impact Epidemiology Journals.

Women comprise about half of senior epidemiologists, but little is known about whether they are also viewed as leaders (i.e., authorities) in the field. We believe editorial roles are markers of leadership in a field. Our objective was to describe the distribution of gender across authorship of editorials published in 5 high-impact epidemiology journals over the past 8 years. We included editorials and commentaries published in American Journal of Epidemiology, European Journal of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, and Journal of Clinical Epidemiology between 2010 and 2017. We classified genders of all authors as woman, man, or unknown and computed the proportions of women editorial authors over all journals and according to position (e.g., first author). Only 31% (682/2,228) of all editorial authors and 36% (524/1,477) of unique editorial authors (i.e., counting each editorial author name only once) were women. We identified 1,180 editorials; 594 had sole authors, 24% (141/594) of whom were women, and 586 had 2 or more authors, 31% (184/586) of which had women as first authors. If women are underrepresented as editorial authors across epidemiology journals (e.g., as a marker of epidemiology leadership), the situation merits immediate correction.

Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines That Address Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Having more than one chronic condition is common and is associated with greater health care utilization, higher medication burden and complexity of treatment. However, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not routinely address the balance between harms and benefits of treatments for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). OBJECTIVE: To partner with the Kaiser Permanente Integrated Cardiovascular Health (ICVH) program to engage multiple stakeholders in a mixed-methods approach in order to: 1) identify two high-priority clinical questions related to MCCs, and 2) understand patients' and family caregivers' perceptions of meaningful outcomes to inform benefit/harm assessments for these two high-priority questions. These clinical questions and outcomes will be used to inform CPG recommendations for people with MCCs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The ICVH program provided 130 topics rank-ordered by the potential for finding evidence that would change clinical recommendations regarding the topic. We used a modified Delphi method to identify and reword topics into questions relevant to people with MCCs. We used two sets of focus groups (n = 27) to elicit patient and caregiver perspectives on two important research questions and relevant patient-important outcomes on benefit/harm balance for people with MCCs. KEY RESULTS: Co-investigators, patients and caregivers identified "optimal blood pressure goals" and "diabetes medication management" as important clinical topics for CPGs related to people with MCCs. Stakeholders identified a list of relevant outcomes to be addressed in future CPG development including 1) physical function and energy, 2) emotional health and well-being, 3) avoidance of treatment burden, side effects and risks, 4) interaction with providers and health care system, and 5) prevention of adverse long-term health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of a mixed-methods process, we identified the questions regarding optimal blood pressure goals and diabetes medication management, along with related patient-centered outcomes, to inform novel evidence syntheses for those with MCCs. This study provides the lessons learned and a generalizable process for CPG developers to engage patient and caregivers in priority-setting for the translation of evidence into future CPGs. Ultimately, engaging patient and stakeholders around MCCs could improve the relevance of CPGs for the care of people with MCCs.

Design considerations of a randomized controlled trial of sedation level during hip fracture repair surgery: a strategy to reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium in elderly patients.

Background Delirium is an acute change in mental status characterized by sudden onset, fluctuating course, inattention, disorganized thinking, and abnormal level of consciousness. The objective of the randomized controlled trial "A STrategy to Reduce the Incidence of Postoperative Delirium in Elderly Patients" (STRIDE) is to assess the effectiveness of light versus heavy sedation on delirium and other outcomes in elderly patients undergoing hip fracture repair surgery. Our goal is to describe the design considerations and lessons learned in planning and implementing the STRIDE trial. Methods Discussed are challenges encountered including (1) how to ensure that we quickly identify, assess the eligibility of, and randomize traumatic hip fracture patients; (2) how to implement interventions that involve continuous monitoring and adjustment during the surgery; and (3) how to measure and ascertain the primary outcome, delirium. Results To address the first challenge, we monitored the operating room schedule more actively than anticipated. We constructed and organized eligibility assessment data collection forms by purpose and by source of information needed to complete them. We decided that randomization needs to take place in the operating room. To address the second challenge, we designed and implemented a treatment protocol and covered the bispectral index monitor to prevent the Anesthesiologist/Anesthetist from being influenced by the bispectral index reading while administering the intervention. Finally, clinical assessment of delirium consisted of standardized interviews of the patient using validated instruments, interviews of those caring for the patient, and review of the medical record. A consensus panel made the final determination of a delirium diagnosis. We note that STRIDE is a single-center trial. The decisions we took may have different implications for multi-center trials. Conclusions Lessons learned are likely to provide useful information to others designing trials in emergency and surgical setting and for those who are interested in unbiased assessment of delirium.

Non-surgical interventions for acute internal hordeolum.

BACKGROUND: A hordeolum is a common, painful inflammation of the eyelid margin that is usually caused by a bacterial infection. The infection affects oil glands of the eyelid and can be either internal or external. In many cases, the lesion drains spontaneously and resolves without treatment; however, the inflammation can spread to other ocular glands or tissues, and recurrences are common. If unresolved, an acute internal hordeolum can become chronic, or can develop into a chalazion. External hordeola, also known as styes, were not included in the scope of this review. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to investigate the effectiveness, and when possible, the safety, of non-surgical treatments for acute internal hordeola compared with observation or placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register (2016; Issue 12)), MEDLINE Ovid, MEDLINE Ovid Epub Ahead of Print, MEDLINE Ovid In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, MEDLINE(R) Ovid Daily (January 1946 to December 2016), Embase (January 1947 to December 2016), PubMed (1948 to December 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS (January 1982 to December 2016)), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT; www.controlled-trials.com (last searched 26 July 2012)), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 2 December 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: The selection criteria for this review included randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials of participants diagnosed with an acute internal hordeolum. Studies of participants with external hordeola (styes), chronic hordeola, or chalazia were excluded. Non-surgical interventions of interest included the use of hot or warm compresses, lid scrubs, antibiotics, or steroids compared with observation, placebo, or other active interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the references identified by electronic searches for inclusion in this review. No relevant studies were found. The reasons for exclusion were documented. MAIN RESULTS: No trials were identified for this review. Most of the references identified through our search reported on external hordeola or chronic internal hordeola. The few references specific to acute internal hordeola reported recommendations for treatment, were reports of interventional case series, case studies, or other types of observational study designs, and were published more than 20 years ago. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any evidence for or against the effectiveness of non-surgical interventions for the treatment of an internal hordeolum. Controlled clinical trials would be useful to determine which interventions are effective for the treatment of acute internal hordeola.

Network Meta-analysis for Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Case Study on First-Line Medical Therapies for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma.

BACKGROUND: Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatment options for the same condition and may be useful for developing clinical practice guidelines. PURPOSE: To compare treatment recommendations for first-line medical therapy for primary open angle-glaucoma (POAG) from major updates of American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) guidelines with the evidence available at the time, using network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched on 11 March 2014 for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of glaucoma monotherapies compared with placebo, vehicle, or no treatment or other monotherapies. The AAO Web site was searched in August 2014 to identify AAO POAG guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible RCTs were selected by 2 independent reviewers, and guidelines were selected by 1 person. DATA EXTRACTION: One person abstracted recommendations from guidelines and a second person verified. Two people independently abstracted data from included RCTs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Guidelines were grouped together on the basis of literature search dates, and RCTs that existed at 1991, 1995, 1999, 2004, and 2009 were analyzed. The outcome of interest was intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months. Only the latest guideline made a specific recommendation: prostaglandins. Network meta-analyses showed that all treatments were superior to placebo in decreasing IOP at 3 months. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals [CrIs]) for the highest-ranking class compared with placebo were as follows: 1991: ß-blockers, 4.01 (CrI, 0.48 to 7.43); 1995: α2-adrenergic agonists, 5.64 (CrI, 1.73 to 9.50); 1999: prostaglandins, 5.43 (CrI, 3.38 to 7.38); 2004: prostaglandins, 4.75 (CrI, 3.11 to 6.44); 2009: prostaglandins, 4.58 (CrI, 2.94 to 6.24). LIMITATION: When comparisons are informed by a small number of studies, the treatment effects and rankings may not be stable. CONCLUSION: For timely recommendations when multiple treatment options are available, guidelines developers should consider network meta-analysis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health.

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

PURPOSE: Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? DESIGN: High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. RESULTS: Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. CONCLUSIONS: For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed.

Comparative Effectiveness of First-Line Medications for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

TOPIC: Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of first-line medical treatments in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Treatment for POAG currently relies completely on lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Although topical drops, lasers, and surgeries can be considered in the initial treatment of glaucoma, most patients elect to start treatment with eye drops. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a single active topical medication with no treatment/placebo or another single topical medication. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Food and Drug Administration's website. Two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 114 RCTs with data from 20 275 participants. The overall risk of bias of the included trials is mixed. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals) in IOP in millimeters of mercury at 3 months ordered from the most to least effective drugs were as follows: bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94; 6.29), latanoprost 4.85 (4.24; 5.46), travoprost 4.83 (4.12; 5.54), levobunolol 4.51 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29), carteolol 3.44 (2.42; 4.46), levobetaxolol 2.56 (1.52; 3.62), apraclonidine 2.52 (0.94; 4.11), dorzolamide 2.49 (1.85; 3.13), brinzolamide 2.42 (1.62; 3.23), betaxolol 2.24 (1.59; 2.88), and unoprostone 1.91 (1.15; 2.67). CONCLUSIONS: All active first-line drugs are effective compared with placebo in reducing IOP at 3 months. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, although the within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in selecting a drug for a given patient.

Shaping the future of biomarker research in breast cancer to ensure clinical relevance.

Each year, over 200,000 people are diagnosed with breast cancer in the United States. Although the use of biomarkers has the potential to guide preventive interventions and improve survival and quality of life, there have been few successes and many disappointments. In November 2005, the National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund convened a conference aimed at developing a patient-centred, strategic approach to breast cancer biomarker research. The consumers, clinicians, researchers, industry representatives and US regulators who served on the consensus panel developed a set of principles and recommendations to guide the field and ensure that biomarker research results in clinically important applications.

Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews.

Data abstraction is a key step in conducting systematic reviews because data collected from study reports form the basis of appropriate conclusions. Recent methodological standards and expectations highlight several principles for data collection. To support implementation of these standards, this article provides a step-by-step tutorial for selecting data collection tools; constructing data collection forms; and abstracting, managing, and archiving data for systematic reviews. Examples are drawn from recent experience using the Systematic Review Data Repository for data collection and management. If it is done well, data collection for systematic reviews only needs to be done by 1 team and placed into a publicly accessible database for future use. Technological innovations, such as the Systematic Review Data Repository, will contribute to finding trustworthy answers for many health and health care questions.

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.

Surgery for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) is characterized by sudden and painless loss of vision in the eye, accompanied by pallid swelling of the optic disc. Its etiology is unknown and no medical therapy has been proven effective in treating this condition. Optic nerve decompression surgery, a proposed treatment for NAION, involves making two or more slits or a window in the tissue surrounding the optic nerve, thereby allowing cerebrospinal fluid to escape, and theoretically reducing the pressure surrounding the optic nerve. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the safety and efficacy of surgery compared with other treatment or no treatment in people with NAION. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2014), EMBASE (January 1980 to October 2014), PubMed (1948 to October 2014), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). There were no date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 23 October 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials of surgical treatment of NAION were eligible for inclusion in this review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: From full-text copies of all reports from relevant trials, one author extracted data which were verified by another author. No data synthesis was required. MAIN RESULTS: The one included trial, in which 258 participants were randomized, was stopped early for futility. At the time of the 24-month report the follow-up rate was 95.3% for six months and 67.4% for 24 months (174 participants; 89 careful follow-up and 85 surgery). There was no evidence of a benefit of surgery on visual acuity. Measurements of visual acuity and visual fields were performed by a technician masked to the treatment received. At six months 32.0% of the surgery group had improved visual acuity by 3 or more lines compared with 42.6% of the careful follow-up group (unadjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 1.04). At 24 months 29.4% of the surgery group had improved compared with 31.0% of the careful follow-up group (unadjusted RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.49). Participants who underwent surgery more often lost 3 or more lines of visual acuity in the study eye, although the increased risk was not statistically significant. At six months 18.9% in the surgery group had worsened visual acuity in the study eye compared with 14.8% in the careful follow-up group (RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.24). At 24 months 20.0% in the surgery group had worsened visual acuity in the study eye compared with 21.8% in the careful follow-up group (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.51 to 1.64). Participants who received surgery experienced both intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, including central retinal artery occlusion during surgery and light perception vision at six months (one participant); and immediate loss of light perception following surgery and loss of vision that persisted to the 12-month visit (two participants). In the careful follow-up group, two participants had no light perception at the six-month follow-up visit; one of these had improved to light perception at 12 months. Pain was the most common adverse event in the surgery group (17% in surgery group versus 3% in the careful follow-up group at one week). Diplopia (double vision) was the next most common complication (8% in the surgery group versus 1% in the careful follow-up group at one week); at three months there was no statistically significant difference in proportion of participants with diplopia between the two groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The only eligible trial provided no evidence of a beneficial effect of optic nerve decompression surgery for NAION. Future research should focus on increasing our understanding of the etiology and prognosis of NAION. New treatment options should be examined in the context of randomized clinical trials.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Systemic safety of bevacizumab versus ranibizumab for neovascular age-related macular degeneration.

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of legal blindness in elderly populations of industrialised countries. Bevacizumab (Avastin®) and ranibizumab (Lucentis®) are targeted biological drugs (a monoclonal antibody) that inhibit vascular endothelial growth factor, an angiogenic cytokine that promotes vascular leakage and growth, thereby preventing its pathological angiogenesis. Ranibizumab is approved for intravitreal use to treat neovascular AMD, while bevacizumab is approved for intravenous use as a cancer therapy. However, due to the biological similarity of the two drugs, bevacizumab is widely used off-label to treat neovascular AMD. OBJECTIVES: To assess the systemic safety of intravitreal bevacizumab (brand name Avastin®; Genentech/Roche) compared with intravitreal ranibizumab (brand name Lucentis®; Novartis/Genentech) in people with neovascular AMD. Primary outcomes were death and All serious systemic adverse events (All SSAEs), the latter as a composite outcome in accordance with the International Conference on Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice. Secondary outcomes examined specific SSAEs: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarctions, strokes, arteriothrombotic events, serious infections, and events grouped in some Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Classes (MedDRA SOC). We assessed the safety at the longest available follow-up to a maximum of two years. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other online databases up to 27 March 2014. We also searched abstracts and clinical study presentations at meetings, trial registries, and contacted authors of included studies when we had questions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing intravitreal bevacizumab (1.25 mg) and ranibizumab (0.5 mg) in people with neovascular AMD, regardless of publication status, drug dose, treatment regimen, or follow-up length, and whether the SSAEs of interest were reported in the trial report. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies and assessed the risk of bias for each study. Three authors independently extracted data.We conducted random-effects meta-analyses for the primary and secondary outcomes. We planned a pre-specified analysis to explore deaths and All SSAEs at the one-year follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included data from nine studies (3665 participants), including six published (2745 participants) and three unpublished (920 participants) RCTs, none supported by industry. Three studies excluded participants at high cardiovascular risk, increasing clinical heterogeneity among studies. The studies were well designed, and we did not downgrade the quality of the evidence for any of the outcomes due to risk of bias. Although the estimated effects of bevacizumab and ranibizumab on our outcomes were similar, we downgraded the quality of the evidence due to imprecision.At the maximum follow-up (one or two years), the estimated risk ratio (RR) of death with bevacizumab compared with ranibizumab was 1.10 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.57, P value = 0.59; eight studies, 3338 participants; moderate quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of death with ranibizumab of 3.4% and with bevacizumab of 3.7% (95% CI 2.7% to 5.3%).For All SSAEs, the estimated RR was 1.08 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.31, P value = 0.41; nine studies, 3665 participants; low quality evidence). Based on the event rates in the studies, this gives a risk of SSAEs of 22.2% with ranibizumab and with bevacizumab of 24% (95% CI 20% to 29.1%).For the secondary outcomes, we could not detect any difference between bevacizumab and ranibizumab, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders MedDRA SOC where there was a higher risk with bevacizumab (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.19, P value = 0.04; six studies, 3190 participants).Pre-specified analyses of deaths and All SSAEs at one-year follow-up did not substantially alter the findings of our review.Fixed-effect analysis for deaths did not substantially alter the findings of our review, but fixed-effect analysis of All SSAEs showed an increased risk for bevacizumab (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.26, P value = 0.04; nine studies, 3665 participants): the meta-analysis was dominated by a single study (weight = 46.9%).The available evidence was sensitive to the exclusion of CATT or unpublished results. For All SSAEs, the exclusion of CATT moved the overall estimate towards no difference (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.25, P value = 0.92), while the exclusion of LUCAS yielded a larger RR, with more SSAEs in the bevacizumab group, largely driven by CATT (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.34, P value = 0.004). The exclusion of all unpublished studies produced a RR of 1.12 for death (95% CI 0.78 to 1.62, P value = 0.53) and a RR of 1.21 for SSAEs (95% CI 1.06 to 1.37, P value = 0.004), indicating a higher risk of SSAEs in those assigned to bevacizumab than ranibizumab. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of non-industry sponsored RCTs could not determine a difference between intravitreal bevacizumab and ranibizumab for deaths, All SSAEs, or specific subsets of SSAEs in the first two years of treatment, with the exception of gastrointestinal disorders. The current evidence is imprecise and might vary across levels of patient risks, but overall suggests that if a difference exists, it is likely to be small. Health policies for the utilisation of ranibizumab instead of bevacizumab as a routine intervention for neovascular AMD for reasons of systemic safety are not sustained by evidence. The main results and quality of evidence should be verified once all trials are fully published.