Microwave coagulation for liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Liver metastases (i.e. secondary hepatic malignancies) are significantly more common than primary liver cancer. Long-term survival after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. For people in whom resection for cure is not feasible, other treatments must be considered. One treatment option is microwave coagulation utilising electromagnetic waves. It involves placing an electrode into a lesion under ultrasound or computed tomography guidance. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of microwave coagulation versus no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases regardless of the location of the primary tumour. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest date of search was 14 April 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial or harmful effects of microwave coagulation and its comparators in people with liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour. We included trials no matter the outcomes reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: all-cause mortality at the last follow-up and time to mortality; health-related quality of life (HRQoL); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were: cancer mortality; disease-free survival; failure to clear liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; time to progression of liver metastases; and tumour response measures. We used risk ratios (RR) and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to present the results. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. We used GRADE methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Three randomised clinical trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The control interventions differed in the three trials; therefore, meta-analyses were not possible. The trials were at high risk of bias. The certainty of evidence of the assessed outcomes in the three comparisons was very low. Data on our prespecified outcomes were either missing or not reported. Microwave coagulation plus conventional transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus conventional TACE alone One trial, conducted in China, randomised 50 participants (mean age 60 years, 76% males) with liver metastases from various primary sites. Authors reported that the follow-up period was at least one month. The trial reported adverse events or complications in the experimental group only and for tumour response measures. There were no dropouts in the trial. The trial did not report on any other outcomes. Microwave ablation versus conventional surgery One trial, conducted in Japan, randomised 40 participants (mean age 61 years, 53% males) with multiple liver metastases of colorectal cancer. Ten participants were excluded after randomisation (six from the experimental and four from the control group); thus, the trial analyses included 30 participants. Follow-up was three years. The reported number of deaths from all causes was 9/14 included participants in the microwave group versus 12/16 included participants in the conventional surgery group. The mean overall survival was 27 months in the microwave ablation and 25 months in the conventional surgery group. The three-year overall survival was 14% with microwave ablation and 23% with conventional surgery, resulting in an HR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.39 to 2.15). The reported frequency of adverse events or complications was comparable between the two groups, except for the required blood transfusion, which was more common in the conventional surgery group. There was no intervention-related mortality. Disease-free survival was 11.3 months in the microwave ablationgroup and 13.3 months in the conventional surgery group. The trial did not report on HRQoL. Microwave ablation versus radiofrequency ablation One trial, conducted in Germany, randomised 50 participants (mean age 62.8 years, 46% males) who were followed for 24 months. Two-year mortality showed an RR of 0.62 (95% CI 0.26 to 1.47). The trial reported that, by two years, 76.9% of participants in the microwave ablationgroup and 62.5% of participants in the radiofrequency ablation group survived (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.73). The trial reported no deaths or major complications during the procedures in either group. There were two minor complications only in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.67). The trial reported technical efficacy in 100% of procedures in both groups. Distant recurrence was reported for 10 participants in the microwave ablation group and nine participants in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.08). No participant in the microwave ablation group demonstrated local progression at 12 months, while that occurred in two participants in the radiofrequency ablation group (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.67). The trial did not report on HRQoL. One trial reported partial support by Medicor (MMS Medicor Medical Supplies GmbH, Kerpen, Germany) for statistical analysis. The remaining two trials did not provide information on funding. We identified four ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of microwave ablation in addition to conventional TACE compared with conventional TACE alone on adverse events or complications. We do not know if microwave ablation compared with conventional surgery may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality. We do not know the effect of microwave ablation compared with radiofrequency ablation on all-cause mortality and adverse events or complications either. Data on all-cause mortality and time to mortality, HRQoL, adverse events or complications, cancer mortality, disease-free survival, failure to clear liver metastases, recurrence of liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, and tumour response measures were either insufficient or were lacking. In light of the current inconclusive evidence and the substantial gaps in data, the pursuit of additional good-quality, large randomised clinical trials is not only justified but also essential to elucidate the efficacy and comparative benefits of microwave ablation in relation to various interventions for liver metastases. The current version of the review, in comparison to the previous one, incorporates two new trials in two additional microwave ablation comparisons: 1. in addition to conventional TACE versus conventional TACE alone and 2. versus radiofrequency ablation.

Transarterial (chemo)embolisation versus systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is affected by two groups of malignant tumours: primary liver cancers and liver metastases. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and five-year survival after radical surgical treatment of liver metastases ranges from 28% to 50%, depending on primary cancer site. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in most people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered in the case of non-resectability. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the peripheral branches of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents and can lead to selective necrosis of the cancer tissue while leaving normal liver parenchyma virtually unaffected. The entire procedure can be performed without infusion of chemotherapy and is then called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE). These procedures are usually applied over a few sessions. Another possible treatment option is systemic chemotherapy which, in the case of colorectal cancer metastases, is most commonly performed using FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan) regimens applied in multiple sessions over a long period of time. These therapies disrupt the cell cycle, leading to death of rapidly dividing malignant cells. Current guidelines determine the role of TAE and TACE as non-curative treatment options applicable in people with liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic disease that is unresectable or non-ablatable, and in people who have failed systemic chemotherapy. Regarding the treatment modalities in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases, we found no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial embolisation (TAE) or transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) compared with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver-dominant unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three additional databases up to 4 April 2024. We also searched two trials registers and the European Medicines Agency database and checked reference lists of retrieved publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in adults (aged 18 years or older) with colorectal cancer liver metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality; overall survival (time to mortality); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were cancer mortality; health-related quality of life; progression-free survival; proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease; time to progression of liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; and tumour response measures (complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease). For the purpose of the review and to perform necessary analyses, whenever possible, we converted survival rates to mortality rates, as this was our primary outcome. For the analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference; and for time to event outcomes, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the standardised mean difference with 95% CIs when the trials used different instruments. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We based our conclusions on outcomes analysed at the longest follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with 118 participants randomised to TACE versus 120 participants to systemic chemotherapy. Four participants were excluded; one due to disease progression prior to treatment and three due to decline in health. The trials reported data on one or more outcomes. Two trials were performed in China and one in Italy. The trials differed in terms of embolisation techniques and chemotherapeutic agents. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 50 months. TACE may reduce mortality at longest follow-up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. TACE may have little to no effect on overall survival (time to mortality) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; 1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), any adverse events or complications (3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), health-related quality of life (2 trials, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence), progression-free survival (1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.96; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. No trials reported cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases. We found no trials comparing the effects of TAE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding effectiveness of TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on three trials. Our confidence in the results is limited due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. It is very uncertain whether TACE confers benefits with regard to reduction in mortality, overall survival (time to mortality), reduction in adverse events or complications, improvement in health-related quality of life, improvement in progression-free survival, and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate). Data on cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases are lacking. We found no trials assessing TAE versus systemic chemotherapy. More randomised clinical trials are needed to strengthen the body of evidence and provide insight into the benefits and harms of TACE or TAE in comparison with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Similarities, reliability and gaps in assessing the quality of conduct of systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS: systematic survey of nutrition reviews.

BACKGROUND: AMSTAR-2 ('A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2') and ROBIS ('Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews') are independent instruments used to assess the quality of conduct of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs). The degree of overlap in methodological constructs together with the reliability and any methodological gaps have not been systematically assessed and summarized in the field of nutrition. METHODS: We performed a systematic survey of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for SR/MAs published between January 2010 and November 2018 that examined the effects of any nutritional intervention/exposure for cancer prevention. We followed a systematic review approach including two independent reviewers at each step of the process. For AMSTAR-2 (16 items) and ROBIS (21 items), we assessed the similarities, the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and any methodological limitations of the instruments. Our protocol for the survey was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019121116). RESULTS: We found 4 similar domain constructs based on 11 comparisons from a total of 12 AMSTAR-2 and 14 ROBIS items. Ten comparisons were considered fully overlapping. Based on Gwet's agreement coefficients, six comparisons provided almost perfect (> 0.8), three substantial (> 0.6), and one a moderate level of agreement (> 0.4). While there is considerable overlap in constructs, AMSTAR-2 uniquely addresses explaining the selection of study designs for inclusion, reporting on excluded studies with justification, sources of funding of primary studies, and reviewers' conflict of interest. By contrast, ROBIS uniquely addresses appropriateness and restrictions within eligibility criteria, reducing risk of error in risk of bias (RoB) assessments, completeness of data extracted for analyses, the inclusion of all necessary studies for analyses, and adherence to predefined analysis plan. CONCLUSIONS: Among the questions on AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS, 70.3% (26/37 items) address the same or similar methodological constructs. While the IRR of these constructs was moderate to perfect, there are unique methodological constructs that each instrument independently addresses. Notably, both instruments do not address the reporting of absolute estimates of effect or the overall certainty of the evidence, items that are crucial for users' wishing to interpret the importance of SR/MA results.

Electrocoagulation for liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma are two of the most common malignant tumours to affect the liver. The liver is second only to the lymph nodes as the most common site for metastatic disease. More than half of the people with metastatic liver disease will die from metastatic complications. Electrocoagulation by diathermy is a method used to destroy tumour tissue, using a high-frequency electric current generating high temperatures, applied locally with an electrode (needle, blade, or ball). The objective of this method is to destroy the tumour completely, if possible, in a single session. With the time, electrocoagulation by diathermy has been replaced by other techniques, but the evidence is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of electrocoagulation by diathermy, administered alone or with another intervention, versus no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, and FDA to October 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised trials that assessed beneficial and harmful effects of electrocoagulation by diathermy, administered alone or with another intervention, versus comparators, in people with liver metastases, regardless of the location of the primary tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias of the included trial using predefined risk of bias domains, and presented the review results incorporating the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included one randomised clinical trial with 306 participants (175 males; 131 females) who had undergone resection of the sigmoid colon, and who had five or more visible and palpable hepatic metastases. The diagnosis was confirmed by histological assessment (biopsy) and by carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level. The trial was conducted in Iraq. The age of participants ranged between 38 and 79 years. The participants were randomised to four different study groups. The liver metastases were biopsied and treated (only once) in three of the groups: 75 received electrocoagulation by diathermy alone, 76 received electrocoagulation plus allopurinol, 78 received electrocoagulation plus dimethyl sulphoxide. In the fourth intervention group, 77 participants functioning as controls received a vehicle solution of allopurinol 5 mL 4 x a day by mouth; the metastases were left untouched. The status of the liver and lungs was followed by ultrasound investigations, without the use of a contrast agent. Participants were followed for five years. The analyses are based on per-protocol data only analysing 223 participants. We judged the trial to be at high risk of bias. After excluding 'nonevaluable patients', the groups seemed comparable for baseline characteristics. Mortality due to disease spread at five-year follow-up was 98% in the electrocoagulation group (57/58 evaluable people); 87% in the electrocoagulation plus allopurinol group (46/53 evaluable people); 86% in the electrocoagulation plus dimethyl sulphoxide group (49/57 evaluable people); and 100% in the control group (55/55 evaluable people). We observed no difference in mortality between the electrocoagulation alone group versus the control group (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.03; 113 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We observed lower mortality in the electrocoagulation combined with allopurinol or dimethyl sulphoxide group versus the control group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 165 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain regarding post-operative deaths between the electrocoagulation alone group versus the control group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.12; 152 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and between the electrocoagulation combined with allopurinol or dimethyl sulphoxide groups versus the control group (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09 to 10.86; 231 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial authors did not report data on number of participants with other adverse events and complications, recurrence of liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, and health-related quality of life. Data on failure to clear liver metastases were not provided for the control group. There was no information on funding or conflict of interest. We identified no ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on the beneficial and harmful effects of electrocoagulation alone or in combination with allopurinol or dimethyl sulphoxide in people with liver metastases is insufficient, as it is based on one randomised clinical trial at low to very low certainty. It is very uncertain if there is a difference in all-cause mortality and post-operative mortality between electrocoagulation alone versus control. It is also uncertain if electrocoagulation in combination with allopurinol or dimethyl sulphoxide may result in a slight reduction of all-cause mortality in comparison with a vehicle solution of allopurinol (control). It is very uncertain if there is a difference in post-operative mortality between the electrocoagulation combined with allopurinol or dimethyl sulphoxide group versus control. Data on other adverse events and complications, failure to clear liver metastases or recurrence of liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, and health-related quality of life were most lacking or insufficiently reported for analysis. Electrocoagulation by diathermy is no longer used in the described way, and this may explain the lack of further trials.

Percutaneous ethanol injection for liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic primary cancers. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and the reported long-term survival rate after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients; therefore, other treatments have to be considered. One of these is percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), which causes dehydration and necrosis of tumour cells, accompanied by small-vessel thrombosis, leading to tumour ischaemia and destruction of the tumour. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 10 September 2019: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; Science Citation Index Expanded; Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched clinical trials registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (17 September 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of percutaneous ethanol injection and its comparators (no intervention, other ablation methods, systemic treatments) for liver metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures as outlined by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, study design, and trial methods. Two review authors performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the certainty of evidence by using GRADE. We resolved disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified only one randomised clinical trial comparing percutaneous intratumour ethanol injection (PEI) in addition to transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone. The trial was conducted in China and included 48 trial participants with liver metastases: 25 received PEI plus TACE, and 23 received TACE alone. The trial included 37 male and 11 female participants. Mean participant age was 49.3 years. Sites of primary tumours included colon (27 cases), stomach (12 cases), pancreas (3 cases), lung (3 cases), breast (2 cases), and ovary (1 case). Seven participants had a single tumour, 15 had two tumours, and 26 had three or more tumours in the liver. The bulk diameter of the tumour on average was 3.9 cm, ranging from 1.2 cm to 7.6 cm. Participants were followed for 10 months to 43 months. The trial reported survival data after one, two, and three years. In the PEI + TACE group, 92%, 80%, and 64% of participants survived after one year, two years, and three years; in the TACE alone group, these percentages were 78.3%, 65.2%, and 47.8%, respectively. Upon conversion of these data to mortality rates, the calculated risk ratio (RR) for mortality at last follow-up when PEI plus TACE was compared with TACE alone was 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.33; very low-certainty evidence) after three years of follow-up. Local recurrence was 16% in the PEI plus TACE group and 39.1% in the TACE group, resulting in an RR of 0.41 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.15; very low-certainty evidence). Forty-five out of a total of 68 tumours (66.2%) shrunk by at least 25% in the PEI plus TACE group versus 31 out of a total of 64 tumours (48.4%) in the TACE group. Trial authors reported some adverse events but provided very few details. We did not find data on time to mortality, failure to clear liver metastases, recurrence of liver metastases, health-related quality of life, or time to progression of liver metastases. The single included trial did not provide information on funding nor on conflict of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of PEI plus TACE versus TACE in people with liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on one small randomised clinical trial at high risk of bias. Currently, it cannot be determined whether adding PEI to TACE makes a difference in comparison to using TACE alone. Evidence for benefits or harms of PEI compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments is lacking.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both), and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence of APS is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiplatelet (AP) or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with APS. SEARCH METHODS: We last searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, and ongoing trials registers on 22 November 2019. We checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines. We also contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or AP agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS, according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently worked on each step of the review, following Cochrane methods. We summarized the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies including 811 participants that compared different AP or anticoagulant agents. NOAC (non-VKA oral anticoagulant: rivaroxaban 15 or 20 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (vitamin K antagonist: warfarin at moderate International Normalized Ratio [INR] - 2.5) or adjusted [INR 2.0-3.0] dose): In three studies there were no differences in any thromboembolic event (including death) and major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of stroke (risk ratio [RR] 14.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87 to 106.8; moderate-certainty evidence). One of the studies reported a small benefit of rivaroxaban in terms of quality of life at 180 days measured as health state on Visual Analogue Scale (mean difference [MD] 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-certainty evidence), but not measured as health utility on a scale from 0 to 1 (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10; low-certainty evidence). High-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 3.1 to 4.0 [mean 3.3] or 3.5 [mean 3.2]) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin with a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 [mean 2.3] or 2.5 [mean 2.5]): In two studies there were no differences in the rates of thrombotic events and major bleeding (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23, low-certainty evidence), but an increased risk of minor bleeding in one study during a mean of 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 1.2) of follow-up (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07). In both trials there was evidence of a higher risk of any bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-certainty evidence) in the high-dose VKA group, and for this outcome (any bleeding) the incidence is not different, only the time to event is showing an effect. Standard-dose VKA plus a single AP agent (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 plus aspirin 100 mg/d) versus standard-dose VKA (warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0): One high-risk-of-bias study showed an increased risk of any thromboembolic event with combined treatment (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.43; low-certainty evidence) and reported on major bleeding with five cases in the combined treatment group and one case in the standard-dose VKA treatment group, resulting in RR 7.42 (95% CI 0.91 to 60.7; low-certainty evidence) and no differences for secondary outcomes (very low- to low-certainty evidence). Single/dual AP agent and standard-dose VKA (pooled results): Two high-risk-of-bias studies compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin or unspecified VKA at a target INR of 2.0 to 3.0 or 2.0 to 2.5) with a single AP agent (aspirin 100 mg/d), but did not provide any conclusive evidence regarding the effects of those drugs in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence). One of the above-mentioned studies was a three-armed study that compared a combination of AP and VKA (aspirin 100 mg/d plus warfarin at a target INR of 2.0 to 2.5) with dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) and dual AP therapy (aspirin 100 mg/d plus cilostazol 200 mg/d) versus a single AP treatment (aspirin 100 mg/d). This study reported on stroke (very low-certainty evidence) but did not report on any thromboembolic events, major bleeding, or any secondary outcomes. We identified two ongoing studies and three studies are awaiting classification. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence identified indicates that NOACs compared with standard-dose VKAs may increase the risk of stroke and do not appear to alter the risk of other outcomes (moderate-certainty evidence). Using high-dose VKA versus standard-dose VKA did not alter the risk of any thromboembolic event or major bleeding but may increase the risk of any form of bleeding (low-certainty evidence). Standard-dose VKA combined with an AP agent compared with standard-dose VKA alone may increase the risk of any thromboembolic event and does not appear to alter the risk of major bleeding or other outcomes (low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the benefit or harm of using standard-dose VKA plus AP agents versus single or dual AP therapy, or dual versus single AP therapy, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis in people with APS (very low-certainty evidence).

Transarterial (chemo)embolisation versus no intervention or placebo for liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma or other extrahepatic primary cancers. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and long-term survival rate after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents, and can lead to selective necrosis of the liver tumour while it may leave normal parenchyma virtually unaffected. This can also be performed without chemotherapy, which is called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo in people with liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and four more databases (December 2019). We also searched two trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration database (September 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo for liver metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, study design, and trial methods. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We resolved disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: We included one randomised clinical trial with 61 participants (43 male and 18 female) with colorectal cancer with liver metastases: 22 received transarterial embolisation (TAE; hepatic artery embolisation), 19 received transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE; 5-fluorouracil hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy with degradable microspheres), and 20 received 'no active therapeutic intervention' as a control. Most tumours were synchronous, unresectable metastases involving up to 75% of the liver. Participants were followed for a minimum of seven months. The trial was at high risk of bias. Very-low-certainty evidence found inconclusive results for mortality at 44 months between the TAE and TACE versus no intervention groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.06; 61 participants). Local recurrence was reported in 10 participants without any details about the group allocation. Very-low-certainty evidence found little or no difference in mortality between the TAE and no intervention groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 42 participants). Median survival was 7 months from trial entry (range 2 to 44 months) in the TAE group and 7.9 months (range 1 to 26 months) in the control group, and 8.7 months after diagnosis (range 2 to 49 months) in the TAE group and 9.6 months (range 1 to 27 months) in the control group. The trial authors reported the differences were not statistically significant. There were no reported side effects in the control group. In the TAE group, 18 participants experienced short-term symptoms of 'post-embolisation syndrome', which were relieved with symptomatic treatment; one participant also had a local puncture site haematoma. Very-low-certainty evidence found little or no difference in mortality between the TACE and no intervention groups (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; 39 participants). Median survival in the TACE group was 10.7 months (range 3 to 38 months) from trial entry, and 13.0 months (range 3 to 38 months) after diagnosis. The trial authors reported that differences between groups were not statistically significant. All participants experienced short-term nausea, with or without vomiting, immediately after treatment; one participant developed a wound infection, and one developed deep vein thrombosis. The trial did not measure failure to clear liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, or health-related quality of life. Cancer Research Campaign, a non-profit organisation, provided a grant for the trial; Pharmacia Ltd. delivered the Port-a-Cath arterial delivery systems and degradable starch microspheres. We identified one ongoing trial comparing TACE plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in people with unresectable colorectal liver metastases who failed with first-line chemotherapy (NCT03783559). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on one, small randomised trial at high risk of bias, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of TAE or TACE versus no active therapeutic intervention on mortality for people with liver metastases as the true effect may be substantially different. The trial did not measure failure to clear liver metastases, time to progression of liver metastases, tumour response measures, or health-related quality of life. Short-term, minor adverse events were recorded in the intervention groups only. Large trials, following current standards of conduct and reporting, are required to explore the benefits and harms of TAE or TACE compared with no intervention or placebo in people with resectable and unresectable liver metastasis.

Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies.

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Studying dietary patterns may provide insights into the potential effects of red and processed meat on health outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of dietary patterns, including different amounts of red or processed meat, on all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, and cancer incidence and mortality. Data Sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to April 2019 with no restrictions on year or language. Study Selection: Teams of 2 reviewers independently screened search results and included prospective cohort studies with 1000 or more participants that reported on the association between dietary patterns and health outcomes. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Data Synthesis: Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400 000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300 000 patients. Limitation: Observational studies are prone to residual confounding, and these studies provide low- or very-low-certainty evidence according to the GRADE criteria. Conclusion: Low- or very-low-certainty evidence suggests that dietary patterns with less red and processed meat intake may result in very small reductions in adverse cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

Cryotherapy for liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is affected by two of the most common groups of malignant tumours: primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer and long-term survival rates reported for patients after radical surgical treatment is approximately 50%. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in the majority of patients. Cryotherapy is performed with the use of an image-guided cryoprobe which delivers liquid nitrogen or argon gas to the tumour tissue. The subsequent process of freezing is associated with formation of ice crystals, which directly damage exposed tissue, including cancer cells. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, other ablation methods, or systemic treatments in people with liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, and six other databases up to June 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of cryotherapy and its comparators for liver metastases, irrespective of the location of the primary tumour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We extracted information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes important for our review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the trials. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias in each study. One review author performed data extraction and a second review author checked entries. MAIN RESULTS: We found no randomised clinical trials comparing cryotherapy versus no intervention or versus systemic treatments; however, we identified one randomised clinical trial comparing cryotherapy with conventional surgery. The trial was conducted in Ukraine. The trial included 123 participants with solitary, or multiple unilobar or bilobar liver metastases; 63 participants received cryotherapy and 60 received conventional surgery. There were 36 women and 87 men. The primary sites for the metastases were colon and rectum (66.6%), stomach (7.3%), breast (6.5%), skin (4.9%), ovaries (4.1%), uterus (3.3%), kidney (3.3%), intestines (1.6%), pancreas (1.6%), and unknown (0.8%). The trial was not reported sufficiently enough to assess the risk of bias of the randomisation process, allocation concealment, or presence of blinding. It was also not possible to assess incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting bias. The certainty of evidence was low because of risk of bias and imprecision.The participants were followed for up to 10 years (minimum five months). The trial reported that the mortality at 10 years was 81% (51/63) in the cryotherapy group and 92% (55/60) in the conventional surgery group. The calculated by us relative risk (RR) with 95% Confidence Interval (CI) was: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.02. We judged the evidence as low-certainty evidence. Regarding adverse events and complications, separately and in total, our calculation showed no evidence of a difference in recurrence of the malignancy in the liver: 86% (54/63) of the participants in the cryotherapy group and 95% (57/60) of the participants in the conventional surgery group developed a new malignancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.01; low-certainty evidence). The frequency of reported complications was similar between the cryotherapy group and the conventional surgery group, except for postoperative pain. Both insignificant and pronounced pain were reported to be more common in the cryotherapy group while intense pain was reported to be more common in the conventional surgery group. However, the authors did not report whether there was any evidence of a difference. There were no intervention-related mortality or bile leakages.We identified no evidence for health-related quality of life, cancer mortality, or time to progression of liver metastases. The study reported tumour response in terms of the carcinoembryonic antigen level in 69% of participants, and reported results in the form of a graph for 30% of participants. The carcinoembryonic antigen level was lower in the cryotherapy group, and decreased to normal values faster in comparison with the control group (P < 0.05). FUNDING: the trial did not provide information on funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for the effectiveness of cryotherapy versus conventional surgery in people with liver metastases is of low certainty. We are uncertain about our estimate and cannot determine whether cryotherapy compared with conventional surgery is beneficial or harmful. We found no evidence for the benefits or harms of cryotherapy compared with no intervention, or versus systemic treatments.

Perioperative restrictive versus goal-directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One concept in perioperative fluid handling is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), wherein fluid administration targets various continuously measured haemodynamic variables with the aim of optimizing oxygen delivery. Another recently raised concept is that perioperative restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) may be beneficial and at least as effective as GDFT, with lower cost and less resource utilization. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether RFT may be more beneficial than GDFT for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases on 11 October 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Libary; MEDLINE; and Embase. Additionally, we performed a targeted search in Google Scholar and searched trial registries (World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov) for ongoing and unpublished trials. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews identified. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative RFT versus GDFT for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and consulted a third review author if necessary. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with standard deviations (SDs). We used Review Manager 5 software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. We used Poisson regression models to compare the average number of complications per person. MAIN RESULTS: From 6396 citations, we included six studies with a total of 562 participants. Five studies were performed in participants undergoing abdominal surgery (including one study in participants undergoing cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)), and one study was performed in participants undergoing orthopaedic surgery. In all studies, surgeries were elective. In five studies, crystalloids were used for basal infusion and colloids for boluses, and in one study, colloid was used for both basal infusion and boluses. Five studies reported the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of participants. Most participants were ASA II (60.4%), 22.7% were ASA I, and only 16.9% were ASA III. No study participants were ASA IV. For the GDFT group, oesophageal doppler monitoring was used in three studies, uncalibrated invasive arterial pressure analysis systems in two studies, and a non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring system in one study. In all studies, GDFT optimization was conducted only intraoperatively. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. The other five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in one to three domains. RFT may have no effect on the rate of major complications compared to GDFT, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.34; 484 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). RFT may increase the risk of all-cause mortality compared to GDFT, but the evidence on this is also very uncertain (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). In a post-hoc analysis using a Peto odds ratio (OR) or a Poisson regression model, the odds of all-cause mortality were 4.81 times greater with the use of RFT compared to GDFT, but the evidence again is very uncertain (Peto OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 16.84; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis shows that exclusion of a study in which the final volume of fluid received intraoperatively was higher in the RFT group than in the GDFT group revealed no differences in mortality. Based on analysis of secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay (464 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), surgery-related complications (364 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), non-surgery-related complications (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), renal failure (410 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and quality of surgical recovery (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), GDFT may have no effect on the risk of these outcomes compared to RFT, but the evidence is very uncertain. Included studies provided no data on administration of vasopressors or inotropes to correct haemodynamic instability nor on cost of treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether RFT is inferior to GDFT in selected populations of adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The evidence is based mainly on data from studies on abdominal surgery in a low-risk population. The evidence does not address higher-risk populations or other surgery types. Larger, higher-quality RCTs including a wider spectrum of surgery types and a wider spectrum of patient groups, including high-risk populations, are needed to determine effects of the intervention.

Satisfaction of physicians working in hospitals within the European Union: state of the evidence based on systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the wide range of studies concerning physician satisfaction in different European countries, there is a lack of literature reviews synthesizing and analyzing current evidence evaluating satisfaction of physicians working in European hospitals. The goal of our research was to provide a general overview of the studies in this area and their results. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to January 2017 including both MESH/Emtree terms and free text words related to the subject with no language restrictions. The eligibility criteria included: (i) target population: physicians working in European hospitals, (ii) quantitative research aimed at assessing physician satisfaction and (iii) validated tools. We performed a narrative synthesis and meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8585 abstracts and 368 full text articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers against inclusion/exclusion criteria. Finally 61 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis. Included studies enrolled a total of 50 001 physicians from 17 countries. Sample sizes varied between 54 and 7090 participants (median: 336). According to our review ∼59% of physicians working in European hospitals are overall satisfied, 3.54 was the mean satisfaction among studies reporting data on a scale from 1 to 5, 4.81 for studies with a scale from 1 to 7, 6.12 among studies reporting data on a scale from 1 to 10, and 59.65 among studies with a scale from 0 to 100. CONCLUSIONS: The level of physician satisfaction in Europe is moderate. There is a large variety of tools and scales used to assess it.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in people with antiphospholipid syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by arterial or venous thrombosis (or both) and/or pregnancy morbidity in association with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. The prevalence is estimated at 40 to 50 cases per 100,000 people. The most common sites of thrombosis are cerebral arteries and deep veins of the lower limbs. People with a definite APS diagnosis have an increased lifetime risk of recurrent thrombotic events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or both, for the secondary prevention of recurrent thrombosis, particularly ischemic stroke, in people with antiphospholipid syndrome. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (February 2017), CENTRAL (last search February 2017), MEDLINE (from 1948 to February 2017), Embase (from 1980 to February 2017), and several ongoing trials registers. We also checked the reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anticoagulant or antiplatelet agent, or both, in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people diagnosed with APS according to the criteria valid when the study took place. We did not include studies specifically addressing women with obstetrical APS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies. We resolved any discrepancies through discussion or by consulting a third review author and, in addition, one review author checked all the extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 419 randomized participants with APS. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. One study was at low risk of bias in all domains for objective outcomes but not for quality of life (measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire). We judged the other three studies to be at unclear or high risk of bias in three or more domains.The duration of intervention ranged from 180 days to a mean of 3.9 years. One study compared rivaroxaban (a novel oral anticoagulant: NOAC) with standard warfarin treatment and reported no thrombotic or major bleeding events, but it was not powered to detect such differences (low-quality evidence). Investigators reported similar rates of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 8.33; moderate-quality evidence) and minor bleeding (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.83) for participants receiving rivaroxaban and the standard vitamin K antagonists (VKA). This study also reported some small benefit with rivaroxaban over the standard VKA treatment in terms of quality of life health state measured at 180 days with the EQ-5D-5L 100 mm visual analogue scale (mean difference (MD) 7 mm, 95% CI 2.01 to 11.99; low-quality evidence) but not measured as health utility (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10 [on a scale from 0 to 1]).Two studies compared high dose VKA (warfarin) with moderate/standard intensity VKA and found no differences in the rates of any thrombotic events (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 6.23) or major bleeding (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.25) between the groups (low-quality evidence). Minor bleeding analyzed using the RR and any bleeding using the hazard ratio (HR) were more frequent in participants receiving high-intensity warfarin treatment compared to the standard-intensity therapy (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.07 to 6.07; and HR 2.03, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.68; low-quality evidence).In one study, it was not possible to estimate the RR for stroke with a combination of VKA plus antiplatelet agent compared to a single antiplatelet agent, while for major bleeding, a single event occurred in the single antiplatelet agent group. In one study, comparing combined VKA plus antiplatelet agent with dual antiplatelet therapy, the RR of the risk of stroke over three years of observation was 5.00 (95% CI 0.26 to 98.0). In a single small study, the RR for stroke during one year of observation with a dual antiplatelet therapy compared to single antiplatelet drug was 0.14 (95% CI 0.01 to 2.60). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence for or against NOACs or for high-intensity VKA compared to the standard VKA therapy in the secondary prevention of thrombosis in people with APS. There is some evidence of harm for high-intensity VKA regarding minor and any bleeding. The evidence was also not sufficient to show benefit or harm for VKA plus antiplatelet agent or dual antiplatelet therapy compared to a single antiplatelet drug. Future studies should be adequately powered, with proper adherence to treatment, in order to evaluate the effects of anticoagulants, antiplatelets, or both, for secondary thrombosis prevention in APS. We have identified five ongoing trials mainly using NOACs in APS, so increasing experimental efforts are likely to yield additional evidence of clinical relevance in the near future.

Are probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics beneficial in primary thyroid diseases? A systematic review with meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: A number of studies indicate the presence of a thyroid-gut axis and the important influence of the gut microbiota on thyroid function. As prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics show therapeutic potential in the treatment of intestinal dysbiosis, the aim of this review is to evaluate the efficacy of their supplementation in primary thyroid diseases. REVIEW METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL), registers of clinical trials, and grey literature up to 6 October 2022 were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021235054). BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE: After screening 1,721 references, two RCTs were identified, which included 136 hypothyroid participants in total. Meta-analysis of the results after eight weeks of supplementation with predominantly Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains indicated a clinically and statistically nonsignificant decrease in TSH (MD -0.19 mIU/L; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.06; I2= 0%), and no effect on fT3 levels (MD 0.01 pg/mL; 95% CI-0.16 to 0.18; I2= 0%). Data from single studies indicated no significant change in the levels of fT4, thyroid auto-antibodies, BMI, levothyroxine doses, and severity of symptoms measured with validated scales. Only constipation scores showed significant improvement (MD -8.71 points in the Faecal Incontinence Questionnaire; 95% CI -15.85 to -1.57; I2= 0%). SUMMARY: Low-certainty evidence from two randomised trials, suggests that routine administration of probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics may result in little to no benefit in patients with primary hypothyroidism.

Saturated fat and human health: a protocol for a methodologically innovative systematic review and meta-analysis to inform public health nutrition guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The health effects of dietary fats are a controversial issue on which experts and authoritative organizations have often disagreed. Care providers, guideline developers, policy-makers, and researchers use systematic reviews to advise patients and members of the public on optimal dietary habits, and to formulate public health recommendations and policies. Existing reviews, however, have serious limitations that impede optimal dietary fat recommendations, such as a lack of focus on outcomes important to people, substantial risk of bias (RoB) issues, ignoring absolute estimates of effects together with comprehensive assessments of the certainty of the estimates for all outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We therefore propose a methodologically innovative systematic review using direct and indirect evidence on diet and food-based fats (i.e., reduction or replacement of saturated fat with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fat, or carbohydrates or protein) and the risk of important health outcomes. METHODS: We will collaborate with an experienced research librarian to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing saturated fat and our health outcomes of interest. In duplicate, we will screen, extract results from primary studies, assess their RoB, conduct de novo meta-analyses and/or network meta-analysis, assess the impact of missing outcome data on meta-analyses, present absolute effect estimates, and assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE contextualized approach. Our work will inform recommendations on saturated fat based on international standards for reporting systematic reviews and guidelines. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis will provide the most comprehensive and rigorous summary of the evidence addressing the relationship between saturated fat modification for people-important health outcomes. The evidence from this review will be used to inform public health nutrition guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration: CRD42023387377 .

Are systematic reviews addressing nutrition for cancer prevention trustworthy? A systematic survey of quality and risk of bias.

CONTEXT: The last 30 years have yielded a vast number of systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses addressing the link between nutrition and cancer risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this survey was to assess overall quality and potential for risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) that examined the role of nutrition in cancer prevention. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched (last search performed November 2018). STUDY SELECTION: Studies identified as SRMAs that investigated a nutritional or dietary intervention or exposure for cancer prevention in the general population or in people at risk of cancer and in which primary studies had a comparison group were eligible for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION: Altogether, 101 studies were randomly selected for analysis. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools, respectively. RESULTS: Most SRMAs included observational studies. Less than 10% of SRMAs reported a study protocol, and only 51% of SRMAs assessed the risk of bias in primary studies. Most studies conducted subgroup analyses, but only a few reported tests of interaction or specified subgroups of interest a priori. Overall, according to AMSTAR-2, only 1% of SRMAs were of high quality, while 97% were of critically low quality. Only 3% had a low risk of bias, according to ROBIS. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic survey revealed substantial limitations with respect to quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. SRMAs examining nutrition and cancer prevention cannot be considered trustworthy, and results should be interpreted with caution. Peer reviewers as well as users of SRMAs should be advised to use the AMSTAR-2 and/or ROBIS instruments to help to determine the overall quality and risk of bias of SRMAs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019121116.

Predictors of Higher Quality of Systematic Reviews Addressing Nutrition and Cancer Prevention.

Systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are considered a reliable source of information in healthcare. We aimed to explore the association of several characteristics of SR/MAs addressing nutrition in cancer prevention and their quality/risk of bias (using assessments from AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS tools). The analysis included 101 SR/MAs identified in a systematic survey. Associations of each specified characteristic (e.g., information about the protocol, publication year, reported use of GRADE, or other methods for assessing overall certainty of evidence) with the number of AMSTAR-2 not met ('No' responses) and the number of ROBIS items met ('Probably Yes' or "Yes' responses) were examined. Poisson regression was used to identify predictors of the number of 'No' answers (indicating lower quality) for all AMSTAR-2 items and the number of 'Yes' or 'Probably Yes' answers (indicating higher quality/lower concern for bias) for all ROBIS items. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with at least one domain assessed as 'low concern for bias' in the ROBIS tool. In multivariable analysis, SR/MAs not reporting use of any quality/risk of bias assessment instrument for primary studies were associated with a higher number of 'No' answers for all AMSTAR-2 items (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.45), and a lower number of 'Yes' or 'Probably Yes' answers for all ROBIS items (IRR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.87). Providing information about the protocol and search for unpublished studies was associated with a lower number of 'No' answers (IRR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.97 and IRR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59-0.95, respectively) and a higher number of 'Yes' or 'Probably Yes' answers (IRR 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.74 and IRR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07-1.52, respectively). Not using at least one quality/risk of bias assessment tool for primary studies within an SR/MA was associated with lower odds that a study would be assessed as 'low concern for bias' in at least one ROBIS domain (odds ratio 0.061, 95% CI 0.007-0.527). Adherence to methodological standards in the development of SR/MAs was associated with a higher overall quality of SR/MAs addressing nutrition for cancer prevention.

Evidence to decision frameworks enabled structured and explicit development of healthcare recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify and describe the processes suggested for the formulation of healthcare recommendations in healthcare guidelines available in guidance documents. METHODS: We searched international databases in May 2020 to retrieve guidance documents published by organizations dedicated to guideline development. Pairs of researchers independently selected and extracted data about the characteristics of the guidance document, including explicit or implicit recommendation-related criteria and processes considered, as well as the use of evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks. RESULTS: We included 68 guidance documents. Most organizations reported a system for grading the strength of recommendations (88%), half of them being the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two out of three guidance documents (66%) proposed the use of a framework to guide the EtD process. The GRADE-EtD framework was the most often reported framework (19 organizations, 42%), whereas 20 organizations (44%) proposed their own multicriteria frameworks. Using any EtD framework was related with a more comprehensive set of recommendation-related criteria compared to no framework, especially for criteria like values, equity, and acceptability. CONCLUSION: Although limited, the use of EtD frameworks was associated with the inclusion of relevant recommendation criteria. Among the EtD structured frameworks, the GRADE-EtD framework offers the most comprehensive perspective for evidence-informed decision-making processes.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in the field of bariatrics: A cross-sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS.

High-quality systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are considered to be reliable sources of information. This study aims to assess the quality of studies published as SR or MA in the field of bariatrics in 2016 and 2017. We identified SR and MA in the field of bariatrics by searching electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Eligible studies were those identified as SR/MA in the title/abstract, which aimed to assess any outcome in patients with morbid obesity undergoing or scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Two authors independently reviewed all titles and abstracts, assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies, and assessed the quality of included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. We evaluated the quality and risk of bias of each SR/MA using AMSTAR 2 checklist and ROBIS tool, respectively. Seventy-eight of 4236 references met inclusion criteria and were assessed for their quality/risk of bias. The methodological quality of 99% of all papers was classified as "critically low." A total of 6% of the studies were at low risk of bias, and 78% were assessed as being at high risk of bias. The methodological quality of studies published in 2016 and 2017 as SR/MA is highly unsatisfactory.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative behavioral lifestyle and nutritional interventions in bariatric surgery: a call for better research and reporting.

Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective treatment for people with morbid obesity, and certain interventions could enhance its long-term results. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and trial registers up to January 1, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, where behavioral lifestyle or nutritional interventions were provided perioperatively were included. Primary outcome was weight change. Two reviewers independently performed each stage of the review. Altogether 6652 references were screened. 31 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 22 studies for quantitative synthesis. Interventions varied greatly, thus limiting possibility of synthesizing all results. Six groups of interventions were discerned, and we used standardized mean differences for synthesis. Low to very-low certainty evidence suggests that physical activity, nonvitamin nutritional interventions, vitamins, psychotherapy, and counseling but not combined interventions might bring some benefit regarding short-term postsurgery follow-ups (up to 12 mo), but the estimates varied and results were not statistically significant, except for 12 months follow-ups regarding counseling. Psychotherapy and counseling, but not vitamins and combined interventions, may provide some benefit at longer follow-ups (over 12 mo), but the certainty of evidence was low to very-low and statistically significant results were observed in comparisons including data from single studies with small sample sizes only. Included studies expressed an outcome "weight change" using 20 different measures. Misreporting of data and huge variety of outcomes do not benefit systematic analyses and may possibly lead to confusion of both researchers and readers. We suggest that authors follow a predefined set of outcomes when reporting the results of their studies. The initiative to produce "core outcome set" for clinical trials in bariatric surgery trials is currently underway.

Efficacy of probiotics in patients with morbid obesity undergoing bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bariatric surgery is considered effective for morbid obesity, and probiotic supplementation might provide some benefits. We aimed to revise the evidence regarding probiotic supplementation in patients with morbid obesity undergoing bariatric surgery. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and trial registers were searched up to April 1, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, and outcomes of interest were weight change, quality of life, gastrointestinal symptoms, and adverse events. All stages of the review were done by 2 authors independently and we followed Cochrane Handbook guidance. We screened 2541 references and included 5 studies. Probiotics may have minor to no effect regarding percentage excess weight loss (%EWL) at 6 weeks (mean difference [MD], .28; 95% CI, -9.53 to 10.09; 44 participants, 2 studies), 3 months (MD, 5.47; 95% CI, -3.22 to 14.17; 165 participants, 3 studies), 6 months (MD, .46; 95% CI, -8.14 to 9.07; 115 participants, 2 studies), and 12 months post surgery (MD, .35; 95% CI, -8.66 to 9.37; 123 participants, 2 studies). We observed short-term improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms. There was no important effect on quality of life and no meaningful adverse events. Because probiotic supplementation might provide some benefit with respect to weight loss, might alleviate some gastrointestinal symptoms, and is associated with minor or no adverse events, continuous supplementation might be worth considering in certain individuals. Our findings are based on the body of evidence of very low certainty, and further well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to elucidate the effect and strengthen the certainty in the estimates.