An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are time-consuming and labor-intensive to perform. With the growing number of scientific publications, the SR development process becomes even more laborious. This is problematic because timely SR evidence is essential for decision-making in evidence-based healthcare and policymaking. Numerous methods and tools that accelerate SR development have recently emerged. To date, no scoping review has been conducted to provide a comprehensive summary of methods and ready-to-use tools to improve efficiency in SR production. OBJECTIVE: To present an overview of primary studies that evaluated the use of ready-to-use applications of tools or review methods to improve efficiency in the review process. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist performed a systematic literature search in four databases, supplemented with citation-based and grey literature searching. We included studies reporting the performance of methods and ready-to-use tools for improving efficiency when producing or updating a SR in the health field. We performed dual, independent title and abstract screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. The results were analyzed descriptively and presented narratively. RESULTS: We included 103 studies: 51 studies reported on methods, 54 studies on tools, and 2 studies reported on both methods and tools to make SR production more efficient. A total of 72 studies evaluated the validity (n = 69) or usability (n = 3) of one method (n = 33) or tool (n = 39), and 31 studies performed comparative analyses of different methods (n = 15) or tools (n = 16). 20 studies conducted prospective evaluations in real-time workflows. Most studies evaluated methods or tools that aimed at screening titles and abstracts (n = 42) and literature searching (n = 24), while for other steps of the SR process, only a few studies were found. Regarding the outcomes included, most studies reported on validity outcomes (n = 84), while outcomes such as impact on results (n = 23), time-saving (n = 24), usability (n = 13), and cost-saving (n = 3) were less often evaluated. CONCLUSION: For title and abstract screening and literature searching, various evaluated methods and tools are available that aim at improving the efficiency of SR production. However, only few studies have addressed the influence of these methods and tools in real-world workflows. Few studies exist that evaluate methods or tools supporting the remaining tasks. Additionally, while validity outcomes are frequently reported, there is a lack of evaluation regarding other outcomes.

Icodextrin Versus Glucose Solutions for the Once-Daily Long Dwell in Peritoneal Dialysis: An Enriched Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of icodextrin versus glucose-only peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimens is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare once-daily long-dwell icodextrin versus glucose among patients with kidney failure undergoing PD. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enriched with unpublished data from investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored studies. SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS: Individuals with kidney failure receiving regular PD treatment enrolled in clinical trials of dialysate composition. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Ichushi Web, 10 Chinese databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and citation lists from inception to November 2018. Further data were obtained from principal investigators and industry clinical study reports. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data using a prespecified extraction instrument. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Qualitative synthesis of demographics, measurement scales, and outcomes. Quantitative synthesis with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), Peto odds ratios (ORs), or (standardized) mean differences (MDs). Risk of bias of included studies at the outcome level was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs. RESULTS: 19 RCTs that enrolled 1,693 participants were meta-analyzed. Ultrafiltration was improved with icodextrin (medium-term MD, 208.92 [95% CI, 99.69-318.14] mL/24h; high certainty of evidence), reflected also by fewer episodes of fluid overload (RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.78]; high certainty). Icodextrin-containing PD probably decreased mortality risk compared to glucose-only PD (Peto OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24-1.00]; moderate certainty). Despite evidence of lower peritoneal glucose absorption with icodextrin-containing PD (medium-term MD, -40.84 [95% CI, -48.09 to-33.59] g/long dwell; high certainty), this did not directly translate to changes in fasting plasma glucose (-0.50 [95% CI, -1.19 to 0.18] mmol/L; low certainty) and hemoglobin A1c levels (-0.14% [95% CI, -0.34% to 0.05%]; high certainty). Safety outcomes and residual kidney function were similar in both groups; health-related quality-of-life and pain scores were inconclusive. LIMITATIONS: Trial quality was variable. The follow-up period was heterogeneous, with a paucity of assessments over the long term. Mortality results are based on just 32 events and were not corroborated using time-to-event analysis of individual patient data. CONCLUSIONS: Icodextrin for once-daily long-dwell PD has clinical benefit for some patients, including those not meeting ultrafiltration targets and at risk for fluid overload. Future research into patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness associated with icodextrin is needed.

Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study.

BACKGROUND: When conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews. METHODS: A set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. RESULTS: Inclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0-90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2-94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0-99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5-98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1-99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC. CONCLUSIONS: MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.

Thoracoabdominal versus transhiatal surgical approaches for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the oncological and perioperative outcomes of transhiatally extended gastrectomy (TEG) and thoracoabdominal esophagectomy (TAE) for therapy of adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) with focus on AEG type II, as the optimal approach for these tumors is still unclear. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) were searched until July 24, 2018. Studies comparing TAE and TEG for surgical treatment of AEG type tumors have been included. Patient's baseline and perioperative data have been extracted and meta-analyses have been conducted for the outcomes: number of dissected lymph nodes, R0-resection rate, anastomotic leak rate, postoperative morbidity, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 6709 articles identified, 8 studies have been included for further analysis. One thousand thirty-four patients underwent TAE, and 1177 patients TEG. No differences were found between the approaches in regard to number of dissected lymph nodes (MD - 0.96; 95% CI - 3.07 to 1.15; p = 0.37), R0-resection rates (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.63; p = 0.90), anastomotic leak rates (OR 1.13; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.86; p = 0.63), and 30-day mortality (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.90 to 2.61; p = 0.11). However, a higher rate of postoperative morbidity was found after TAE (OR 1.55; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.14; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal approach to surgical therapy of AEG II still remains unclear. This study identified a significantly higher rate of postoperative morbidity after TAE at comparable surgical outcomes. Due to major limitations concerning the quality of included studies, current data strongly mandates a properly designed randomized controlled trial to identify the optimal surgical approach for AEG type II tumors.

Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to determine empirically which electronic databases contribute best to a literature search in surgical systematic reviews. METHODS: For ten published systematic reviews, the systematic literature searches were repeated in the databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and EMBASE. On the basis of these reviews, a gold standard set of eligible articles was created. Recall (%), precision (%), unique contribution (%), and numbers needed to read (NNR) were calculated for each database, as well as for searches of citing references and of the reference lists of related systematic reviews (hand search). RESULTS: CENTRAL yielded the highest recall (88.4%) and precision (8.3%) for randomized controlled trials (RCT), MEDLINE for non-randomized studies (NRS; recall 92.6%, precision 5.2%). The most effective combination of two databases plus hand searching for RCT was MEDLINE/CENTRAL (98.6% recall, NNR 97). Adding EMBASE marginally increased the recall to 99.3%, but with an NNR of 152. For NRS, the most effective combination was MEDLINE/Web of Science (99.5% recall, NNR 60). CONCLUSIONS: For surgical systematic reviews, the optimal literature search for RCT employs MEDLINE and CENTRAL. For surgical systematic reviews of NRS, Web of Science instead of CENTRAL should be searched. EMBASE does not contribute substantially to reviews with a surgical intervention.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of postcarotid endarterectomy hypertension after eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Blood pressure (BP) instability after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a risk factor for cerebrovascular and cardiovascular complications. The role of the operative technique in the development of post-CEA hemodynamic instability is unclear. The primary goal of this study was to systematically review the literature to determine whether hypertension in the early postoperative period is dependent on the surgical technique used. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science through June 2016 without restrictions to language or starting date. The interventions of interest were eversion CEA (E-CEA) compared with conventional CEA (C-CEA) with or without patch plasty. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of postoperative need for vasodilator therapy because of hypertension in the early postoperative period, the duration of which was predefined in the individual studies. Secondary outcomes were the intergroup mean difference of the mean within-group changes of postoperative (24 hours) to baseline systolic BP, the incidence of hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, and the rate of complications. The odds ratio (OR) of each binary outcome was pooled across studies with its 95% confidence interval (CI). For meta-analysis of continuous outcomes, the weighted mean differences with the corresponding 95% CIs were pooled. Strength of evidence of the outcomes was judged according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. RESULTS: We identified six studies, of which four were nonrandomized prospective and two retrospective with low to moderate risk of bias. In addition, results of a post hoc analyses of a randomized controlled trial were included, resulting in a total number of seven included studies. Duration of the postoperative study period ranged from 1 to 6 days. The meta-analysis of all studies regarding the primary outcome demonstrated increased rates of post-CEA hypertension after E-CEA (pooled OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.82-4.16; I2 = 49.9%). The pooled weighted intergroup mean difference between the E-CEA and C-CEA effects on postoperative systolic BP was +12.92 mm Hg (95% CI, 8.06-17.78; I2 = 93.6%; P < .0001). Hypotension was significantly higher in the C-CEA group (pooled OR, 11.37; 95% CI, 1.95-66.46; I2 = 0%). There was no difference in postoperative complications including myocardial infarction, stroke, neck hematoma, or death. Strength of evidence contributing to the primary outcome as well as the hypotension outcome was graded as moderate and that contributing to the other secondary outcomes was graded as very low. CONCLUSIONS: E-CEA increases the risk for post-CEA hypertension, whereas C-CEA is more often associated with hypotension, Careful BP monitoring at least in the early postoperative period after CEA is mandatory, especially when the eversion technique is used.

Evaluation of Open and Minimally Invasive Adrenalectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adrenalectomy can be performed via open and various minimally invasive approaches. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the current evidence on surgical techniques of adrenalectomy. METHODS: Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing at least two surgical procedures for adrenalectomy. Statistical analyses were performed, and meta-analyses were conducted. Furthermore, an indirect comparison of RCTs and a network meta-analysis of CCTs were carried out for each outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-six trials (1710 patients) were included. Postoperative complication rates did not show differences for open and minimally invasive techniques. Operation time was significantly shorter for open adrenalectomy than for the robotic approach (p < 0.001). No differences were found between laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Network meta-analysis showed open adrenalectomy to be the fastest technique. Blood loss was significantly reduced in the robotic arm compared with open and laparoscopic adrenalectomy (p = 0.01). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was significantly lower after conventional laparoscopy than open adrenalectomy in CCTs (p < 0.001). Furthermore, both retroperitoneoscopic (p < 0.001) and robotic access (p < 0.001) led to another significant reduction of LOS compared with conventional laparoscopy. This difference was not consistent in RCTs. Network meta-analysis revealed the lowest LOS after retroperitoneoscopic adrenalectomy. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive adrenalectomy is safe and should be preferred over open adrenalectomy due to shorter LOS, lower blood loss, and equivalent complication rates. The retroperitoneoscopic access features the shortest LOS and operating time. Further high-quality RCTs are warranted, especially to compare the posterior retroperitoneoscopic and the transperitoneal robotic approach.

Hand suture versus stapler for closure of loop ileostomy--a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study are to compare the 30-day rate of bowel obstruction for stapled vs. handsewn closure of loop ileostomy, and to further assess efficacy and safety for each technique by secondary endpoints such as operative time, rates of anastomotic leakage, and other post-operative complications within 30 days. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing stapled and handsewn closure of loop ileostomy after low anterior resection. Random effects meta-analyses were calculated and presented as risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals. RESULTS: Forty publications were retrieved and 4 RCTs (649 patients) were included. There was methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low for most endpoints. Stapler use significantly reduced the rate of bowel obstruction compared to hand-sewn closure (RR 0.53 [0.32, 0.88]; P = 0.01). The operation time was significantly lower for stapling compared to hand suture (MD -15.5 min [-18.4, 12.6]; P < 0.001). All other secondary outcomes did not show significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows superiority of stapled closure of loop ileostomy compared to handsewn closure in terms of bowel obstruction rate and mean operation time. Other relevant complications such as anastomotic leakage are equivalent. Even so, both techniques are options with opposing advantages and disadvantages.

Application of the PANELVIEW instrument to evaluate the guideline development process of the German polytrauma guideline.

BACKGROUND: PANELVIEW is an instrument for evaluating the appropriateness of the process, methods, and outcome of guideline development and the satisfaction of the guideline group with these steps. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the guideline development process of the German guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries ('German polytrauma guideline') from the perspective of the guideline group, and to identify areas where this process may be improved in the future. METHODS: We administered PANELVIEW to the participants of the 2022 update of the German polytrauma guideline. All guideline group members, including delegates of participating medical societies, steering group members, authors of guideline chapters, the chair, and methodological lead, were invited to participate. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comments received were categorised by domains/items of the tool. RESULTS: After the first, second, and last consensus conference, the guideline group was invited via email to participate in a web-based survey. Response rates were 36% (n/N = 13/36), 40% (12/30), and 37% (20/54), respectively. The mean scores for items ranged between 5.1 and 6.9 on a scale from 1 (fully disagree) to 7 (fully agree). Items with mean scores below 6.0 were related to (1) administration, (2) consideration of patients' views, perspectives, values, and preferences, and (3) the discussion of research gaps and needs for future research. CONCLUSION: The PANELVIEW tool showed that the guideline group was satisfied with most aspects of the guideline development process. Areas for improvement of the process were identified. Strategies to improve response rates should be explored.

ENERgized vessel sealing systems versus CONventional hemostasis techniques in thyroid surgery--the ENERCON systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Energized vessel-sealing systems have been proposed to save operation time and reduce post-operative complications. The aim of the present systematic review was to compare operation time and postoperative morbidity for ultrasonic and electrothermal bipolar-activated devices with conventional hemostasis techniques and with each other in open thyroidectomy. METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and ISI Web of Science) was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conventional hemostasis techniques, ultrasonic devices (Harmonic® scalpel) and/or electrothermal bipolar-activated vessel sealing systems (Ligasure®) during open thyroidectomy. For the primary endpoint (operation time), a network meta-analysis with Bayesian random effects model was performed. Pairwise meta-analyses with random effects were calculated for primary and secondary endpoints. RESULTS: One hundred sixteen publications were evaluated for eligibility; 35 RCTs (4,061 patients) were included. There was considerable methodological and clinical heterogeneity of included trials. The Harmonic scalpel significantly reduced operation time compared with conventional techniques (22.26 min, 22.7 min in the inconsistency model). The use of Ligasure significantly reduced operation time in total thyroidectomy (13.84 min in the consistency model, 12.18 min in the inconsistency model). In direct comparison, operations with the Harmonic scalpel were faster than with Ligasure (8.42 min in the consistency model, 2.45 min in the inconsistency model). The rates of recurrent nerve palsy and postoperative hypocalcaemia did not significantly differ in the intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows superiority of ultrasonic devices in terms of operation time compared with conventional hemostasis techniques in thyroid surgery, with no detriment to safety outcomes.