Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. DESIGN: The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: 44 experts. MEASUREMENTS: Consensus on checklist items. RESULTS: The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Leukotriene receptor antagonists as add-on therapy to antihistamines for urticaria: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of adding antileukotrienes to H1 antihistamines (AHs) for the management of urticaria (hives, itch, and/or angioedema) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the treatment outcomes of antileukotrienes in combination with AHs versus AHs alone for acute and chronic urticaria. METHODS: As part of updating American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters urticaria guidelines, we searched Medline, Embase, Central, LILACS, WPRIM, IBECS, ICTRP, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, US Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicines Agency databases from inception to December 18, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating antileukotrienes and AHs versus AHs alone in patients with urticaria. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random effects models pooled effect estimates for urticaria activity, itch, wheal, sleep, quality of life, and harms. The GRADE approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. The study was registered at the Open Science Framework (osf.io/h2bfx/). RESULTS: Thirty-four RCTs enrolled 3324 children and adults. Compared to AHs alone, the combination of a leukotriene receptor antagonist with AHs probably modestly reduces urticaria activity (mean difference, -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -6.36 to -3.71; 7-day urticaria activity score) with moderate certainty. We made similar findings for itch and wheal severity as well as quality of life. Adverse events were probably not different between groups (moderate certainty); however, no RCT reported on neuropsychiatric adverse events. CONCLUSION: Among patients with urticaria, adding leukotriene receptor antagonists to AHs probably modestly improves urticaria activity with little to no increase in overall adverse events. The added risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events in this population with leukotriene receptor antagonists is small and uncertain.

Introduction to network meta-analysis: understanding what it is, how it is done, and how it can be used for decision-making.

Network meta-analysis (NMA), a statistical technique that allows systematic reviewers to simultaneously compare more than two alternatives, makes use of indirect evidence from studies comparing interventions of interest to a common comparator. The capacity for multiple simultaneous comparisons makes NMA appealing for evidence-based decision-makers. This article, aimed at users of SRs with NMAs and at those who are considering conducting SRs with NMAs, provides an introductory level overview of this topic. We describe the main considerations that those conducting systematic reviews with NMA should bear in mind, including decisions regarding grouping interventions into analysis nodes, and testing the assumptions that assure the validity of NMA. We explain and illustrate how both systematic reviewers and users should draw conclusions from NMA that are appropriate and useful for decision-making. Finally, we provide a list of tools that facilitate the conduct and interpretation of NMAs.

Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods.

Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis in which authors develop explicit eligibility criteria, collect all the available studies that meet these criteria, and summarize results using reproducible methods that minimize biases and errors. Systematic reviews serve different purposes and use a different methodology than other types of evidence synthesis that include narrative reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of reviews. Systematic reviews can address questions regarding effects of interventions or exposures, diagnostic properties of tests, and prevalence or prognosis of diseases. All rigorous systematic reviews have common processes that include: 1) determining the question and eligibility criteria, including a priori specification of subgroup hypotheses 2) searching for evidence and selecting studies, 3) abstracting data and assessing risk of bias of the included studies, 4) summarizing the data for each outcome of interest, whenever possible using meta-analyses, and 5) assessing the certainty of the evidence and drawing conclusions. There are several tools that can guide and facilitate the systematic review process, but methodological and content expertise are always necessary.

Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Proton pump inhibitors for gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are the most commonly prescribed drugs for preventing upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. However, concerns have arisen about the possible harms of using PPIs, including potentially increased risk of pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, and more seriously, an increased risk of death in the most severely ill patients. Triggered by the REVISE trial, which is a forthcoming large randomized trial comparing pantoprazole to placebo in invasively mechanically ventilated patients, we will conduct this systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PPIs versus no prophylaxis for critically ill patients. METHODS: We will systematically search randomized trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs versus placebo or no prophylaxis in adults in the intensive care unit (ICU). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen the literature, and for those eligible trials, extract data and assess risk of bias. We will perform meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and calculate relative risks for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes, and the associated 95% confidence intervals. We will conduct subgroup analysis to explore whether the impact of PPIs on mortality differs in more and less severely ill patients. We will assess certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide the most up-to-date evidence regarding the merits and limitations of stress ulcer prophylaxis with PPIs in critically ill patients in contemporary practice.

The GRADE Working Group and CINeMA approaches provided inconsistent certainty of evidence ratings for a network meta-analysis of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVES: Assessment of the certainty of evidence (CoE) from network meta-analysis is critical to convey the strength of inferences for clinical decision-making. Both the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group (GWG) and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework have been designed to assess the CoE of treatment effects informed by network meta-analysis; however, the concordance of results is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We assessed the CoE for treatment effects of individual opioids on pain relief and physical functioning from a network meta-analysis for chronic noncancer pain using the GWG approach and the CINeMA framework. Both approaches evaluate the CoE as high, moderate, low or very low. We quantified the number of discrepant CoE ratings between approaches and the magnitude of the difference (ie, one level, two levels, or three levels). RESULTS: Across 105 comparisons among individual opioids for pain relief, the GWG and CINeMA approaches provided different CoE ratings in 34% of cases (36 of 105). Across 66 comparisons for physical functioning, there was discordance in 17% of cases (11 of 66). All discrepancies were separated by one level. The CINeMA framework typically provided lower CoE ratings compared to the GWG approach, predominantly because of differences in the assessment of transitivity and heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest there are differences between the CoE ratings provided by the GWG and CINeMA approaches when applied to network meta-analyses. Further research is needed to replicate or refute our findings in other network meta-analyses and assess the implications for clinical decision-making.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds in Very Preterm Neonates.

Importance: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a common medical intervention to treat anemia in very preterm neonates; however, best transfusion practices, such as thresholds, remain uncertain. Objective: To develop recommendations for clinicians on the use of RBC transfusions in very preterm neonates. Evidence Review: An international steering committee reviewed evidence from a systematic review of 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared high vs low hemoglobin-based or hematocrit-based transfusion thresholds. The steering committee reached consensus on certainty-of-evidence ratings and worked with a panel from stakeholder organizations on reviewing the evidence. With input from parent representatives and the stakeholder panel, the steering committee used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations. Findings: A systematic review of 6 RCTs encompassing 3483 participants (1759 females [51.3%]; mean [SD] age range, 25.9-29.8 [1.5-3.0] weeks) was used as the basis of the recommendations. The ranges for higher hemoglobin concentration (liberal) vs lower hemoglobin concentration (restrictive) threshold study arms were similar across the trials. However, specific thresholds differed based on the severity of illness, which was defined using variable criteria in the trials. There was moderate certainty of evidence that low transfusion thresholds likely had little to no difference in important short-term and long-term outcomes. The recommended hemoglobin thresholds varied on the basis of postnatal week and respiratory support needs. At postnatal weeks 1, 2, and 3 or more, for neonates on respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 11, 10, and 9 g/dL, respectively; for neonates on no or minimal respiratory support, the recommended thresholds were 10, 8.5, and 7 g/dL, respectively (to convert hemoglobin to grams per liter, multiply by 10.0). Conclusions and Relevance: This consensus statement recommends a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy, with moderate certainty of evidence, for preterm neonates with less than 30 weeks' gestation.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Cancer Care: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) come directly from the patient, without clinician interpretation, to provide a patient-centered perspective. Objective: To understand the association of PROM integration into cancer care with patient-related, therapy-related, and health care utilization outcomes. Data Sources: Searches included MEDLINE and MEDLINE Epub ahead of print, in-process, and other nonindexed citations; Embase databases (OvidSP); PsychINFO; CENTRAL; and CINAHL from January 1, 2012 to September 26, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult patients (ages 18 years and older) with active cancer receiving anticancer therapy using a PROM as an intervention. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Pairs of review authors, using prepiloted forms, independently extracted trial characteristics, disease characteristics, and intervention details. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was followed. Random-effects analyses were conducted. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measures, and hospital utilization outcomes. Results: From 1996 to 2022, 45 RCTs including 13 661 participants addressed the association of PROMs with outcomes considered important to patients. The addition of a PROM likely reduced the risk of overall mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98; moderate certainty), improved HRQoL (range 0-100) at 12 weeks (mean difference [MD], 2.45; 95% CI, 0.42-4.48; moderate certainty). Improvements of HRQoL at 24 weeks were not significant (MD, 1.87; 95% CI, -1.21 to 4.96; low certainty). There was no association between the addition of a PROM and HRQoL at 48 weeks. The addition of a PROM was not associated with reduced ED visits (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-1.02; low certainty) or hospital admissions (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.73-1.02; low certainty). Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the integration of PROMs into cancer care may improve overall survival and quality of life.

Update on APPEAL, an International Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating Ciprofloxacin Versus Placebo in Patients Undergoing Shockwave Lithotripsy for Urolithiasis.

The blinded APPEAL trial is assessing the effectiveness of antimicrobial prophylaxis in preventing infections after shockwave lithotripsy for urinary stones. This large, pragmatic, international trial will provide trustworthy evidence to inform guidelines and influence global practices.

Factors Impacting Physician Prognostic Accuracy in Heart Failure Patients With Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: A recent study showed that the accuracy of heart failure (HF) cardiologists and family doctors to predict mortality in outpatients with HF proved suboptimal, performing less well than models. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate patient and physician factors associated with physician accuracy. METHODS: The authors included outpatients with HF from 11 HF clinics. Family doctors and HF cardiologists estimated patient 1-year mortality. They calculated predicted mortality using the Seattle HF Model and followed patients for 1 year to record mortality (or urgent heart transplant or ventricular assist device implant as mortality-equivalent events). Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors evaluated associations among physician experience and confidence in estimates, duration of patient-physician relationship, patient-physician sex concordance, patient race, and predicted risk, with concordant results between physician and model predictions. RESULTS: Among 1,643 patients, 1-year event rate was 10% (95% CI: 8%-12%). One-half of the estimates showed discrepant results between model and physician predictions, mainly owing to physician risk overestimation. Discrepancies were more frequent with increasing patient risk from 38% in low-risk to ∼75% in high-risk patients. When making predictions on male patients, female HF cardiologists were 26% more likely to have discrepant predictions (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.58-0.94). HF cardiologist estimates in Black patients were 33% more likely to be discrepant (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.45-0.99). Low confidence in predictions was associated with discrepancy. Analyses restricted to high-confidence estimates showed inferior calibration to the model, with risk overestimation across risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepant physician and model predictions were more frequent in cases with perceived increased risk. Model predictions outperform physicians even when they are confident in their predictions. (Predicted Prognosis in Heart Failure [INTUITION]; NCT04009798).

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with and without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023, for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity, and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5%-64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR], 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-3.31; number needed to treat [NNT], 7; moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95% CI: 0.87-6.83; risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95% CI: 1.00-7.62; risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm, 9; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Short- and long-term effects of imatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: We studied the short- and long-term effects of imatinib in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Participants were randomized to receive standard of care (SoC) or SoC with imatinib. Imatinib dosage was 400 mg daily until discharge (max 14 days). Primary outcomes were mortality at 30 days and 1 year. Secondary outcomes included recovery, quality of life and long COVID symptoms at 1 year. We also performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials studying imatinib for 30-day mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: We randomized 156 patients (73 in SoC and 83 in imatinib). Among patients on imatinib, 7.2% had died at 30 days and 13.3% at 1 year, and in SoC, 4.1% and 8.2% (adjusted HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.47-3.90). At 1 year, self-reported recovery occurred in 79.0% in imatinib and in 88.5% in SoC (RR 0.91, 0.78-1.06). We found no convincing difference in quality of life or symptoms. Fatigue (24%) and sleep issues (20%) frequently bothered patients at one year. In the meta-analysis, imatinib was associated with a mortality risk ratio of 0.73 (0.32-1.63; low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence raises doubts regarding benefit of imatinib in reducing mortality, improving recovery and preventing long COVID symptoms in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Panel stacking is a threat to consensus statement validity.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members toward one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but nonfinancial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analyzing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated toward COVID-19 elimination (Zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases toward advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided.

Practice Variation in the Management of Adult Hydroceles: A Multinational Survey.

Background: Although hydrocele is one of the most common urologic pathologies, it is seldom studied, and the major urologic associations have no guidelines for the management of adult hydroceles. Objective: To characterize international practice variation in the treatment of adult hydroceles. Design setting and participants: An international survey was conducted addressing the management of hydroceles among urologists in Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Japan, and the Netherlands from September to December 2020. We invited a random sample of 170 urologists from each country (except Iceland). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Urologists' treatment options, factors relevant for decision-making, expected patient satisfaction, and outcomes after aspiration versus surgery were assessed. Results and limitations: Of the 864 urologists contacted, 437 (51%) participated. Of the respondents, 202 (53%) performed both hydrocelectomies and aspiration, 147 (39%) performed hydrocelectomies only, and 30 (8%) performed aspiration only. In Belgium (83%), the Netherlands (75%), and Denmark (55%), urologists primarily performed hydrocelectomies only, whereas in Finland (84%), Japan (61%), and Iceland (91%), urologists performed both hydrocelectomies and aspiration. Urologists favored hydrocelectomy for large hydroceles (78.8% vs 37.5% for small), younger patients (66.0% for patients <50 yr vs 41.2% for ≥70 yr), patients with few or no comorbidities (62.3% vs 23.1% with multiple comorbidities), and patients without antithrombotic agents (53.5% vs 36.5% with antithrombotic agents). Most urologists considered patient satisfaction to be highest after hydrocelectomy (53.8% vs 9.9% after aspiration) despite believing that hydrocelectomy is more likely to cause complications (hematoma 77.8% vs 8.8% after aspiration). Estimates varied between countries. Conclusions: We found a large variation in the treatment of adult hydroceles within and between countries. Optimization of hydrocele management globally will require future studies. Patient summary: Our international survey shows that treatment of adult hydrocele varies considerably within and between countries.

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

Management of chronic pain secondary to temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: We explored the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS were searched to May 2021, and again in January 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with chronic pain associated with TMD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We captured all reported patient-important outcomes, including pain relief, physical functioning, emotional functioning, role functioning, social functioning, sleep quality, and adverse events. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence and categorise interventions from most to least beneficial. RESULTS: 233 trials proved eligible for review, of which 153-enrolling 8713 participants and exploring 59 interventions or combinations of interventions-were included in network meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with placebo or sham procedures. Effects on pain for eight interventions were supported by high to moderate certainty evidence. The three therapies probably most effective for pain relief were cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) augmented with biofeedback or relaxation therapy (risk difference (RD) for achieving the minimally important difference (MID) in pain relief of 1 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale: 36% (95% CI 33 to 39)), therapist-assisted jaw mobilisation (RD 36% (95% CI 31 to 40)), and manual trigger point therapy (RD 32% (29 to 34)). Five interventions were less effective, yet more effective than placebo, showing RDs ranging between 23% and 30%: CBT, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, self stretching, reassurance).Moderate certainty evidence showed four interventions probably improved physical functioning: supervised jaw exercise and stretching (RD for achieving the MID of 5 points on the short form-36 physical component summary score: 43% (95% CI 33 to 51)), manipulation (RD 43% (25 to 56)), acupuncture (RD 42% (33 to 50)), and supervised jaw exercise and mobilisation (RD 36% (19 to 51)). The evidence for pain relief or physical functioning among other interventions, and all evidence for adverse events, was low or very low certainty. CONCLUSION: When restricted to moderate or high certainty evidence, interventions that promote coping and encourage movement and activity were found to be most effective for reducing chronic TMD pain. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021258567).

Certainty of evidence, why? / Certeza das evidências, por quê?

ABSTRACT Optimal clinical decision-making requires understanding of evidence regarding benefits, harms, and burdens of alternative management options. Rigorously conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer accurate summaries of the evidence. However, such summaries may review only low-certainty evidence, in the process highlighting that no single decision is likely to be best for all patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent method for rating certainty of evidence in systematic reviews. In this paper, we will address the importance of assessing the certainty associated with bodies of evidence; explain how the GRADE system rates the certainty of evidence from systematic reviews; and present the GRADE evidence to decision framework for moving from evidence to strong or weak recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.

RESUMO Para tomar a melhor decisão clínica, é preciso compreender as evidências a respeito dos benefícios, malefícios e ônus das alternativas de manejo. Revisões sistemáticas e meta-análises que sejam realizadas com rigor oferecem resumos precisos das evidências. No entanto, é possível que esses resumos avaliem apenas as evidências cujo grau de certeza é baixo e, ao fazê-lo, ressaltem que provavelmente não existe uma decisão única que será a melhor para todos os pacientes. O Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) é um método sistemático e transparente para avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências em revisões sistemáticas. Neste artigo, abordaremos a importância de avaliar o grau de certeza das evidências; explicaremos como o sistema GRADE classifica o grau de certeza das evidências provenientes de revisões sistemáticas e apresentaremos o evidence to decision framework (quadro para a avaliação de evidências) do GRADE para decidir se as evidências se traduzem em recomendações fortes ou fracas nas diretrizes de prática clínica.

Dificultades en la interpretación de los resultados de la investigación biomédica relacionada con el manejo de pacientes con enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles / Difficulties in the interpretation of the results of biomedical research related to chronic non-communicable disease patient management

El incremento progresivo en las prevalencias de las enfermedades crónicas no transmisibles (ECNT), ha generado la necesidad de cambiar los paradigmas en la interpretación de la investigación que se genera con relación a estrategias terapéuticas y de control de estas enfermedades. Un punto a tener en consideración, es la inclusión de la noción de riesgo en lugar de curación que ofrece el tratamiento de las ECNT, lo cual genera incertidumbre del resultado del tratamiento, lo que no ocurre cuando se administra tratamiento en una enfermedad transmisible, en la que se espera su curación. Otro punto está relacionado con los reportes de resultados en los ensayos clínicos, donde se emplea de manera frecuente resultados sustitutos, como el objetivo terapéutico de reducir la hemoglobina glucosilada en un paciente diabético, en lugar de expresar los resultados en función del beneficio de un tratamiento (como la prevención del infarto de miocardio). El problema se suscita cuando se busca un sustituto que pueda reemplazar al resultado que realmente importa. Es por ello que debemos estar alertas con el uso generalizado de la agrupación de resultados (resultados compuestos) los que, si bien permiten estudios con menor número de pacientes, con tiempos de seguimiento más cortos y, por lo tanto, estudios menos costosos, pueden generar resultados engañosos y mostrar supuestos beneficios no ciertos debido a la inapropiada selección de componentes del “resultado compuesto”. En este artículo, llamamos la atención sobre los nuevos retos en la interpretación de estudios científicos relacionados con ECNT.

The progressive increase in the prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases (CNCD) has generated a need to change the paradigms in interpreting research about therapeutic and disease control strategies. One aspect to keep in mind is the incorporation of risk awareness that CNCD treatment implies, which creates uncertainty in the treatment result, compared to the curative paradigm that occurs in communicable diseases where a cure is expected. Another aspect is related to clinical trials result reports, where substitute results are used frequently. For example, the therapeutic goal of reducing glycosylated hemoglobin in a diabetic patient instead of showing the results based on treatment benefit (such as prevention of myocardial infarction). Problems arise when looking for a substitute that can replace the result that really matters. That is why we must be alert to the widespread use of results grouping (composite outcomes) which while they allow studies with fewer patients with shorter follow-up times and less expense, they can generate misleading results and show presumed untrue benefits due to improper selection of components of the “composite outcomes”. In this article we draw attention to new challenges in the interpretation of scientific studies related to CNCDs.