Correction: Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165903.].

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR. METHODS: Review of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3). RESULTS: Across all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases. CONCLUSION: RR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

Gonadotrophins for idiopathic male factor subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Male factors leading to subfertility account for at least half of all cases of subfertility worldwide. Although some causes of male subfertility are treatable, treatment of idiopathic male factor subfertility remains empirical. Researchers have used gonadotrophins to improve sperm parameters in idiopathic male factor subfertility with the ultimate goal of increasing birth and pregnancy rates, but results have been conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of systemic follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) on live birth and pregnancy rates when administered to men with idiopathic male factor subfertility . SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (14 January 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library, Issue 12 of 12, 2012), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 14 January 2013), Ovid EMBASE (1980 to week 2 of 2013), Ovid PsycINFO (1806 to week 2 of 2013), trial registers for ongoing and registered trials at ClinicalTrials.gov (19 January 2013), the World Health Organisation International Trials Registry Platform (19 January 2013), The Cochrane Library Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (19 January 2013) and OpenGrey for grey literature from Europe (19 January 2013). Searches were not limited by language. Bibliographies of included and excluded trials and abstracts of major meetings were searched for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which gonadotrophins were compared with placebo or no treatment for participants with idiopathic male factor subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data on live birth, pregnancy and adverse effects. We included data on pregnancies that occurred during or after gonadotrophin therapy. Study authors and pharmaceutical companies were asked to provide missing and unpublished data and/or additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs with 456 participants and variable treatment and follow-up periods were included. From the limited data, the live birth rate per couple randomly assigned (27% vs 0%; Peto odds ratio (OR) 9.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 73.75, one study, 30 participants, very low-quality evidence) and the spontaneous pregnancy rate per couple randomly assigned (16% vs 7%; Peto OR 4.94, 95% CI 2.13 to 11.44, five studies, 412 participants, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) were significantly higher in men receiving gonadotrophin treatment than in men receiving placebo or no treatment. No significant difference between groups was noted when intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) or intrauterine insemination (IUI) was performed. None of the included studies reported miscarriage rates, and adverse events data were sparse. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging preliminary data suggest a beneficial effect on live birth and pregnancy of gonadotrophin treatment for men with idiopathic male factor subfertility, but because the numbers of trials and participants are small, evidence is insufficient to allow final conclusions. Large multi-centre trials with adequate numbers of participants are needed.

Role of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in effective contraception.

Norgestrel, a synthetic progestin chemically derived from 19-nortestosterone, is six times more potent than progesterone, with variable binding affinity to various steroid receptors. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG IUS) provides a long-acting, highly effective, and reversible form of contraception, with a pearl index of 0.18 per 100 women-years. The locally released hormone leads to endometrial concentrations that are 200-800 times those found after daily oral use and a plasma level that is lower than that with other forms of levonorgestrel-containing contraception. The contraceptive effect of the LNG IUS is achieved mainly through its local suppressive effect on the endometrium, leading to endometrial thinning, glandular atrophy, and stromal decidualization without affecting ovulation. The LNG IUS is generally well tolerated. The main side effects are related to its androgenic activity, which is usually mild and transient, resolving after the first few months. Menstrual abnormalities are also common but well tolerated, and even become desirable (eg, amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, and oligomenorrhea) with proper counseling of the patient during the choice of the method of contraception. The satisfaction rates after 3 years of insertion are high, reaching between 77% and 94%. The local effect of the LNG IUS on the endometrium and low rates of systemic adverse effects have led to its use in other conditions rather than contraception, as for the treatment of endometrial hyperplasia, benign menorrhagia, endometriosis, adenomyosis, and uterine fibroids.

Metformin added to insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus in adolescents.

BACKGROUND: In adolescents with type 1 diabetes, insulin resistance likely plays a role in the deterioration of metabolic control. In type 1 diabetes, addition of metformin to insulin therapy, to improve insulin sensitivity, has been assessed in a few trials involving few patients or in uncontrolled studies of short duration. No systematic reviews are available up to date to summarize the evidence about metformin addition to insulin therapy in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of metformin added to insulin therapy for type 1 diabetes mellitus in adolescents. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched databases of ongoing trials, reference lists of relevant reviews, and we contacted experts, authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised controlled trial (RCT) of at least three months duration of treatment comparing metformin added to insulin therapy versus insulin therapy alone in adolescents with type 1 diabetes was included. Cross-over and quasi-randomised controlled trials were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers read all abstracts, assessed quality and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted for missing data. MAIN RESULTS: Only two trials (60 participants) investigating the effect of metformin added to insulin therapy for three months in adolescents with poorly controlled type 1 diabetes could be included. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the clinical and methodological heterogeneity of data. Both studies suggested that metformin treatment lowered glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes and poor metabolic control. Improvements in insulin sensitivity, body composition or serum lipids were not documented in either study, however, one study showed a decrease in insulin dosage by 10%. Adverse effects were mainly gastrointestinal in both studies and hypoglycaemia in one study. No data on health-related quality of life, all-cause mortality or morbidity are currently available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence suggesting improvement of metabolic control in poorly controlled adolescents with type 1 diabetes, on addition of metformin to insulin therapy. Stronger evidence is required from larger studies, carried out over longer time periods to document the long-term effects on metabolic control, health-related quality of life as well as morbidity and mortality in those patients.