Overall survival after mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy and mastectomy are currently offered as equivalent surgical options for early-stage breast cancer based on RCTs from the 1970s and 1980s. However, the treatment of breast cancer has evolved and recent observational studies suggest a survival advantage for breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to summarize the contemporary evidence regarding survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for women with early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase that identified studies published between 1 January 2000 and 18 December 2023 comparing overall survival after breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy versus mastectomy for patients with unilateral stage 1-3 breast cancer was undertaken. The main exclusion criteria were studies evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rare breast cancer subtypes, and specific breast cancer populations. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess risk of bias, with the overall certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Studies without critical risk of bias were included in a quantitative meta-analysis. RESULTS: From 11 750 abstracts, 108 eligible articles were identified, with one article including two studies; 29 studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to an overall critical risk of bias, 42 studies were excluded due to overlapping study populations, and three studies were excluded due to reporting incompatible results. A total of 35 observational studies reported survival outcomes for 909 077 patients (362 390 patients undergoing mastectomy and 546 687 patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy). The pooled HR was 0.72 (95% c.i. 0.68 to 0.75, P < 0.001), demonstrating improved overall survival for patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy. The overall certainty of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis provides evidence suggesting a survival advantage for women undergoing breast-conserving surgery with adjuvant radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer compared with mastectomy. Although these results should be interpreted with caution, they should be shared with patients to support informed surgical decision-making.

Prognostic models for clinical outcomes in patients with venous leg ulcers: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify prognostic models for clinical application in patients with venous leg ulcers (VLUs). METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases from inception to December 22, 2021. Eligible studies reported prognostic models aimed at developing, validating, and adjusting multivariable prognostic models that include multiple prognostic factors combined, and that predicted clinical outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the CHARMS checklist and PROBAST short form questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were identified, of which three were validation studies of previously published models, four reported derivation and validation of models, and the remainder reported derivation models only. There was substantial heterogeneity in the model characteristics, including 11 studies focused on wound healing outcomes reporting 91 different predictors. Three studies shared similar predicted outcomes, follow-up timepoint and used a Cox proportional hazards model. However, these models reported different predictor selection methods and different predictors and it was therefore not feasible to summarize performance, such as discriminative ability. CONCLUSIONS: There are no standout risk prediction models in the literature with promising clinical application for patients with VLUs. Future research should focus on developing and validating high-performing models in wider VLU populations.

Protocol for a Global Burns Research Priority Setting Partnership to agree the most important unanswered questions in international burns care.

INTRODUCTION: Burns affect 11 million people globally and can result in long-term disability with substantial associated healthcare costs. There is limited research funding to support trials to provide evidence for clinical decision-making. Research prioritisation ensures that research focuses on the topics most important to stakeholders, addressing issues of research waste and evidence gaps. The aim of this project is to agree the global top 10 research priorities important to international patients, carers and clinicians from all income status countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Global Burns Research Priority Setting Partnership will use James Lind Alliance methods to establish the top 10 research priorities in global burns care. An initial international online multilingual survey will collect candidate research priorities from stakeholders. To increase equity in participation, the survey will also be available via the social media app WhatsApp. Additionally, interviews will be conducted. Data will be analysed to identify and collate research questions and to verify that the priorities are true clinical uncertainties. This list will then be ranked by stakeholders in order of importance via a second online survey. Finally, a consensus meeting will identify the top 10 research priorities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Bristol Medical School Faculty Ethical Committee has approved this project. Research into burn care should be prioritised to ensure that funding is focused where most needed. This should be undertaken internationally, to ensure inclusion of the views of professionals and patients from lower income countries, where the incidence of thermal burns is highest. The involvement of the James Lind Alliance will ensure that the methodology is robust and that the patient voice is heard. The final top 10 priorities will be disseminated to funders, governments and researchers internationally to inform future global burns research.

Association Between Administration of IL-6 Antagonists and Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. Objective: To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. Data Sources: Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. Study Selection: Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this prospective meta-analysis, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. Results: A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P = .003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P < .001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P = .52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective meta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021230155.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy and Metabolic Syndrome in Schizophrenia: A Review of Systematic Reviews.

(Reprinted with permission from BMC Psychiatry (2018) 18:275).

Minimally invasive versus conventional surgery of the ascending aorta and root: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Limited uptake of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) of the aorta hinders assessment of its efficacy compared to median sternotomy (MS). The objective of this systematic review is to compare operative and perioperative outcomes for MIS versus MS. Online databases Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from inception until July 2018. Both randomized and observational studies of patients undergoing aortic root, ascending aorta or aortic arch surgery by MIS versus MS were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality, reoperation for bleeding, perioperative renal impairment and neurological events. Intraoperative and postoperative timing measures were also evaluated. Thirteen observational studies were included comparing 1101 MIS and 1405 MS patients. The overall quality of evidence was very low for all outcomes. Mortality and the incidence of stroke were similar between the 2 cohorts. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased length of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time for patients undergoing MS [standardized mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15-0.58; P = 0.001]. Patients receiving MS spent more time in hospital (standardized mean difference 0.30, 95% CI 0.17-0.43; P < 0.001) and intensive care (standardized mean difference 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.27; P < 0.001). Reoperation for bleeding (risk ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.06-2.17; P = 0.024) and renal impairment (risk ratio 1.97, 95% CI 1.12-3.46; P = 0.019) were also greater for MS patients. There was substantial heterogeneity in meta-analyses for CPB and aortic cross-clamp timing outcomes. MIS may be associated with improved early clinical outcomes compared to MS, but the quality of the evidence is very low. Randomized evidence is needed to confirm these findings.

Design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting of randomised controlled trials supporting approvals of cancer drugs by European Medicines Agency, 2014-16: cross sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. SETTING: European regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Pivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents). RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications. CONCLUSIONS: Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

Antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia: a review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on the association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia. We conducted a review of published systematic reviews to evaluate evidence on the association between metabolic syndrome (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia) and exposure to antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases, complemented by reference screening, to find systematic reviews that investigated the association of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia with hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidaemia. Selection of reviews, data extraction and review quality were conducted independently by two people and disagreements resolved by discussion. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We included 12 systematic reviews, which reported heterogeneous results, mostly with narrative syntheses and without pooled data. The evidence was rated as low quality. There was some indication of a possible protective effect of drug combinations including aripiprazole for diabetes and hyperlipidaemias, compared to other combinations and/or monotherapy. Only one review reported the association between APP and hypertension. The most frequently reported combinations of medication included clozapine, possibly representing a sample of patients with treatment resistant illness. No included review reported results separately by setting (primary or secondary care). CONCLUSIONS: Further robust studies are needed to elucidate the possible protective effect of aripiprazole. Long-term prospective studies are required for accurate appraisal of diabetes risk, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia in patients exposed to antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Application of causal inference methods in the analyses of randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Applications of causal inference methods to randomised controlled trial (RCT) data have usually focused on adjusting for compliance with the randomised intervention rather than on using RCT data to address other, non-randomised questions. In this paper we review use of causal inference methods to assess the impact of aspects of patient management other than the randomised intervention in RCTs. METHODS: We identified papers that used causal inference methodology in RCT data from Medline, Premedline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from 1986 to September 2014, using a forward citation search of five seminal papers, and a keyword search. We did not include studies where inverse probability weighting was used solely to balance baseline characteristics, adjust for loss to follow-up or adjust for non-compliance to randomised treatment. Studies where the exposure could not be assigned were also excluded. RESULTS: There were 25 papers identified. Nearly half the papers (11/25) estimated the causal effect of concomitant medication on outcome. The remainder were concerned with post-randomisation treatment regimens (sequential treatments, n =5 ), effects of treatment timing (n = 2) and treatment dosing or duration (n = 7). Examples were found in cardiovascular disease (n = 5), HIV (n = 7), cancer (n = 6), mental health (n = 4), paediatrics (n = 2) and transfusion medicine (n = 1). The most common method implemented was a marginal structural model with inverse probability of treatment weighting. CONCLUSIONS: Examples of studies which exploit RCT data to address non-randomised questions using causal inference methodology remain relatively limited, despite the growth in methodological development and increasing utilisation in observational studies. Further efforts may be needed to promote use of causal methods to address additional clinical questions within RCTs to maximise their value.

What are the risks and benefits of temporarily discontinuing medications to prevent acute kidney injury? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise evidence on temporary discontinuation of medications to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies. PARTICIPANTS: Adults taking diuretics, ACE inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), direct renin inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, metformin or sulfonylureas, experiencing intercurrent illnesses, radiological or surgical procedures. INTERVENTIONS: Temporary discontinuation of any of the medications of interest. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk of AKI. Secondary outcome measures were estimated glomerular filtration rate and creatinine post-AKI, urea, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, death, clinical outcomes and biomarkers. RESULTS: 6 studies were included (1663 participants), 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 3 prospective cohort studies. The mean age ranged from 65 to 73 years, and the proportion of women ranged from 31% to 52%. All studies were in hospital settings; 5 evaluated discontinuation of medication prior to coronary angiography and 1 prior to cardiac surgery. 5 studies evaluated discontinuation of ACEI and ARBs and 1 small cohort study looked at discontinuation of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. No studies evaluated discontinuation of medication in the community following an acute intercurrent illness. There was an increased risk of AKI of around 15% in those in whom medication was continued compared with those in whom it was discontinued (relative risk (RR) 1.17, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.38; 5 studies). When only results from RCTs were pooled, the increase in risk was almost 50% (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.60; 3 RCTs), but the CI was wider. There was no difference between groups for any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence that withdrawal of ACEI/ARBs prior to coronary angiography and cardiac surgery may reduce the incidence of AKI. There is no evidence of the impact of drug cessation interventions on AKI incidence during intercurrent illness in primary or secondary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42015023210.

Oral anticoagulants for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease, and for prevention of stroke in atrial fibrillation: systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin is effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), but anticoagulation is underused in clinical care. The risk of venous thromboembolic disease during hospitalisation can be reduced by low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH): warfarin is the most frequently prescribed anticoagulant for treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Warfarin-related bleeding is a major reason for hospitalisation for adverse drug effects. Warfarin is cheap but therapeutic monitoring increases treatment costs. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have more rapid onset and offset of action than warfarin, and more predictable dosing requirements. OBJECTIVE: To determine the best oral anticoagulant/s for prevention of stroke in AF and for primary prevention, treatment and secondary prevention of VTE. DESIGN: Four systematic reviews, network meta-analyses (NMAs) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of randomised controlled trials. SETTING: Hospital (VTE primary prevention and acute treatment) and primary care/anticoagulation clinics (AF and VTE secondary prevention). PARTICIPANTS: Patients eligible for anticoagulation with warfarin (stroke prevention in AF, acute treatment or secondary prevention of VTE) or LMWH (primary prevention of VTE). INTERVENTIONS: NOACs, warfarin and LMWH, together with other interventions (antiplatelet therapy, placebo) evaluated in the evidence network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Efficacy Stroke, symptomatic VTE, symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Safety Major bleeding, clinically relevant bleeding and intracranial haemorrhage. We also considered myocardial infarction and all-cause mortality and evaluated cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, reference lists of published NMAs and trial registries. We searched MEDLINE and PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. The stroke prevention in AF review search was run on the 12 March 2014 and updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2010 to September 2014. The search for the three reviews in VTE was run on the 19 March 2014, updated on 15 September 2014, and covered the period 2008 to September 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers screened search results, extracted and checked data, and assessed risk of bias. For each outcome we conducted standard meta-analysis and NMA. We evaluated cost-effectiveness using discrete-time Markov models. RESULTS: Apixaban (Eliquis®, Bristol-Myers Squibb, USA; Pfizer, USA) [5 mg bd (twice daily)] was ranked as among the best interventions for stroke prevention in AF, and had the highest expected net benefit. Edoxaban (Lixiana®, Daiichi Sankyo, Japan) [60 mg od (once daily)] was ranked second for major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Neither the clinical effectiveness analysis nor the CEA provided strong evidence that NOACs should replace postoperative LMWH in primary prevention of VTE. For acute treatment and secondary prevention of VTE, we found little evidence that NOACs offer an efficacy advantage over warfarin, but the risk of bleeding complications was lower for some NOACs than for warfarin. For a willingness-to-pay threshold of > £5000, apixaban (5 mg bd) had the highest expected net benefit for acute treatment of VTE. Aspirin or no pharmacotherapy were likely to be the most cost-effective interventions for secondary prevention of VTE: our results suggest that it is not cost-effective to prescribe NOACs or warfarin for this indication. CONCLUSIONS: NOACs have advantages over warfarin in patients with AF, but we found no strong evidence that they should replace warfarin or LMWH in primary prevention, treatment or secondary prevention of VTE. LIMITATIONS: These relate mainly to shortfalls in the primary data: in particular, there were no head-to-head comparisons between different NOAC drugs. FUTURE WORK: Calculating the expected value of sample information to clarify whether or not it would be justifiable to fund one or more head-to-head trials. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005324, CRD42013005331 and CRD42013005330. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Pre-admission interventions to improve outcome after elective surgery-protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Poor physical health and fitness increases the risk of death and complications after major elective surgery. Pre-admission interventions to improve patients' health and fitness (referred to as prehabilitation) may reduce postoperative complications, decrease the length of hospital stay and facilitate the patient's recovery. We will conduct a systematic review of RCTs to examine the effectiveness of different types of prehabilitation interventions in improving the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing elective surgery. METHODS: This review will be conducted and reported according to the Cochrane and PRISMA reporting guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science and clinical trial registers will be searched for any intervention administered before any elective surgery (including physical activity, nutritional, educational, psychological, clinical or multicomponent), which aims to improve postoperative outcomes. Reference lists of included studies will be searched, and grey literature including conference proceedings, theses, dissertations and preoperative assessment protocols will be examined. Study quality will be assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and meta-analyses for trials that use similar interventions and report similar outcomes will be undertaken where possible. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will determine whether different types of interventions administered before elective surgery are effective in improving postoperative outcomes. It will also determine which components or combinations of components would form the most effective prehabilitation intervention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015019191.

A Comparison of Health Professionals' and Patients' Views of the Importance of Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive evaluation of bariatric surgery is required to inform decision-making. This will include measures of benefit and risk. It is possible that stakeholders involved with surgery value these outcomes differently, although this has not previously been explored. This study aimed to investigate and compare how professionals and patients prioritise outcomes of bariatric surgery. METHODS: Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews created an exhaustive list of outcomes. This informed the development of a 130-item questionnaire, structured in four sections (complications of surgery; clinical effectiveness; signs, symptoms, and other measures; quality of life). Health professionals and patients rated the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Items rated 8-9 by at least 70 % of the participants were considered prioritised. Items prioritised in each section were compared between professionals and patients and interrater agreement assessed using kappa statistics (ĸ). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-eight out of four hundred fifty-nine professionals (36.6 %) and 90/465 patients (19.4 %) completed the questionnaire. Professionals and patients prioritised 18 and 25 items, respectively, with 10 overlapping items and 23 discordant items (ĸ 0.363). Examples of items prioritised by both included 'diabetes' and 'leakage from bowel joins'. Examples of discordant items included 're-admission rates' (professionals only) and 'excess skin' (patients only). Poor agreement was seen in the 'quality of life' section (0 overlapping items, 8 discordant, ĸ -0.036). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was some overlap of outcomes prioritised by professionals and patients, there were important differences. We recommend that the views of all relevant health professionals and patients are considered when deciding on outcomes to evaluate bariatric surgery.

Symptomatic and quality-of-life outcomes after treatment for clinically localised prostate cancer: a systematic review.

To conduct a systematic review of the risks of short-term outcomes after major treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched from 2004 to January 2013. Study arms that included ≥100 men with localised prostate cancer in receipt of surgery, radiotherapy or active surveillance and reported symptomatic and quality-of-life (QoL) data from 6 to 60 months after treatment were eligible. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by another. In all, 64 studies (80 treatment cohorts) were included. Most were single treatment cohorts from the USA or Europe. Radiotherapy was the most common treatment (40 cohorts, including 31 brachytherapy cohorts) followed by prostatectomy (39 cohorts), with only one active surveillance cohort. Most frequently measured symptoms were urinary, followed by sexual, and bowel; QoL was assessed in only 17 cohorts. Most studies used validated measures, although poor data reporting and differences between studies meant that it was not possible to pool data. Data on the precise impact of short-term symptomatic and QoL outcomes after treatment for localised prostate cancer are of insufficient quality for clear guidance to men about the risks to these aspects of their lives. It is important that future studies focus on collecting core outcomes through validated measures and comply with reporting guidelines, so that clear and accurate information can be derived for men considering screening or treatment for prostate cancer.

A Systematic Review of Patient-reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Unplanned General Surgery.

Unplanned general surgery represents a major workload and requires comprehensive evaluation with appropriate outcomes. This study aimed to summarize current reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in unplanned general surgery. A systematic review identified RCTs reporting PROs in the commonest six areas of unplanned general surgery. Details of the PRO measures were examined using the CONSORT extension for PRO reporting in RCTs. Extracted information about each PRO domain included the reporting of baseline PROs, rationale for PRO selection and whether PRO findings were used in conjunction with clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. The internal validity of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. 12,519 abstracts were screened and 20 RCTs containing data from 2037 patients included. Included studies used 14 separate PRO measures covering 35 different health domains. A visual analogue assessment of pain was most frequently reported (n = 13). Reporting of baseline PRO data was uncommon (11/35 PRO domains). The rationale for PRO data collection and a PRO-specific hypothesis were provided for 9 (25.7 %) and 5 (14.3 %) domains, respectively. Seventeen RCTs (85.0 %) used the PRO data alongside clinical outcomes to inform treatment recommendations. Of the 116 risk of bias assessments, 77 (66.0 %) were judged as high or unclear. There is a lack of well designed, and conducted RCTs in unplanned general surgery that include PROs. Future work to define relevant PROs and methods for optimal assessment are needed to inform health care decision-making.

A systematic review of training programmes for recruiters to randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often difficult. Clinician related factors have been implicated as important reasons for low rates of recruitment. Clinicians (doctors and other health professionals) can experience discomfort with some underlying principles of RCTs and experience difficulties in conveying them positively to potential trial participants. Recruiter training has been suggested to address identified problems but a synthesis of this research is lacking. The aim of our study was to systematically review the available evidence on training interventions for recruiters to randomised trials. METHODS: Studies that evaluated training programmes for trial recruiters were included. Those that provided only general communication training not linked to RCT recruitment were excluded. Data extraction and quality assessment were completed by two reviewers independently, with a third author where necessary. RESULTS: Seventeen studies of 9615 potentially eligible titles and abstracts were included in the review: three randomised controlled studies, two non-randomised controlled studies, nine uncontrolled pre-test/post-test studies, two qualitative studies, and a post-training questionnaire survey. Most studies were of moderate or weak quality. Training programmes were mostly set within cancer trials, and usually consisted of workshops with a mix of health professionals over one or two consecutive days covering generic and trial specific issues. Recruiter training programmes were well received and some increased recruiters' self-confidence in communicating key RCT concepts to patients. There was, however, little evidence that this training increased actual recruitment rates or patient understanding, satisfaction, or levels of informed consent. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to develop recruiter training programmes that can lead to improved recruitment and informed consent in randomised trials.

What are important outcomes of bariatric surgery? An in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set and a comparison between the views of surgeons and other health professionals (the BARIACT study).

BACKGROUND: Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs uniformity. A core outcome set is an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition, but members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team might value outcomes differently. The aim of this study was to summarise existing outcome reporting in bariatric surgery, to inform the development of a core outcome set, and to compare outcomes selected as important by type of health professional. METHODS: Outcomes reported in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomised studies, identified by a systematic review, were listed verbatim. Frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definition were assessed. A questionnaire to rate the importance of each outcome was completed by members of the bariatric multidisciplinary team. Responses to each item were scored as 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). We ranked outcomes according to percentage deemed important (7-9) and according to respondents by type of health professional. FINDINGS: We identified 1088 individual outcomes from 90 studies (39 RCTs), grouped them into health domains, and presented them as a questionnaire with 131 items to 489 multidisciplinary team members. Most outcomes (n=920, 85%) were reported only once. The largest outcome domain was surgical complications, and 432 outcomes (42%) corresponded to an adverse event. Only a quarter of outcomes (n=461) were defined, and were often contradictory. For questionnaire responders (n=164, response rate 33·5%), most were surgeons (n=80, 48·8%), followed by dietitians (n=31, 18·9%), nurses (n=24, 14·6%), physicians (n=12, 7·3%), and others (n=16, 9·9%). Improvement in diabetes was the top outcome for all health professionals. Seven of the surgeon's top ten outcomes were adverse events, compared with three for other health professionals. Groups valued a measure of weight differently (third vs 15th for other health professionals and surgeons, respectively). INTERPRETATION: This study shows that the assessment of bariatric surgery focuses largely on adverse events and resolution of comorbidity, but that reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined. Substantial variation between the views of surgeons and those of other health professionals was evident. The next step is to provide feedback to participants and to survey their views again before a final consensus meeting to produce a core outcome set for the Benefits and Adverse events in BARIAtric surgery Clinical Trials (BARIACT) as a solution to this problem. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme. This work was also undertaken with the support of the MRC ConDuCT-II Hub (Collaboration and innovation for Difficult and Complex randomised controlled Trials In Invasive procedures, MR/K025643/1).

Selenium and prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a growing public health problem. Several human studies have shown a potentially protective effect of selenium, but the conclusions from published reports are inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the evidence for relations between selenium intake, selenium status, and prostate cancer risk. DESIGN: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and prospective cohort studies. The World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research Continuous Update Project database was searched up to September 2010. The studies included reported measurements of selenium intake or status (plasma, serum, or toenail selenium), assessments of prostate cancer cases (number of events), and the RR in the adult population. Meta-analyses were performed, and study quality, heterogeneity, and small study effects were assessed. Dose-response meta-analyses were used, with restricted cubic splines and fractional polynomials for nonlinear trends, to investigate the association between selenium status and prostate cancer risk. RESULTS: Twelve studies with a total of 13,254 participants and 5007 cases of prostate cancer were included. The relation between plasma/serum selenium and prostate cancer in a nonlinear dose-response meta-analysis showed that the risk decreased with increasing plasma/serum selenium up to 170 ng/mL. Three high-quality studies included in the meta-analysis of toenail selenium and cancer risk indicated a reduction in prostate cancer risk (estimated RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.61) with a toenail selenium concentration between 0.85 and 0.94 µg/g. CONCLUSION: The relation between selenium status and decreased prostate cancer risk was examined over a relatively narrow range of selenium status; further studies in low-selenium populations are required.

Associations of circulating and dietary vitamin D with prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed literature examining associations of vitamin D (dietary intake, circulating 25-hydroxy-vitamin-D (25(OH)D), and 1,25-dihydroxy-vitamin-D (1,25(OH)(2)D) concentrations) with prostate cancer. METHODS: We searched over 24,000 papers from seven electronic databases (to October 2010) for exposures related to vitamin D. We conducted dose-response random-effects meta-analyses pooling the log odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) per change in natural units of each exposure. The I(2) statistic quantified between-study variation due to heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twenty-five papers were included. In prospective studies, the OR per 1,000 IU increase in dietary intake was 1.14 (6 studies; CI: 0.99, 1.31; I (2) = 0%) for total prostate cancer and 0.93 (3 studies; 0.63, 1.39; I (2) = 25%) for aggressive prostate cancer. Five case-control studies examined dietary intake, but there was a high degree of inconsistency between studies (I (2) = 49%). The OR per 10 ng/mL increase in 25(OH)D was 1.04 (14 studies; 0.99, 1.10; I (2) = 0%) for total prostate cancer and 0.98 (6 studies; 0.84, 1.15; I (2) = 32%) for aggressive prostate cancer. The OR per 10 pg/mL increase in 1,25(OH)(2)D was 1.00 (7 studies; 0.87, 1.14; I (2) = 41%) for total prostate cancer and 0.86 (2 studies; 0.72, 1.02; I (2) = 0%) for aggressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: Published literature provides little evidence to support a major role of vitamin D in preventing prostate cancer or its progression.