Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews.

BACKGROUND: Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. METHODS: We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. RESULTS: For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

Comparative Risk of Harm Associated With the Use of Targeted Immunomodulators: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the risk of adverse events (AEs) for 13 targeted immunomodulators (TIMs) indicated for ankylosing spondylitis (AS), inflammatory bowel diseases, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We searched electronic databases through July 2015 to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing AEs between 2 or more TIMs head-to-head. We reported on the following outcomes: number of AEs, discontinuation due to AEs, serious AEs, mortality, serious infections, tuberculosis, herpes zoster, and malignancies. We qualitatively synthesized the literature and conducted random-effects meta-analyses if 3 or more studies provided data for an outcome. RESULTS: Ten head-to-head RCTs and 51 observational studies were included in this systematic review. A majority of the studies (70%) were conducted in RA patients. Risk of treatment discontinuation due to AEs was higher with infliximab than with adalimumab or etanercept in RA, PsA, and AS. A higher risk for serious infections was noted with infliximab than with abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept in RA. Risk for treatment discontinuation due to AEs, serious infections, and tuberculosis was lower with etanercept than with adalimumab in RA. Limited evidence suggested no comparative differences in risk for mortality, malignancies, and herpes zoster for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab in RA. CONCLUSION: Important differences were noted in the safety profile of TIMs in RA, generally favoring abatacept, adalimumab, and etanercept over infliximab. Head-to-head comparative evidence for other TIMs and non-RA populations was insufficient to draw conclusions for most of the safety outcomes.

Socioeconomic inequalities in non-communicable diseases and their risk factors: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the largest cause of premature death worldwide. Socioeconomic inequalities contribute to a disparity in the burden of NCDs among disadvantaged and advantaged populations in low (LIC), middle (MIC), and high income countries (HIC). We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to systematically and objectively assess the available evidence on socioeconomic inequalities in relation to morbidity and mortality of NCDs and their risk factors. METHODS: We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Global Health, and Business Source Complete for relevant systematic reviews published between 2003 and December 2013. Two authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications and determined the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews. RESULTS: We screened 3302 abstracts, 173 full-text publications and ultimately included 22 systematic reviews. Most reviews had major methodological shortcomings; however, our synthesis showed that having low socioeconomic status (SES) and/or living in low and middle income countries (LMIC) increased the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD), lung and gastric cancer, type 2 diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Furthermore, low SES increased the risk of mortality from lung cancer, COPD, and reduced breast cancer survival in HIC. Reviews included here indicated that lower SES is a risk factor for obesity in HIC, but this association varied by SES measure. Early case fatalities of stroke were lower and survival of retinoblastoma was higher in MIC compared to LIC. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence supports an association between socioeconomic inequalities and NCDs and risk factors for NCDs. However, this evidence is incomplete and limited by the fairly low methodological quality of the systematic reviews, including shortcomings in the study selection and quality assessment process.

Glycoprotein 130 polymorphism predicts soluble glycoprotein 130 levels.

OBJECTIVE: Interleukin-6 (IL-6) is a key cytokine in inflammatory diseases. It exerts its biological function via binding to a homodimer of its signal transducer glycoprotein 130 (gp130). Soluble gp130 (sgp130) is the natural inhibitor of IL-6 trans-signalling. The aim of this study was to test a possible influence of the gp130 genotype on sgp130 serum levels. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In two separate populations, subjects were genotyped for the gp130 polymorphism G148C. Sgp130, IL-6 and soluble interleukin-6 receptor (sIL-6R) levels were measured. The OSLO population consisted of 546 male subjects at high risk for CAD. The VIENNA population consisted of 299 male subjects with angiographically proven CAD. RESULTS: In the OSLO population, 124 (22.7%) subjects were hetero- or homozygote for the rare C allele. Individuals carrying the polymorphism had significantly higher levels of sgp130. In a multivariate linear regression model this association remained significant (adjusted p=0.001). In the VIENNA population, 48 (16.1%) subjects were hetero- or homozygote for the rare C allele. Consistent with the former study, sgp130 levels were significantly higher in carriers of the polymorphism compared to wildtype carriers (adjusted p=0.038). In the VIENNA population, sgp130 levels were significantly higher in diabetic patients. In the OSLO population, sgp130 was higher in patients with increased body mass index and in smokers (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sgp130 serum levels are significantly higher in subjects carrying the gp130 polymorphism G148C compared to wildtype carriers. This finding proposes a possible genetical influence on sgp130 levels which may alter individual coping mechanisms in inflammatory diseases.

Adjunct ultrasonography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage but misses some cancers. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false-negative rates of screening. Critics are concerned that adjunct ultrasonography will also increase the rate of false-positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments in women at average risk. AIMS: The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the comparative benefits and harms of mammography with adjunct breast ultrasonography and mammography only in breast cancer screening. METHODS: We searched multiple electronic databases and the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register (from 1995 to February 2012). To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched trial registries and multiple sources of grey literature. Two researchers independently reviewed all abstracts and full-text articles against pre-defined eligibility criteria. We dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the strength of evidence based on established guidance. RESULTS: We did not detect any controlled studies that provide evidence for (or against) the use of adjunct ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for breast cancer. Extrapolations of results from women at elevated risk for breast cancer indicate that the false-positive rates in women at average risk who were recalled because of positive ultrasonographies will exceed 98%. In women with dense or very dense breast tissue, the evidence regarding the use of adjunct ultrasonography is not conclusive. CONCLUSIONS: No methodologically sound evidence is available justifying the routine use of ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Clinicians should not use ultrasonography as a screening tool for breast cancer screening on a routine basis. The use should be limited to women with dense breasts for whom the accuracy of mammography is low, or for diagnostic purposes.

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged breasts. In radiographically dense breasts, non-calcified breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen for breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012.To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants.In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms.Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer.

Sentinel lymph node dissection only versus complete axillary lymph node dissection in early invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Z0011-study, a landmark randomised controlled trial (RCT) challenged the benefits of complete axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) compared with sentinel lymph node dissection only (SLND) in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes. The study, however, has been criticised for lack of power and low applicability. The aim of this review was to systematically assess the evidence on the comparative benefits and harms of ALND versus SLND for sentinel node positive breast cancer patients. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from January 2006 to August 2011. We dually reviewed the literature and rated the risk of bias of each study. For effectiveness, we included RCTs and observational studies of at least 1 year follow-up. In addition, we considered studies conducted in sentinel node-negative women to assess the risk of harms. If data were sufficient, we conducted random effects meta-analysis of outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of three studies with 50,120 patients indicated similar 5-year survival and regional recurrence rates between patients treated with ALND or SLND, although prognostic tumour characteristics varied among the 3 study-populations. Results from 6 studies on more than 11,500 patients reported a higher risk for harms for ALND than SLND. Long-term evidence on pertinent health outcomes is missing. CONCLUSION: The available evidence indicates that for some women with early invasive breast cancer SLND appears to be a justifiable alternative to ALND. Surgeons need to discuss advantages and disadvantages of both approaches with their patients.

[Clinical outcomes, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of a 6-month community- based lifestyle program for adults at increased cardiovascular risk in lower Austria]. / Klinische Ergebnisse, gesundheitsbezogene Lebensqualität und Kosten-Effektivität eines 6-monatigen Programms zur Lebensstilmodifikation bei Personen mit erhöhtem kardioväskularen Risiko in Niederösterreich.

AIM: To investigate lifestyle intervention effects and cost-effectiveness of a structured 6-month exercise and nutrition program for individuals at high risk for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Uncontrolled before and after study with assessments at baseline and six months. Adults without existing cardiovascular disease (CVD) but at increased CVD risk were eligible. The analysis was done by intention-to-treat (last-observation-carried-forward). Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. Main outcome measures were changes in cardiovascular risk-factors (blood pressure, weight, body-mass index, serum lipids, blood glucose, smoking cessation, and exercise) and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 356 adults (70.5% female; mean age 48.9 years; mean body mass index 32.4; drop-out 10.4%) participated. At 6 months significant favorable effects were observed in several cardiovascular risk outcomes, exercise behaviour and health related quality of life. At an average incremental cost per life year saved for the ITT-population of 22.474 the program can be considered cost-effective.