The Effect of Cryotherapy Application on Postoperative Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and meta-analyze whether the application of cryotherapy on closed incisions reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption. BACKGROUND: Reduction of acute pain and opioid use is important in the postoperative phase of patient care. ''Cryotherapy'' refers to the use of low temperatures for therapeutic purposes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Online registries of clinical trial were search until October 2019. RCT that examined postoperative application of cryotherapy over surgical incisions in adults compared to no cryotherapy were eligible. Selection, extraction, and risk of bias appraisal were completed in duplicate. Data were synthesized using random effects meta-analyses. The outcomes of interest were postoperative pain, opioid use, hospital length of stay (LOS) and surgical site infection (SSI). RESULTS: Fifty-one RCTs (N = 3425 patients) were included. With moderate certainty evidence, patients treated with cryotherapy experienced a reduction in pain on postoperative day 1 (standardized mean differences -0.50, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.29, l 2= 74%) and day 2 (standardized mean differences -0.63, 95% CI -0.91 to -0.35, I 2 = 83%) relative to without cryotherapy application. With moderate certainty of evidence, cryotherapy reduces opioid consumption in morphine milliequivalents and morphine milliequivalents/kg, (mean differences -7.43, 95% CI -12.42, -2.44, I 2 = 96%) and (mean differences -0.89, 95% CI -1.45, -0.33, I 2 = 99%), respectively. With low certainty evidence, cryotherapy does not affect hospital LOS or rate of SSI. CONCLUSION: Cryotherapy is a pragmatic, noncostly intervention that reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption with no effect on SSI rate or hospital LOS.

Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Surgery Compared to Conventional Surgical Approaches (Laparoscopic or Open): A Systematic Overview of Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Describe clinical outcomes (eg, postoperative complications, survival) after robotic surgery compared to open or laparoscopic surgery. BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery utilization has increased over the years across a wide range of surgical procedures. However, evidence supporting improved clinical outcomes after robotic surgery is limited. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of systematic reviews from inception to January 2019 for systematic reviews describing postoperative outcomes after robotic surgery. We qualitatively described patient outcomes of commonly performed robotic procedures: radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, lobectomy, thymectomy, rectal resection, partial nephrectomy, distal gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, hepatectomy, distal pancreatectomy, and cholecystectomy. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four systematic reviews included 336 studies and 18 randomized controlled trials reporting on patient outcomes after robotic compared to laparoscopic or open procedures. Data from the randomized controlled trials demonstrate that robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy offered fewer biochemical recurrence and improvement in quality of recovery and pain scores only up to 6 weeks postoperatively compared to open radical prostatectomy. When compared to laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic surgery offered improved urinary and sexual functions. Robotic surgery for endometrial cancer had fewer conversion to open compared to laparoscopic. Otherwise, robotic surgery outcomes were similar to conventional surgical approaches for other procedures except for radical hysterectomy where minimally invasive approaches may result in patient harm compared to open approach. CONCLUSION: Robotic surgery has been widely incorporated into practise despite limited supporting evidence. More rigorous research focused on patient-important benefits is needed before further expansion of robotic surgery.

Scoping Review on Rehabilitation Scoping Reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent, scope, and methodological quality of rehabilitation scoping reviews. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive list of scoping reviews conducted in the broader health field (inception to July 2014), with a further update of that list (up to February 2017) using similar methods, including searching 9 electronic databases. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they were scoping reviews within rehabilitation. Established review methods were used including (1) a PubMed filter detecting rehabilitation content and (2) title-and-abstract screening by 2 independent reviewers applied sequentially to articles from the existing list of scoping reviews and to the updated search results. Full-text articles were reviewed by 1 reviewer, with discrepancies resolved by another after pilot screening with > 80% agreement. Remaining discrepancies were resolved by external experts. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers used piloted and standardized data extraction forms. DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened 1823 records, including 992 full texts, to identify 251 rehabilitation-related scoping reviews. Rehabilitation scoping reviews had an exponential yearly increase since 2008 (r2=0.89; P<.01). The literature addressed diverse topics (eg, spread over 43 condition groupings); 43% were published in Canada. Examples of methodological limitations included: 39% of reviews did not cite the use of a methodological framework, 96% did not include the appropriate flow diagram, 8% did not report eligibility criteria, and 57% did not report data extraction details. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing popularity of scoping reviews in rehabilitation has not been met by high standards in methodological quality. To increase the value of rehabilitation scoping reviews, rehabilitation stakeholders need to use existing methodological standards for the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of scoping reviews.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Utility of social media and crowd-intelligence data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A scoping review to characterize the literature on the use of conversations in social media as a potential source of data for detecting adverse events (AEs) related to health products. METHODS: Our specific research questions were (1) What social media listening platforms exist to detect adverse events related to health products, and what are their capabilities and characteristics? (2) What is the validity and reliability of data from social media for detecting these adverse events? MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and relevant websites were searched from inception to May 2016. Any type of document (e.g., manuscripts, reports) that described the use of social media data for detecting health product AEs was included. Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-texts, and one reviewer and one verifier performed data abstraction. Descriptive synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: After screening 3631 citations and 321 full-texts, 70 unique documents with 7 companion reports available from 2001 to 2016 were included. Forty-six documents (66%) described an automated or semi-automated information extraction system to detect health product AEs from social media conversations (in the developmental phase). Seven pre-existing information extraction systems to mine social media data were identified in eight documents. Nineteen documents compared AEs reported in social media data with validated data and found consistent AE discovery in all except two documents. None of the documents reported the validity and reliability of the overall system, but some reported on the performance of individual steps in processing the data. The validity and reliability results were found for the following steps in the data processing pipeline: data de-identification (n = 1), concept identification (n = 3), concept normalization (n = 2), and relation extraction (n = 8). The methods varied widely, and some approaches yielded better results than others. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the use of social media conversations for pharmacovigilance is in its infancy. Although social media data has the potential to supplement data from regulatory agency databases; is able to capture less frequently reported AEs; and can identify AEs earlier than official alerts or regulatory changes, the utility and validity of the data source remains under-studied. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/kv9hu/ ).

Determining the research priorities for patients with chronic kidney disease not on dialysis.

BACKGROUND: The importance of engaging key stakeholders, and patients in particular, in determining research priorities has been recognized. We sought to identify the top 10 research priorities for patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease (CKD), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care. METHODS: We used the four-step James Lind Alliance process to establish the top 10 research priorities. A national survey of patients with non-dialysis CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), their caregivers, and the clinicians and policy-makers involved in their care was conducted to identify research uncertainties. A Steering Group of patients, caregivers, clinicians and researchers combined and reduced these uncertainties to 30 through a series of iterations. Finally, a workshop with participants from across Canada (12 patients, 6 caregivers, 3 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 pharmacist and 1 policy-maker) was held to determine the top 10 research priorities, using a nominal group technique. RESULTS: Overall, 439 individuals responded to the survey and identified 1811 uncertainties, from which the steering group determined the top 30 uncertainties to be considered at the workshop. The top 10 research uncertainties prioritized at the workshop included questions about treatments to prevent progression of kidney disease (including diet) and to treat symptoms of CKD, provider- and patient-targeted strategies for managing CKD, the impact of lifestyle on disease progression, harmful effects of medications on disease progression, optimal strategies for treatment of cardiovascular disease in CKD and for early identification of kidney disease, and strategies for equitable access to care for patients with CKD. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the top 10 research priorities for patients with CKD that can be used to guide researchers, as well as inform funders of health-care research.

Study protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation scoping reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Scoping reviews are increasingly popular in rehabilitation. However, significant variability in scoping review conduct and reporting currently exists, limiting potential for the methodology to advance rehabilitation research, practice and policy. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review of rehabilitation scoping reviews in order to examine the current volume, yearly distribution, proportion, scope and methodological practices involved in the conduct of scoping reviews in rehabilitation. Key areas of methodological improvement will be described. Methods and analysis: We will undertake the review using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. Our search will involve two phases. The first will combine a previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (not distinct to rehabilitation, with data current to July 2014) together with a rehabilitation keyword search in PubMed. Articles found in the first phase search will undergo a full text review. The second phase will include an update of the previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (July 2014 to current). This update will include the search of nine electronic databases, followed by title and abstract screening as well as a full text review. All screening and extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Articles will be included if they are scoping reviews within the field of rehabilitation. A consultation exercise with key targets will inform plans to improve rehabilitation scoping reviews. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics will be required for the consultation phase of our scoping review. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publication and conferences in rehabilitation-specific contexts.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of serotonin receptor antagonists in patients undergoing chemotherapy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are effective in reducing nausea and vomiting, they may be associated with increased cardiac risk. Our objective was to examine the comparative safety and effectiveness of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (e.g., dolasetron, granisetron, ondansetron, palonosetron, tropisetron) alone or combined with steroids for patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until December 2015 for studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other or placebo in chemotherapy patients. The search results were screened, data were abstracted, and risk of bias was appraised by pairs of reviewers, independently. Random-effects meta-analyses and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted. RESULTS: After screening 9226 citations and 970 full-text articles, we included 299 studies (n = 58,412 patients). None of the included studies reported harms for active treatment versus placebo. For NMAs on the risk of arrhythmia (primary outcome; three randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 627 adults) and mortality (secondary outcome; eight RCTs, 4823 adults), no statistically significant differences were observed between agents. A NMA on the risk of QTc prolongation showed a significantly greater risk for dolasetron + dexamethasone versus ondansetron + dexamethasone (four RCTs, 3358 children and adults, odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 2.13-4.17). For NMAs on the number of patients without nausea (44 RCTs, 11,664 adults, 12 treatments), number of patients without vomiting (63 RCTs, 15,460 adults, 12 treatments), and number of patients without chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting (27 RCTs, 10,924 adults, nine treatments), all agents were significantly superior to placebo. For a NMA on severe vomiting (10 RCTs, 917 adults), all treatments decreased the risk, but only ondansetron and ramosetron were significantly superior to placebo. According to a rank-heat plot with the surface under the cumulative ranking curve results, palonosetron + steroid was ranked the safest and most effective agent overall. CONCLUSIONS: Most 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were relatively safe when compared with each other, yet none of the studies compared active treatment with placebo for harms. However, dolasetron + dexamethasone may prolong the QTc compared to ondansetron + dexamethasone. All agents were effective for reducing risk of nausea, vomiting, and chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at PROSPERO: ( CRD42013003564 ).

A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.

BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are used to identify knowledge gaps, set research agendas, and identify implications for decision-making. The conduct and reporting of scoping reviews is inconsistent in the literature. We conducted a scoping review to identify: papers that utilized and/or described scoping review methods; guidelines for reporting scoping reviews; and studies that assessed the quality of reporting of scoping reviews. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases for published and unpublished literature scoping review papers, scoping review methodology, and reporting guidance for scoping reviews. Two independent reviewers screened citations for inclusion. Data abstraction was performed by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative (e.g. frequencies of methods) and qualitative (i.e. content analysis of the methods) syntheses were conducted. RESULTS: After searching 1525 citations and 874 full-text papers, 516 articles were included, of which 494 were scoping reviews. The 494 scoping reviews were disseminated between 1999 and 2014, with 45% published after 2012. Most of the scoping reviews were conducted in North America (53%) or Europe (38%), and reported a public source of funding (64%). The number of studies included in the scoping reviews ranged from 1 to 2600 (mean of 118). Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidance for scoping reviews, only 13% of the scoping reviews reported the use of a protocol, 36% used two reviewers for selecting citations for inclusion, 29% used two reviewers for full-text screening, 30% used two reviewers for data charting, and 43% used a pre-defined charting form. In most cases, the results of the scoping review were used to identify evidence gaps (85%), provide recommendations for future research (84%), or identify strengths and limitations (69%). We did not identify any guidelines for reporting scoping reviews or studies that assessed the quality of scoping review reporting. CONCLUSION: The number of scoping reviews conducted per year has steadily increased since 2012. Scoping reviews are used to inform research agendas and identify implications for policy or practice. As such, improvements in reporting and conduct are imperative. Further research on scoping review methodology is warranted, and in particular, there is need for a guideline to standardize reporting.

A randomized controlled trial comparing in-person and wiki-inspired nominal group techniques for engaging stakeholders in chronic kidney disease research prioritization.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated stakeholder engagement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) research prioritization. In this two-arm, parallel group randomized controlled trial, we sought to compare an in-person nominal group technique (NGT) approach with an online wiki-inspired alternative to determining the top 10 CKD research priorities, and to evaluate stakeholder engagement and satisfaction with each process. METHODS: Eligible participants included adults ≥18 years with access to a computer and Internet, high health literacy, and from one of the following stakeholder groups: patients with CKD not on dialysis, their caregivers, health care providers who care for patients with CKD, or CKD-related health policymakers. Fifty-six participants were randomized to a wiki-inspired modified NGT that occurred over 3 weeks vs. a 1-day in-person NGT workshop, informed by James Lind Alliance methodology, to determine the top 10 CKD-related research priorities. The primary outcome was the pairwise agreement between the two groups' final top 10 ranked priorities, evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Secondary outcomes included participant engagement and satisfaction and wiki tool usability. RESULTS: Spearman's rho for correlation between the two lists was 0.139 (95 % confidence interval -0.543 to 0.703, p = 0.71), suggesting low correlation between the top 10 lists across the two groups. Both groups ranked the same item as the top research priority, with 5 of the top 10 priorities ranked by the wiki group within the top 10 for the in-person group. In comparison to the in-person group, participants from the wiki group were less likely to report: satisfaction with the format (73.7 vs.100 %, p = 0.011); ability to express their views (57.9 vs 96.0 %, p = 0.0003); and perception that they contributed meaningfully to the process (68.4 vs 84.0 %, p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: A CKD research prioritization approach using an online wiki-like tool identified low correlation in rankings compared with an in-person approach, with less satisfaction and perceptions of active engagement. Modifications to the wiki-inspired tool are required before it can be considered a potential alternative to an in-person workshop for engaging patients in determining research priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ( ISRCTN18248625 ).

What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: A knowledge synthesis attempts to summarize all pertinent studies on a specific question, can improve the understanding of inconsistencies in diverse evidence, and can identify gaps in research evidence to define future research agendas. Knowledge synthesis activities in healthcare have largely focused on systematic reviews of interventions. However, a wider range of synthesis methods has emerged in the last decade addressing different types of questions (e.g., realist synthesis to explore mediating mechanisms and moderators of interventions). Many different knowledge synthesis methods exist in the literature across multiple disciplines, but locating these, particularly for qualitative research, present challenges. There is a need for a comprehensive manual for synthesis methods (quantitative/qualitative or mixed), outlining how these methods are related, and how to match the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer a research question. The objectives of this scoping review are to: 1) conduct a systematic search of the literature for knowledge synthesis methods across multi-disciplinary fields; 2) compare and contrast the different knowledge synthesis methods; and, 3) map out the specific steps to conducting the knowledge syntheses to inform the development of a knowledge synthesis methods manual/tool. METHODS: We will search relevant electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, CINAHL), grey literature, and discipline-based listservs. The scoping review will consider all study designs including qualitative and quantitative methodologies (excluding economic analysis or clinical practice guideline development), and identify knowledge synthesis methods across the disciplines of health, education, sociology, and philosophy. Two reviewers will pilot-test the screening criteria and data abstraction forms, and will independently screen the literature and abstract the data. A three-step synthesis process will be used to map the literature to our objectives. DISCUSSION: This project represents the first attempt to broadly and systematically identify, define and classify knowledge synthesis methods (i.e., less traditional knowledge synthesis methods). We anticipate that our results will lead to an accepted taxonomy for less traditional knowledge synthesis methods, and to the development and implementation of a methods manual for these reviews which will be relevant to a wide range of knowledge users, including researchers, funders, and journal editors.

Association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It has been proposed by Zamboni and colleagues that multiple sclerosis is caused by chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency, a term used to describe ultrasound-detectable abnormalities in the anatomy and flow of intra- and extracerebral veins. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies that reported the frequency of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency among patients with and those without multiple sclerosis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as bibliographies of relevant articles for eligible studies. We included studies if they used ultrasound to diagnose chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and compared the frequency of the venous abnormalities among patients with and those without multiple sclerosis. RESULTS: We identified eight eligible studies: all included healthy controls, and four of them also included a control group of patients with neurologic diseases other than multiple sclerosis. Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency was more frequent among patients with multiple sclerosis than among the healthy controls (odds ratio [OR] 13.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-71.4), but there was extensive unexplained heterogeneity among the studies. The association remained significant in the most conservative sensitivity analysis (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.2-11.0), in which we removed the initial study by Zamboni and colleagues and added a study that did not find chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency in any patient. Although chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency was also more frequent among patients with multiple sclerosis than among controls with other neurologic diseases (OR 32.5, 95% CI 0.6-1775.7), the association was not statistically significant, the 95% CI was wide, and the OR was less extreme after removal of the study by Zamboni and colleagues (OR 3.5, 95% 0.8-15.8). INTERPRETATION: Our findings showed a positive association between chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency and multiple sclerosis. However, poor reporting of the success of blinding and marked heterogeneity among the studies included in our review precluded definitive conclusions.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy for age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative safety and efficacy between anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents (anti-VEGFs) and between combined therapies for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review to examine the comparative safety and efficacy anti-VEGFs for adults with nAMD. METHODS: Studies were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL (inception to June 3, 2019), grey literature, and scanning reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-text articles to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Pairwise random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing moderate vision gain (≥ 15 letters on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study chart) and the proportion of patients experiencing moderate vision loss (≤ 15 letters). RESULTS: After screening 3647 citations and 485 potentially relevant full-text articles, 92 RCTs with 24,717 patients were included. NMA (34 RCTs, 8809 patients, 12 treatments) showed small differences among anti-VEGFs in improving the proportion of patients with moderate vision gain, with the largest for conbercept versus broluczumab (OR 0.15, 95% CrI: 0.05-0.56), conbercept versus ranibizumab (OR 0.17, 95% CrI: 0.05-0.59), conbercept versus aflibercept (OR 0.19, 95% CrI: 0.06-0.65), and conbercept versus bevacizumab (OR 0.2, 95% CrI: 0.06-0.69). In NMA (36 RCTs, 9081 patients, 13 treatments) for the proportion of patients with moderate vision loss, small differences were observed among anti-VEGFs, with the largest being for conbercept versus aflibercept (OR 0.24, 95% CrI: 0-4.29), conbercept versus brolucizumab (OR 0.24, 95% CrI: 0-4.71), conbercept versus bevacizumab (OR 0.26, 95% CrI: 0-4.65), and conbercept versus ranibizumab (OR 0.27, 95% CrI: 0-4.67). CONCLUSION: The only observed differences were that ranibizumab, bevacizumab, aflibercept, and brolucizumab were statistically superior to conbercept in terms of the proportion of patients with nAMD who experienced moderate vision gain. However, this finding is based on indirect evidence through one small trial comparing conbercept with placebo. This does not account for drug-specific differences when assessing anatomic and functional treatment efficacy in variable dosing regimens. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42015022041.

Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application.

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.Despite available guidance, some publications use the term 'scoping review' without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review's objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews.Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

The impact of negative pressure wound therapy for closed surgical incisions on surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections cause substantial morbidity and mortality. Negative pressure wound therapy may reduce the risk of surgical site infections, but current evidence is unclear. The objective of this study was to examine whether negative pressure wound therapy reduces the risk of surgical site infections and other wound complications when compared with conventional dressings in all patients with primarily closed surgical wounds. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Trials that compared a negative pressure wound therapy system to any non-negative pressure wound therapy dressing in surgical wound(s) intended to heal by primary intention were eligible. Surgical site infection was the primary outcome, and secondary outcomes included wound dehiscence, pain, seroma, healing time, length of stay, device-related complications, cost-effectiveness, and quality of life. Selection, extraction, and risk of bias steps were done in duplicate, and data were synthesized using random effects meta-analyses. A priori sensitivity and subgroup analyses of the primary outcome were completed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework was used to appraise the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Forty-four randomized controlled trials with N = 5,693 patients were included. Patients treated with negative pressure wound therapy experienced nearly a 40% reduction in the risk of surgical site infections relative to those with conventional dressings, which was statistically significant: pooled risk ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.74, I2 = 26%. The effect remained consistent across surgical specialties and brands of negative pressure wound therapy devices. A statistically significant reduction in wound dehiscence and seroma incidence was also observed. CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty that negative pressure wound therapy applied to closed surgical incisions reduces the risk of surgical site infections across all surgical procedures.

Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatment for retinal conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of intravitreal bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept for patients with choroidal neovascular age-related macular degeneration (cn-AMD), diabetic macular oedema (DMO), macular oedema due to retinal vein occlusion (RVO-MO) and myopic choroidal neovascularisation (m-CNV). DESIGN: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched from inception to 17 August 2017. Eligible head-to-head randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the (anti-VEGF) drugs in adult patients aged ≥18 years with the retinal conditions of interest. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: 19 RCTs involving 7459 patients with cn-AMD (n=12), DMO (n=3), RVO-MO (n=2) and m-CNV (n=2) were included. Vision gain was not significantly different in patients with cn-AMD, DMO, RVO-MO and m-CNV treated with bevacizumab versus ranibizumab. Similarly, vision gain was not significantly different between cn-AMD patients treated with aflibercept versus ranibizumab. Patients with DMO treated with aflibercept experienced significantly higher vision gain at 12 months than patients receiving ranibizumab or bevacizumab; however, this difference was not significant at 24 months. Rates of systemic serious harms were similar across anti-VEGF agents. Posthoc analyses revealed that an as-needed treatment regimen (6-9 injections per year) was associated with a mortality increase of 1.8% (risk ratio: 2.0 [1.2 to 3.5], 2 RCTs, 1795 patients) compared with monthly treatment in cn-AMD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Intravitreal bevacizumab was a reasonable alternative to ranibizumab and aflibercept in patients with cn-AMD, DMO, RVO-MO and m-CNV. The only exception was for patients with DME and low visual acuity (<69 early treatment diabetic retinopathy study [ETDRS] letters), where treatment with aflibercept was associated with significantly higher vision gain (≥15 ETDRS letters) than bevacizumab or ranibizumab at 12 months; but the significant effects were not maintained at 24 months. The choice of anti-VEGF drugs may depend on the specific retinal condition, baseline visual acuity and treatment regimen. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015022041.

Impact of the Canadian Diabetes Association guideline dissemination strategy on clinician knowledge and behaviour change outcomes.

AIM: Implementation of clinical practice guideline (CPG) into clinical practice remains limited. Using the Knowledge-To-Action framework, a guideline dissemination and implementation strategy for the Canadian Diabetes Association's 2013 CPG was developed and launched to clinicians and people with diabetes. METHODS: The RE-AIM framework guided evaluation of this strategy clinician; we report here one aspect of the effectiveness dimension using mixed methods. We measured impact of the strategy on clinican knowledge and behaviour change constructs using evaluation forms, national online survey and individual interviews. RESULTS: After attending a lecture, clinician confidence (n = 915) increased (3.7(SD 0.7) to 4.5 (SD 0.6) on a 5-point scale (p < 0.001)), with 55% (n = 505) intending to make a practice change (e.g. clinical management regarding glycemic control). Ninety-four percent of survey respondents (n = 907) were aware of the guidelines, attributed to communications from professional associations, continuing professional development events, and colleagues. Forty to 98% of respondents (total n 462-485) were correct in their interpretation of CPG messages, and 33-65%(total n 351-651) reported that they had made changes to their practice. Interviews with 28 clinicians revealed that organizational credibility, online access to tools, clarity of tool content, and education sessions facilitated uptake; lack of time, team-based consensus, and seamless integration into care and patient complexity were barriers. CONCLUSION: The complexity of diabetes care requires systemic adoption of organization of care interventions, including interprofessional collaboration and consensus. Augmenting our strategy to include scalable models for professional development, integration of guidelines into electronic medical records, and expansion of our target audience to include health care teams and patients, may optimize guideline uptake.

Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases of KS approaches: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Data in the five published databases were abstracted by two reviewers independently, any missing data for this retrospective analysis were abstracted by one experienced reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Reporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMAs. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% of NMAs, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMAs. NMAs had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1-Q3:45-73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1-Q3:13-38%). CONCLUSION: NMAs consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.

Comparative safety and effectiveness of perinatal antiretroviral therapies for HIV-infected women and their children: Systematic review and network meta-analysis including different study designs.

BACKGROUND: Nearly all newly infected children acquire Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) via mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) during pregnancy, labour or breastfeeding from untreated HIV-positive mothers. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the standard care for pregnant women with HIV. However, evidence of ART effectiveness and harms in infants and children of HIV-positive pregnant women exposed to ART has been largely inconclusive. The aim of our systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of ART drugs in children exposed to maternal HIV and ART (or no ART/placebo) across different study designs. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (inception until December 7, 2015). Primary outcomes were any congenital malformations (CMs; safety), including overall major and minor CMs, and mother-to-child transmission (MTCT; effectiveness). Random-effects Bayesian pairwise meta-analyses and NMAs were conducted. After screening 6,468 citations and 1,373 full-text articles, 90 studies of various study designs and 90,563 patients were included. RESULTS: The NMA on CMs (20 studies, 7,503 children, 16 drugs) found that none of the ART drugs examined here were associated with a significant increase in CMs. However, zidovudine administered with lamivudine and indinavir was associated with increased risk of preterm births, zidovudine administered with nevirapine was associated with increased risk of stillbirths, and lamivudine administered with stavudine and efavirenz was associated with increased risk of low birth weight. A NMA on MTCT (11 studies, 10,786 patients, 6 drugs) found that zidovudine administered once (odds ratio [OR] = 0.39, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.19-0.83) or twice (OR = 0.43, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.68) was associated with significantly reduced risk of MTCT. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ART drugs are not associated with an increased risk of CMs, yet some may increase adverse birth events. Some ART drugs (e.g., zidovudine) effectively reduce MTCT.