How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation. RESULTS: We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

Impact of patient-specific factors on clozapine metabolism in individuals with treatment-resistant schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

BACKGROUND: There is high inter-individual variability in clozapine metabolism due to genetic and non-genetic differences. Patient-specific factors such as smoking, inflammation indicated by elevated C-reactive protein (CRP), and certain concurrent medications have a significant influence on clozapine metabolism. AIM: To assess which patient-specific factors best explain variability in clozapine metabolism estimated by clozapine concentration to dose (C/D) ratios. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis using electronic medical data was conducted on 172 inpatients at the BC Psychosis Program. Patients with normal renal and liver function were included if they were on clozapine and had at least one steady-state plasma concentration. The degree of influence of each factor on the variability of clozapine metabolism in the entire cohort and subgroups stratified by fluvoxamine use was evaluated using multiple linear regression analysis of C/D ratios. RESULTS: Model fit testing showed that the entire cohort model accounts for 52.7% of C/D ratio variability, while the no fluvoxamine and fluvoxamine models accounted for 40.8% and 43.8%. In the entire cohort (n = 172), fluvoxamine use explained the highest variance, and C/D ratios were higher by 30.6% on average. The second strongest predictor was elevated CRP > 10 mg/L, and C/D ratios were higher by 22.9% on average. Subsequently, obesity, nonsmoker status, and female sex explained a significant but modest proportion of variance. Among participants on fluvoxamine (n = 58), only fluvoxamine dose was associated with an increase, and for every 25 mg increase in dose, C/D ratios increased by 5% on average. CONCLUSION: In a clinical population, this study replicated the relationship between reduced rate of clozapine metabolism and the use of fluvoxamine, elevated CRP, obesity, nonsmoking status, and female sex; and the magnitude of the effects were large enough to be clinically relevant.

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors' Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors' assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.