Atopic dermatitis (eczema) guidelines: 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters GRADE- and Institute of Medicine-based recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Guidance addressing atopic dermatitis (AD) management, last issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force, requires updating as a result of new treatments and improved guideline and evidence synthesis methodology. OBJECTIVE: To produce evidence-based guidelines that support patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers in the optimal treatment of AD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary guideline panel consisting of patients and caregivers, AD experts (dermatology and allergy/immunology), primary care practitioners (family medicine, pediatrics, internal medicine), and allied health professionals (psychology, pharmacy, nursing) convened, prioritized equity, diversity, and inclusiveness, and implemented management strategies to minimize influence of conflicts of interest. The Evidence in Allergy Group supported guideline development by performing systematic evidence reviews, facilitating guideline processes, and holding focus groups with patient and family partners. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach informed rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. Evidence-to-decision frameworks, subjected to public comment, translated evidence to recommendations using trustworthy guideline principles. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 25 recommendations to gain and maintain control of AD for patients with mild, moderate, and severe AD. The eAppendix provides practical information and implementation considerations in 1-2 page patient-friendly handouts. CONCLUSION: These evidence-based recommendations address optimal use of (1) topical treatments (barrier moisturization devices, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, PDE4 inhibitors [crisaborole], topical JAK inhibitors, occlusive [wet wrap] therapy, adjunctive antimicrobials, application frequency, maintenance therapy), (2) dilute bleach baths, (3) dietary avoidance/elimination, (4) allergen immunotherapy, and (5) systemic treatments (biologics/monoclonal antibodies, small molecule immunosuppressants [cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate, JAK inhibitors], and systemic corticosteroids) and UV phototherapy (light therapy).

Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline.

CLINICAL QUESTION: What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)? CURRENT PRACTICE: TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and ß blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective. THE EVIDENCE: Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna). RESULTS: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

Comparison of seven popular structured dietary programmes and risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions). REVIEW METHODS: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: 40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016047939.

Lessening Organ Dysfunction With Vitamin C (LOVIT) Trial: Statistical Analysis Plan.

BACKGROUND: The LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C) trial is a blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing high-dose intravenous vitamin C to placebo in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and receiving a vasopressor. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the LOVIT trial prior to unblinding and locking of the trial database. METHODS: The SAP was designed by the LOVIT principal investigators and statisticians, and approved by the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes, and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The SAP includes a draft participant flow diagram, tables, and planned figures. The primary outcome is a composite of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or new renal replacement therapy) at 28 days, where day 1 is the day of randomization. All analyses will use a frequentist statistical framework. The analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the risk ratio and 95% CI in a generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and log link, with site as a random effect. We will perform a secondary analysis adjusting for prespecified baseline clinical variables. Subgroup analyses will include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock, baseline ascorbic acid level, and COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an SAP for the LOVIT trial and will adhere to it in the analysis phase. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36261.

Prophylactic Therapies for Morbidity and Mortality After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is associated with high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to determine the relative benefits of pharmacological prophylactic treatments in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. METHODS: We searched Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, ProQuest, and Cochrane Central to February 2020. Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Eligible trials compared the prophylactic effects of any oral or intravenous medications or intracranial drug-eluting implants to one another or placebo or standard of care in adult hospitalized patients with confirmed aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 53 trials enrolling 10 415 patients. Nimodipine likely reduces all-cause mortality compared to placebo (odds ratio [OR],0.73 [95% CI, 0.53-1.00]; moderate certainty; absolute risk reduction (ARR), -3.35%). Nimodipine (OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.07-1.99]; high certainty; absolute risk increase, 8.25%) and cilostazol (OR, 3.73 [95% CI, 1.14-12.18]; moderate certainty; absolute risk increase, 23.15%) were the most effective treatments in improving disability at the longest follow-up. Compared to placebo, clazosentan (10 mg/kg; OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.22-0.68]; high certainty; ARR, -16.65%), nicardipine (OR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.24-0.94]; moderate certainty; ARR, -13.70%), fasudil (OR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.31-0.98]; moderate certainty; ARR, -11.54%), and magnesium (OR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.46-0.94]; high certainty; ARR, -8.37%) proved most effective in reducing the likelihood of delayed cerebral ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Nimodipine and cilostazol are likely the most effective treatments in preventing morbidity and mortality in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Clazosentan, nicardipine, fasudil, and magnesium showed beneficial effects on delayed cerebral ischemia and vasospasm but they were not found to reduce mortality or disability. Future trials are warranted to elaborately investigate the prophylactic effects of medications that may improve mortality and long-term functional outcomes, such as cilostazol and clazosentan. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019122183.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

UPDATES: This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation­risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

A Systematic Review of Patients' Values, Preferences, and Expectations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

CONTEXT: Understanding men's values and preferences in the context of personal, physical, emotional, relational, and social factors is important in optimising patient counselling, facilitating treatment decision-making, and improving guideline recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available evidence regarding the values, preferences, and expectations of men towards the investigation and treatment (conservative, pharmacological, and surgical) of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched electronic databases until August 31, 2020 for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported values and preferences regarding the investigation and treatment of LUTS in men. We assessed the quality of evidence and risk of bias using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approaches. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We included 25 quantitative studies, three qualitative studies, and one mixed-methods study recruiting 9235 patients. Most men reported urodynamic testing to be acceptable, despite discomfort or embarrassment, as it significantly informs treatment decisions (low certainty evidence). Men preferred conservative and less risky treatment options, but the preference varied depending on baseline symptom severity and the risk/benefit characteristics of the treatment (moderate certainty). Men preferred pharmacological treatments with a low risk of erectile dysfunction and those especially improving urgency incontinence (moderate certainty). Other important preference considerations included reducing the risk of acute urinary retention or surgery (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Men prefer lower-risk management options that have fewer sexual side effects and are primarily effective at improving urgency incontinence and nocturia. Overall, the evidence was rated to be of low to moderate certainty. This review can facilitate the treatment decision-making process and improve the trustworthiness of guideline recommendations. PATIENT SUMMARY: We thoroughly reviewed the evidence addressing men's values and preferences regarding the management of urinary symptoms and found that minimising adverse effects is particularly important. Further research to understand other factors that matter to men is required.

The effectiveness of Baduanjin exercise for hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension, a major risk factor of cardiovascular mortality, is a critical issue for public health. Although Baduanjin (Eight Brocades, EB), a traditional Chinese exercise, might influence blood pressure, glucose, and lipid status, the magnitude of true effects and subgroup differences remains unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of EB on patient-important outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Chinese databases since inception until March 30, 2020. Meta-analysis was carried out using "meta" package in R 3.4.3 software. A prespecified subgroup analysis was done according to the type of comparisons between groups, and the credibility of significant subgroup effects (P < 0.05) were accessed using a five-criteria list. A GRADE evidence profile was constructed to illustrate the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis, including 14 eligible trials with 1058 patients, showed that compared with routine treatment or health education as control groups, the mean difference (MD) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) of the EB groups was - 8.52 mmHg (95%CI:[- 10.65, - 6.40], P < 0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was - 4.65 mmHg (95%CI: [- 6.55, - 2.74], P < 0.01). For blood pressure, the evidence was, however, of low certainty because of risk of bias and inconsistency, and for the outcomes of most interest to patients (cardiovascular morbidity and mortality directly), of very low certainty (measurement of surrogate only). Subgroup analysis showed there was no significant interaction effect between different type of comparisons (SBP P = 0.15; DBP P = 0.37), so it could be easily attributed to chance. CONCLUSION: Regularly EB exercising may be helpful to control blood pressure, but the evidence is only low certainty for blood pressure and very low certainty for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Rigorously designed RCTs that carry out longer follow-up and address patient-important outcomes remain warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42018095854 .

Lessening Organ dysfunction with VITamin C (LOVIT): protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a health problem of global importance; treatments focus on controlling infection and supporting failing organs. Recent clinical research suggests that intravenous vitamin C may decrease mortality in sepsis. We have designed a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain the effect of vitamin C on the composite endpoint of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days in patients with sepsis. METHODS: LOVIT (Lessening Organ dysfunction with VITamin C) is a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded (participants, clinicians, study personnel, Steering Committee members, data analysts), superiority RCT (minimum n = 800). Eligible patients have sepsis as the diagnosis for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and are receiving vasopressors. Those admitted to the ICU for more than 24 h are excluded. Eligible patients are randomized to high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg every 6 h for 96 h) or placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (need for vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new and persisting renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include persistent organ dysfunction-free days to day 28, mortality and health-related quality of life at 6 months, biomarkers of dysoxia, inflammation, infection, endothelial function, and adverse effects (hemolysis, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia). Six subgroup analyses are planned. DISCUSSION: This RCT will provide evidence of the effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C on patient-important outcomes in patients with sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03680274, first posted 21 September 2018.

Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease. DESIGN: Systematic review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain, function, adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: For effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference =5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference =3.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference =4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference =3.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Over the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42016046242.

Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: intention-to-treat, treatment adherence, and missing participant outcome data in the nutrition literature.

Among clinical trials of adequate size, randomization balances both known and unknown prognostic factors between trial arms, thus allowing an unbiased comparison of intervention and control. To preserve this benefit, all randomly assigned participants should be followed to study termination and analyzed in the arm to which they were allocated. There are 2 potential limitations in study implementation: 1) patients are nonadherent and continue with follow-up visits, or 2) patients are lost to follow-up and their outcome data are missing. Herein, we address these issues with an emphasis on binary outcomes, and discuss how authors of randomized trials should address issues of both noncompliance and missing data.

Management of Central Poststroke Pain: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Central poststroke pain is a chronic neuropathic disorder that follows a stroke. Current research on its management is limited, and no review has evaluated all therapies for central poststroke pain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate therapies for central poststroke pain. We identified eligible trials, in any language, by systematic searches of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DARE, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and PsychINFO. Eligible trials (1) enrolled ≥10 patients with central poststroke pain; (2) randomly assigned them to an active therapy or a control arm; and (3) collected outcome data≥14 days after treatment. Pairs of reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts of identified citations, reviewed full texts of potentially eligible trials, and extracted information from eligible studies. We used a modified Cochrane tool to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, and collected patient-important outcomes according to recommendations by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials. We conducted, when possible, random effects meta-analyses, and evaluated our certainty in treatment effects using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation System. RESULTS: Eight eligible English language randomized controlled trials (459 patients) tested anticonvulsants, an antidepressant, an opioid antagonist, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and acupuncture. Results suggested that all therapies had little to no effect on pain and other patient-important outcomes. Our certainty in the treatment estimates ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are inconsistent with major clinical practice guidelines; the available evidence suggests no beneficial effects of any therapies that researchers have evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

Women's values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy: a comparison of direct-choice and decision analysis using patient specific utilities.

BACKGROUND: Women with a history of venous thromboembolism (VTE) have an increased recurrence risk during pregnancy. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) reduces this risk, but is costly, burdensome, and may increase risk of bleeding. The decision to start thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy is sensitive to women's values and preferences. Our objective was to compare women's choices using a holistic approach in which they were presented all of the relevant information (direct-choice) versus a personalized decision analysis in which a mathematical model incorporated their preferences and VTE risk to make a treatment recommendation. METHODS: Multicenter, international study. Structured interviews were on women with a history of VTE who were pregnant, planning, or considering pregnancy. Women indicated their willingness to receive thromboprophylaxis based on scenarios using personalized estimates of VTE recurrence and bleeding risks. We also obtained women's values for health outcomes using a visual analog scale. We performed individualized decision analyses for each participant and compared model recommendations to decisions made when presented with the direct-choice exercise. RESULTS: Of the 123 women in the study, the decision model recommended LMWH for 51 women and recommended against LMWH for 72 women. 12% (6/51) of women for whom the decision model recommended thromboprophylaxis chose not to take LMWH; 72% (52/72) of women for whom the decision model recommended against thromboprophylaxis chose LMWH. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high degree of discordance between decisions in the direct-choice exercise and decision model recommendations. Although which approach best captures individuals' true values remains uncertain, personalized decision support tools presenting results based on personalized risks and values may improve decision making.

Hypnosis/Relaxation therapy for temporomandibular disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of hypnosis/relaxation therapy compared to no/minimal treatment in patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). METHODS: Studies reviewed included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where investigators randomized patients with TMD or an equivalent condition to an intervention arm receiving hypnosis, relaxation training, or hyporelaxation therapy, and a control group receiving no/minimal treatment. The systematic search was conducted without language restrictions, in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PsycINFO, from inception to June 30, 2014. Studies were pooled using weighted mean differences and pooled risk ratios (RRs) for continuous outcomes and dichotomous outcomes, respectively, and their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 3,098 identified citations, 3 studies including 159 patients proved eligible, although none of these described their method of randomization. The results suggested limited or no benefit of hypnosis/relaxation therapy on pain (risk difference in important pain -0.06; 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.05; P = .28), or on pressure pain thresholds on the skin surface over the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) and masticatory muscles. Low-quality evidence suggested some benefit of hypnosis/relaxation therapy on maximal pain (mean difference on 100-mm scale = -28.33; 95% CI: -44.67 to -11.99; P =.007) and active maximal mouth opening (mean difference on 100-mm scale = -2.63 mm; 95% CI: -3.30 mm to -1.96 mm; P < .001) compared to no/minimal treatment. CONCLUSION: Three RCTs were eligible for the systematic review, but they were with high risk of bias and provided low-quality evidence, suggesting that hypnosis/relaxation therapy may have a beneficial effect on maximal pain and active maximal mouth opening but not on pain and pressure pain threshold. Larger RCTs with low risk of bias are required to confirm or refute these findings and to inform other important patient outcomes.

Evaluating the Individualized Treatment of Traditional Chinese Medicine: A Pilot Study of N-of-1 Trials.

Purpose. To compare the efficacy of individualized herbal decoction with controlled decoction for individual patients with stable bronchiectasis. Methods. We conducted N-of-1 RCTs (single-patient, double-blind, randomized, multiple crossover design) in 3 patients with stable bronchiectasis. The primary outcome was patient self-rated symptom scores on visual analogue scales. Secondary outcome was 24-hour sputum volume. A clinical efficacy criterion which combined symptoms score and medication preference was also formulated. Results. All three patients showed various degrees of improvement on their symptoms and one patient's (Case 3) 24 h sputum volume decreased from 70 mL to 30 mL. However, no significant differences were found between individualized herbal decoction and control decoction on symptoms score, or on 24-hour sputum volume. One patient (Case 2) had clear preference for the individualized herbal decoction over the standard one with the confirmation after unblinding. We therefore considered this case as clinically important. Discussion. N-of-1 trials comply with individualized philosophy of TCM clinical practice and had good compliance. It is necessary to set up clinical efficacy criteria and to consider the interference of acute exacerbation.

Fluid resuscitation in sepsis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluid resuscitation is the cornerstone of sepsis treatment. However, whether balanced or unbalanced crystalloids or natural or synthetic colloids confer a survival advantage is unclear. PURPOSE: To examine the effect of different resuscitative fluids on mortality in patients with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through March 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that evaluated different resuscitative fluids in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and death. No language restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. Risk of bias for individual studies and quality of evidence were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: 14 studies (18916 patients) were included with 15 direct comparisons. Network meta-analysis at the 4-node level showed higher mortality with starches than with crystalloids (high confidence) and lower mortality with albumin than with crystalloids (moderate confidence) or starches (moderate confidence). Network meta-analysis at the 6-node level showed lower mortality with albumin than with saline (moderate confidence) and low-molecular-weight starch (low confidence) and with balanced crystalloids than with saline (low confidence) and low- and high-molecular-weight starches (moderate confidence). LIMITATIONS: These trials were heterogeneous in case mix, fluids evaluated, duration of fluid exposure, and risk of bias. Imprecise estimates for several comparisons in this network meta-analysis contribute to low confidence in most estimates of effect. CONCLUSION: Among patients with sepsis, resuscitation with balanced crystalloids or albumin compared with other fluids seems to be associated with reduced mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Hamilton Chapter of the Canadian Intensive Care Foundation and the Critical Care Medicine Residency Program and Critical Care Division Alternate Funding Plan at McMaster University.

Using GRADE for evaluating the quality of evidence in hyperbaric oxygen therapy clarifies evidence limitations.

OBJECTIVES: The current evidence rating for hyperbaric oxygen therapy indications uses the American Heart Association system, which mainly depends on the study design. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed the literature and applied the Grading of Evidence, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to the main patient-important outcomes in each indication. RESULTS: We included 17 systematic reviews that synthesized 44 randomized trials and 131 observational studies enrolling 8,145 participants. The quality of evidence for seven indications with category A was high (1), moderate (2), low (2), and very low (2); for 10 indications with category B, it was moderate (1), low (5), and very low (4); and for 1 indication with category C, it was high. The quality of evidence was rated down for the risk of bias and imprecision for most indications and rated up because of large effect size for some indications. Most discrepant ratings were in the indications of decompression illness (C, high), carbon monoxide poisoning (A, very low), and later presentations of idiopathic sudden hearing loss (A, very low). CONCLUSION: The GRADE approach uncovered factors affecting the quality of evidence that were otherwise implicit. Knowing these factors can influence clinicians' confidence in applying hyperbaric oxygen therapy and orient the research agenda.

Evidence-based management of anticoagulant therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: High-quality anticoagulation management is required to keep these narrow therapeutic index medications as effective and safe as possible. This article focuses on the common important management questions for which, at a minimum, low-quality published evidence is available to guide best practices. METHODS: The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. RESULTS: Most practical clinical questions regarding the management of anticoagulation, both oral and parenteral, have not been adequately addressed by randomized trials. We found sufficient evidence for summaries of recommendations for 23 questions, of which only two are strong rather than weak recommendations. Strong recommendations include targeting an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0 for patients on vitamin K antagonist therapy (Grade 1B) and not routinely using pharmacogenetic testing for guiding doses of vitamin K antagonist (Grade 1B). Weak recommendations deal with such issues as loading doses, initiation overlap, monitoring frequency, vitamin K supplementation, patient self-management, weight and renal function adjustment of doses, dosing decision support, drug interactions to avoid, and prevention and management of bleeding complications. We also address anticoagulation management services and intensive patient education. CONCLUSIONS: We offer guidance for many common anticoagulation-related management problems. Most anticoagulation management questions have not been adequately studied.