Evidence-informed guidelines in oral health: insights from a systematic survey.

BACKGROUND: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem, impacting the quality of life of those affected. While consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This study aimed to systematically identify organizations that develop evidence-informed guidelines in oral health globally and survey the methodological process followed to formulate recommendations. METHODS: We searched numerous electronic databases, guideline repositories, and websites of guideline developers, scientific societies, and international organizations (January 2012-October 2023) to identify organizations that develop guidelines addressing any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in their development. Pairs of reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible organizations according to predefined selection criteria and extracted data about the organization's characteristics, key features of their guidelines, and the process followed when formulating formal recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze and summarize data. RESULTS: We included 46 organizations that developed evidence-informed guidelines in oral health. The organizations were mainly professional associations and scientific societies (67%), followed by governmental organizations (28%). In total, organizations produced 55 different guideline document types, most of them containing recommendations for clinical practice (77%). Panels were primarily composed of healthcare professionals (87%), followed by research methodologists (40%), policymakers (24%), and patient partners (18%). Most (60%) of the guidelines reported their funding source, but only one out of three (33%) included a conflict of interest (COI) policy management. The methodology used in the 55 guideline document types varied across the organizations, but only 19 (35%) contained formal recommendations. Half (51%) of the guideline documents referred to a methodology handbook, 46% suggested a structured approach or system for rating the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations, and 37% mentioned using a framework to move from evidence to decisions, with the GRADE-EtD being the most widely used (27%). CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the need for alignment and standardization of both terminology and methodologies used in oral health guidelines with current international standards to formulate trustworthy recommendations.

How appropriate is treating patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer with anticancer drugs? A multicenter retrospective cohort Spanish study.

AIM: To assess the appropriateness of systemic oncological treatments (SOT) provided to patients diagnosed with advanced esophageal cancer (EC) across a group of participating hospitals. METHODS: Multicenter, retrospective cohort study in five Spanish hospitals including newly confirmed advanced EC cases between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, with a 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: We identified 157 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria (median age: 65 years, 85.9% males). Most patients, 125 (79.6%) were treated at least with one active treatment, and 33% received two or more lines of SOT. The 1-, 2- and 5-year overall survival rates were 30.3% [95%CI: 23.8, 38.7], 14.0% [95%CI: 9.3, 21.0], and 7.1% [95% CI: 3.8, 13.1] respectively, and the median survival time 8 months (95% CI: 6, 19) for stages IIIb IIIc and 7 months (95% CI: 5, 9) for stage IV. Clinical stage, receiving more than one line of SOT, and treatment with radiotherapy accelerated the time to death (0.4, 0.9-, and 0.8-times shorter survival respectively, p < 0.05). Better performance status (ECOG < 2) extended survival time by 2.2 times (p = 0.04). Age < 65 years (OR 9.4, 95% CI 3.2, 31.4, p < 0.001), and being treated in one particular hospital (OR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 0.8, p < 0.01) were associated with the administration of two or more lines of SOT. Altogether, 18.9% and 9.0% of patients received chemotherapy in the last four and two weeks of life, respectively. Moreover, 2.5% of patients were prescribed a new line of chemotherapy during the last month of life. The proportion of all patients who did not have access to palliative care reached 29.3%, and among those who had access to it, 34.2% initiated it in the last month of life. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of advanced EC patients receive many treatments not based on sound evidence and they do not benefit enough from palliative care services. The most accepted appropriateness indicators point out that some of the analyzed patients could have been overtreated. This study provides important insights into the quality of care provided to advanced EC, and furthermore, for giving valuable insight and opportunities for improvement.

Assessing the methodological strengths and limitations of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) guidelines: a critical appraisal using AGREE II and AGREE-REX tool.

BACKGROUND: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has provided open-access guidelines for cancer since 2014. However, no independent assessment of their quality has been conducted to date. This study aimed to critically evaluate the quality of SEOM guidelines on cancer treatment. METHODS: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX tool was used to evaluate the qualities of the guidelines. RESULTS: We assessed 33 guidelines, with 84.8% rated as "high quality". The highest median standardized scores (96.3) were observed in the domain "clarity of presentation", whereas "applicability" was distinctively low (31.4), with only one guideline scoring above 60%. SEOM guidelines did not include the views and preferences of the target population, nor did specify updating methods. CONCLUSIONS: Although developed with acceptable methodological rigor, SEOM guidelines could be improved in the future, particularly in terms of clinical applicability and patient perspectives.

How oral health care organizations formulate actionable statements to inform practice and policy: A protocol for a systematic survey.

Background: Oral diseases are a major global public health problem that impacts the quality of life of those affected. While widespread consensus exists on the importance of high-quality, evidence-informed guidelines to inform practice and public health decisions in medicine, appropriate methodologies and standards are not commonly adhered to among producers of oral health guidelines. This systematic survey aims to identify organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally, and describe the methods and processes used. Methods: We will conduct manual searches on the websites of guideline developers, Ministries of Health, and scientific societies. Additionally, we will systematically search electronic databases to identify published guidelines and collect the name of the responsible entity. We will include organizations that regularly develop guidelines on any oral health topic and that explicitly declare the inclusion of research evidence in its development process. Subsequently, we will use a standardized form to extract data about the characteristics of the organization, the characteristics of their guideline or policy documents, and their formal recommendation development processes. These data will be extracted from various sources, such as the organization's official website, the methods section of each guideline, or methodological handbooks. We will use descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data. Discussion: This systematic survey will synthesize key characteristics and methodologies used by organizations developing evidence-informed guidelines. This study will provide the basis for future development of a sustainable and connected collaborative network for evidence-informed guidelines and policy documents in oral health globally. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and targeted dissemination of findings with the identified organizations. Our systematic survey represents a necessary first step toward improving the field of oral health policies and guidelines.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map.

Introduction: Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes. Methods: In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer. Results: We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care. Discussion: Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Treatments for non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines.

AIM: To evaluate the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CPG developer websites, lung cancer societies, and oncology organizations to identify CPGs providing recommendations on treatments for NSCLC. The methodological quality for each CPG was determined independently by three appraisers using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) instrument. RESULTS: Twenty-two CPGs met the eligibility criteria. The median scores per AGREE II domain were: scope and purpose 90.7% (64.8-100%), stakeholder involvement 76.9% (27.8-96.3%); rigor of development 80.9% (27.1-92.4%); clarity of presentation 89.8% (50-100%); applicability 46.5% (12.5-87.5%); and editorial independence 91.7% (27.8-100%). Most of the CPGs (54.5%) were rated as "recommended with modifications" for clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the methodological quality of CPGs proving recommendations on the management of NSCLC is moderate, but there is still room for improvement in their development and implementation.

A methodological review finds mismatch between overall and pairwise overlap analysis in a sample of overviews.

OBJECTIVES: Overlap of primary studies is a key methodological challenge for overviews. There are limited reports of methods used to address overlap, and there is no detailed assessment of the corrected covered area (CCA) of a representative sample of overviews. To describe the approaches used to address overlap, and to estimate the overall and pairwise CCA. METHODS: We searched PubMed for overviews published in 2018. Two authors conducted the screening process. We described the strategy used for assessing overlap, and calculated overall and pairwise CCA for each overview. RESULTS: We analyzed a random sample of 30 out of 89 eligible articles. Eleven did not address the overlap. Of the remainder, most frequent strategies were visual assessment and discussion of overlap as a limitation. Median overall CCA among the included overviews was 6.7%. The pairwise analysis showed that 52.8% of SR pairs had slight overlap, while 28.3% had very high overlap. CONCLUSION: Reported strategies for addressing overlap vary considerably among overview authors. The pairwise approach for assessing the CCA revealed highly overlapped pairs of SRs in overviews with overall slight overlap and vice versa. We encourage authors to complement the overall CCA assessment with a pairwise approach.

Systemic Oncological Treatments versus Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancers: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: The trade-off between systemic oncological treatments (SOTs) and UPSC in patients with primary advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) is not clear in terms of patient-centred outcomes beyond survival. This overview aims to assess the effectiveness of SOTs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy and targeted/biological therapies) versus UPSC in advanced HBCs. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently and performed data extraction. We estimated the quality of SRs and the overlap of primary studies, performed de novo meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome. RESULTS: We included 18 SRs, most of which were of low quality and highly overlapped. For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, SOTs showed better overall survival (HR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.55-0.77, high certainty for first-line therapy; HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.79-0.92, moderate certainty for second-line therapy) with higher toxicity (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.87-1.60, very low certainty for first-line therapy; RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.28-1.96, low certainty for second-line therapy). Survival was also better for SOTs in advanced gallbladder cancer. No outcomes beyond survival and toxicity could be meta-analysed. CONCLUSION: SOTs in advanced HBCs tend to improve survival at the expense of greater toxicity. Future research should inform other patient-important outcomes to guide clinical decision making.

Sexual Function in Women with Breast Cancer: An Evidence Map of Observational Studies.

Breast cancer (BC) is the leading cause of cancer in women, and has implications for sexual function (SF). In this study, we used an evidence map to identify, describe, and organise the current available evidence regarding SF in women with BC. We searched the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases for observational studies assessing SF in women with BC published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French between 2000 and 2021 (sample ≥ 50 women). Of the 64 included studies (13,257 women with BC), 58 were published since 2010. Women who were married, partnered, or in relationships represented 74.1% of the entire sample. Only a single study was conducted on women representing a sexual minority. We identified 22 assessment instruments and 40 sexual dysfunction (SdF) domains. The number of publications on SF in women with BC has increased in the last 10 years, but still remains low. Some groups of women are underrepresented, and some SdF domains are underdiagnosed, with the assessment instrument used affecting which domains are studied. Women with BC need to be better screened, as their quality of life (QoL) is affected by SdF.

European clinical practice guidelines on the use of chemotherapy for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers: a critical review using the AGREE II and the AGREE-REX instruments.

PURPOSE: To assess the methodological quality of all relevant and recent European clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancers, and to synthesise their recommendations on the use of chemotherapy. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, guidelines repositories, and other sources from 2010 onwards. We appraised quality using AGREE-II and AGREE-REX. RESULTS: 11 CPGs were included (five high, five low, and one moderate quality). Most guidelines showed deficiencies in the domain "applicability", with only three scoring above 60%. Nine did not report having sought the views and preferences of the target population. The lowest scores for AGREE-REX were item Values and Preferences of Target Users (1.6; SD 1.3), and item Values and Preferences of Policy/Decision-Makers (1.8; SD 1.7). The domain Clinical Applicability got the highest score and the domain Implementability got the lowest. CONCLUSIONS: An urgent area of research is how to develop credible and implementable recommendations on the clinical use of CT for advanced oesophageal and gastric cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021236753).

Efficacy of systemic oncological treatments in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer at high risk of dying in the short or medium-term: overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC) have a high risk of dying in the short or medium-term. This overview aimed to assess the evidence regarding systemic oncological treatments (SOT) versus supportive care for advanced PC. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews (SRs) in MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO. Two authors assessed eligibility independently. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by another one. We evaluated the overlap of primary studies, performed a de novo meta-analysis, and assessed the certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL), functional status (FS), and toxicity. RESULTS: We identified three SRs that assessed SOT versus supportive care in patients with advanced PC. All SRs had critically low methodological quality. At 12 months, OS improved with chemotherapy, radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, but the certainty of the evidence supporting these findings is very low. The evidence on chemotherapy is very uncertain about its effects on QoL; it suggests a slight increase in toxicity and little to no difference in FS. The evidence on immunotherapy is very uncertain about its effects in toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The identified evidence is very uncertain about the benefits of oncological treatments on OS and QoL in patients with advanced PC with a high risk of dying in the short or medium-term, so its use should be proposed only to selected patients. Further studies that include a thorough assessment of patient-centred outcomes are needed.

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the early detection of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination for the early detection of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow-up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer's dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand-alone single-administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to dementia.

Prevalence study of intermittent hormonal therapy of Prostate Cancer patients in Spain.

Background: Although intermittent androgen deprivation therapy was introduced many years ago to improve patients' quality of life with the same carcinologic efficiency as continuous hormonal therapy, recent data suggest that those patients could be overtreated. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of prostate cancer patients receiving intermittent androgen deprivation therapy in Spain. Methods: A retrospective, longitudinal study was conducted using electronic drug dispensation data from four Spanish autonomous communities, which encompass 17.23 million inhabitants (36.22% of the total population in Spain). We estimated intermittent androgen therapy use (%IAD) and the prevalence of patients under intermittent androgen therapy (P IAD) overall and stratified by region. Other outcome variables included the pharmaceutical forms dispensed and the total direct annual expenditure on androgen deprivation therapy-associated medications. Results: A total of 863,005 dispensations corresponding to a total of 65,752 men were identified, treated with either luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) analogues (353,162) administered alone or in combination with anti-androgens (509,843). Overall, the mean (±SD) age of the patients was 76.9 (±10.4) years. Results revealed that the mean annual P IAD along the study was 6.6% in the total population studied, and the overall %IAD during the five-year study period was 5.6%. The mean cost of hormonal therapy per year was 25 million euros for LHRH analogues and 6.3 million euros for anti-androgens. Conclusions:  An important proportion of prostate cancer patients in Spain could benefit from intermittent androgen therapy during the study period while avoiding overtreatment harms associated with continuous hormonal therapy.

Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a condition in which veins are unable to transport blood unidirectionally towards the heart. CVI usually occurs in the lower limbs. It might result in considerable discomfort, with symptoms such as pain, itchiness and tiredness in the legs. Patients with CVI may also experience swelling and ulcers. Phlebotonics are a class of drugs often used to treat CVI. This is the second update of a review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of phlebotonics administered orally or topically for treatment of signs and symptoms of lower extremity CVI. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Clinicaltrials.gov trials register up to 12 November 2019. We searched the reference lists of the articles retrieved by electronic searches for additional citations. We also contacted authors of unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of phlebotonics (rutosides, hidrosmine, diosmine, calcium dobesilate, chromocarbe, Centella asiatica, disodium flavodate, French maritime pine bark extract, grape seed extract and aminaftone) in patients with CVI at any stage of the disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included RCTs. We estimated the effects of treatment by using risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and standardized mean differences (SMDs), according to the outcome assessed. We calculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and percentage of heterogeneity (I2). Outcomes of interest were oedema, quality of life (QoL), assessment of CVI and adverse events. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three new studies for this update. In total, 69 RCTs of oral phlebotonics were included, but only 56 studies (7690 participants, mean age 50 years) provided quantifiable data for the efficacy analysis. These studies used different phlebotonics (28 on rutosides, 11 on hidrosmine and diosmine, 10 on calcium dobesilate, two on Centella asiatica, two on aminaftone, two on French maritime pine bark extract and one on grape seed extract). No studies evaluating topical phlebotonics, chromocarbe, naftazone or disodium flavodate fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that phlebotonics probably reduce oedema slightly in the lower legs, compared with placebo (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78; 13 studies; 1245 participants); and probably reduce ankle circumference (MD -4.27 mm, 95% CI -5.61 to -2.93 mm; 15 studies; 2010 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence shows that phlebotonics probably make little or no difference in QoL compared with placebo (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.10; five studies; 1639 participants); and similarly, may have little or no effect on ulcer healing (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; six studies; 461 participants; low-certainty evidence). Thirty-seven studies reported on adverse events. Pooled data suggest that phlebotonics probably increase adverse events slightly, compared to placebo (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.27; 37 studies; 5789 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence from 'high' to 'moderate' because of risk of bias concerns, and further to 'low' because of imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that phlebotonics probably reduce oedema slightly, compared to placebo; moderate-certainty evidence of little or no difference in QoL; and low-certainty evidence that these drugs do not influence ulcer healing. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that phlebotonics are probably associated with a higher risk of adverse events than placebo. Studies included in this systematic review provided only short-term safety data; therefore, the medium- and long-term safety of phlebotonics could not be estimated. Findings for specific groups of phlebotonics are limited due to small study numbers and heterogeneous results. Additional high-quality RCTs focusing on clinically important outcomes are needed to improve the evidence base.

Citicoline for treating people with acute ischemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is one of the leading causes of long-lasting disability and mortality and its global burden has increased in the past two decades. Several therapies have been proposed for the recovery from, and treatment of, ischemic stroke. One of them is citicoline. This review assessed the benefits and harms of citicoline for treating patients with acute ischemic stroke. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical benefits and harms of citicoline compared with placebo or any other control for treating people with acute ischemic stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched in the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS until 29 January 2020. We searched the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Additionally, we also reviewed reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles, and searched the websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any setting including participants with acute ischemic stroke. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they compared citicoline versus placebo or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We selected RCTs, assessed the risk of bias in seven domains, and extracted data by duplicate. Our primary outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and the degree of disability or dependence in daily activities at 90 days. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We conducted our analyses using the fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses. We assessed the overall quality of evidence for six pre-specified outcomes using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs including 4281 participants. In all these trials, citicoline was given either orally, intravenously, or a combination of both compared with placebo or standard care therapy. Citicoline doses ranged between 500 mg and 2000 mg per day. We assessed all the included trials as having high risk of bias. Drug companies sponsored six trials. A pooled analysis of eight trials indicates there may be little or no difference in all-cause mortality comparing citicoline with placebo (17.3% versus 18.5%; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). Four trials found no difference in the proportion of patients with disability or dependence in daily activities according to the Rankin scale comparing citicoline with placebo (21.72% versus 19.23%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.26; I² = 1%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). Meta-analysis of three trials indicates there may be little or no difference in serious cardiovascular adverse events comparing citicoline with placebo (8.83% versus 7.77%; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.29; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). Overall, either serious or non-serious adverse events - central nervous system, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, etc. - were poorly reported and harms may have been underestimated. Four trials assessing functional recovery with the Barthel Index at a cut-off point of 95 points or more did not find differences comparing citicoline with placebo (32.78% versus 30.70%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.13; I² = 24%; low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). There were no differences in neurological function (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale at a cut-off point of ≤ 1 points) comparing citicoline with placebo according to five trials (24.31% versus 22.44%; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.21; I² = 27%, low-quality evidence due to risk of bias). A pre-planned Trial Sequential Analysis suggested that no more trials may be needed for the primary outcomes but no trial provided information on quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review assessed the clinical benefits and harms of citicoline compared with placebo or any other standard treatment for people with acute ischemic stroke. The findings of the review suggest there may be little to no difference between citicoline and its controls regarding all-cause mortality, disability or dependence in daily activities, severe adverse events, functional recovery and the assessment of the neurological function, based on low-certainty evidence. None of the included trials assessed quality of life and the safety profile of citicoline remains unknown. The available evidence is of low quality due to either limitations in the design or execution of the trials.

Drugs for preventing lung cancer in healthy people.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Some studies have suggested a protective effect of antioxidant nutrients and higher dietary levels of fruits and vegetables on lung cancer. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether vitamins and minerals and other potential agents, alone or in combination, reduce lung cancer incidence and lung cancer mortality in healthy populations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase from 1974 to May 2019 and screened references included in published studies and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vitamins or mineral supplements with placebo, administered to healthy people with the aim of preventing lung cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently selected the trials to be included in the review, assessed their methodological quality and extracted data. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and pooled results using the random-effects model. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' assessment tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified three new trials for a total of 12 studies. Six analysed vitamin A, three vitamin C, three combined vitamin D3 + calcium, four vitamin E combined with other products, one selenium supplements and nine studied combinations of two or more products. Four studies included only men and five only women. Vitamin A results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; 5 RCTs, 212314 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.38; 3 RCTs, 190118 participants; high-certainty evidence). But in smokers or asbestos workers vitamin A increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20; 3 RCTs, 43995 participants; high-certainty evidence), lung cancer mortality (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 29426 participants; high-certainty evidence) and all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13; 2 RCTs, 32883 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin A increases the risk of minor side effects, such as yellowing of the skin and minor gastrointestinal symptoms (high-certainty evidence). Vitamin C likely results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.49; 2 RCTs, 14953 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In women, vitamin C increases the risk of lung cancer incidence (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.95; 1 RCT, 7627 participants; high-certainty evidence). In men, vitamin C results in little to no difference in mortality for lung cancer (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.23; 1 RCT, 7326 participants; high-certainty evidence). Vitamin D + calcium may result in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.08; 3 RCTs, 37601 women; low-certainty evidence). Vitamin E results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 3 RCTs, 36841 participants; high-certainty evidence) or to lung cancer mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.18; 2 RCTs, 29214 participants; high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes (hazard ratio (HR), 1.74, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.91; 1 RCT, 14641 participants; high-certainty evidence). Calcium results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence in postmenopausal women (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.18; 1 RCT, 733 participants) or in risk of renal calculi (RR 1.94, 95% CI 0.20 to 18.57; 1 RCT, 733 participants; low-certainty evidence). Selenium in men results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and lung cancer mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.66; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and increases the risk for grade 1 to 2 dermatitis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.31; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.53; 1 RCT, 17448 participants; high-certainty evidence). The combination of vitamins A, C, E + selenium + zinc results in little to no difference in lung cancer incidence (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 12741 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Well-designed RCTs have shown no beneficial effect of supplements for the prevention of lung cancer and lung cancer mortality in healthy people. Vitamin A supplements increase lung cancer incidence and mortality in smokers or persons exposed to asbestos. Vitamin C increases lung cancer incidence in women. Vitamin E increases the risk of haemorrhagic strokes.

Early enteral nutrition (within 48 hours) versus delayed enteral nutrition (after 48 hours) with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Early enteral nutrition support (within 48 hours of admission or injury) is frequently recommended for the management of patients in intensive care units (ICU). Early enteral nutrition is recommended in many clinical practice guidelines, although there appears to be a lack of evidence for its use and benefit. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early enteral nutrition (initiated within 48 hours of initial injury or ICU admission) versus delayed enteral nutrition (initiated later than 48 hours after initial injury or ICU admission), with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in critically ill adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April 2019), Embase Ovid SP (1974 to April 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (1982 to April 2019), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to April 2019). We also searched Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry), and scientific conference reports, including the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. We applied no restrictions by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed enteral nutrition, with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in adults who were in the ICU for longer than 72 hours. This included individuals admitted for medical, surgical, and trauma diagnoses, and who required any type of enteral nutrition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 345 participants. Outcome data were limited, and we judged many trials to have an unclear risk of bias in several domains. Early versus delayed enteral nutrition Six trials (318 participants) assessed early versus delayed enteral nutrition in general, medical, and trauma ICUs in the USA, Australia, Greece, India, and Russia. Primary outcomes Five studies (259 participants) measured mortality. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.38; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). Four studies (221 participants) reported mortality without describing the timeframe; we did not pool these results. None of the studies reported a clear difference in mortality between groups. Three studies (156 participants) reported infectious complications. We were unable to pool the results due to unreported data and substantial clinical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. One trial measured feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications; it is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects this outcome (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.01; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes One trial assessed hospital length of stay and reported a longer stay in the early enteral group (median 15 days (interquartile range (IQR) 9.5 to 20) versus 12 days (IQR 7.5 to15); P = 0.05; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies (125 participants) reported the duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not pool the results due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-quality evidence). Early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition We identified one trial in a burn ICU in the USA (27 participants). Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.18; very low-quality evidence), or infectious complications (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.94; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications. Secondary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 9.00, 95% CI -10.99 to 28.99; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for hospital length of stay or pneumonia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether early enteral nutrition, compared with delayed enteral nutrition, affects the risk of mortality within 30 days, feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications, or pneumonia. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain if early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition compared with delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces mortality, infectious complications, or duration of mechanical ventilation. There is currently insufficient evidence; there is a need for large, multicentred studies with rigorous methodology, which measure important clinical outcomes.

Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing healthcare-associated infections: a methodology study.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are common and increase morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Their control continues to be an unresolved issue worldwide. HAIs epidemiology shows sex/gender differences. Thus the lack of consideration of sex/gender in Cochrane reviews will limit their applicability and capacity to support informed decisions. This study aims to describe the extent to which Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs consider sex and gender. METHODS: Methodology study appraising Cochrane reviews of interventions to prevent HAIs. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1995 (launch of the journal) to 31 December 2016. Two authors independently extracted data with EPPI-Reviewer 4 software, and independently appraised the sex/gender content of the reviews with the Sex and Gender Appraisal Tool for Systematic Reviews (SGAT-SR). RESULTS: This study included 113 reviews assessing the effects of interventions for preventing HAIs. 100 reviews (88%) used at least one sex or gender-related term. The terminology used was heterogeneous, being "sex" the term used in more reviews (51%). No review defined neither sex nor gender. Thus we could not assess the definitions provided. Consideration of sex and gender was practically absent in the included reviews; in fact, no review met all the applicable items of the SGAT-SR, and 51 reviews (50%) fulfilled no item. No review provided a complete description of the sex and the gender of the samples of the included studies. Only ten reviews (10%) planned to perform sex- and gender-based analysis and only three (3%) could complete the analysis. The method chosen was always the subgroup analysis based on sex (one review) or gender (two reviews). Three reviews (3%) considered sex or gender-related findings in the conclusions. CONCLUSION: Consideration of sex and gender in Cochrane reviews of interventions for preventing HAIs was practically absent. This lack of attention to sex and gender reduces the quality of Cochrane reviews, and their applicability for all people: women and men, boys and girls, and people of diverse gender identities. Cochrane should attempt to address the shortfalls detected.

Evidence mapping and quality assessment of systematic reviews on therapeutic interventions for oral cancer.

Purpose: This evidence mapping aims to describe and assess the quality of available evidence in systematic reviews (SRs) on treatments for oral cancer. Materials and methods: We followed the methodology of Global Evidence Mapping. Searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos and The Cochrane Library were conducted to identify SRs on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of SRs was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2 tool. We organized the results according to identified Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) questions and presented the evidence mapping in tables and a bubble plot. Results: Fifteen SRs met the eligibility criteria, including 118 individual reports, of which 55.1% were randomized controlled clinical trials. Ten SRs scored "Critically low" methodological quality. We extracted 30 PICOs focusing on interventions such as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy; 18 PICOs were for resectable oral cancer, of which 8 were reported as beneficial. There were 12 PICOs for unresectable oral cancer, of which only 2 interventions were reported as beneficial. Conclusion: There is limited available evidence on treatments for oral cancer. The methodological quality of most included SRs scored "Critically low". The main beneficial treatment reported by authors for patients with resectable oral cancer is surgery alone or in combination with radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Evidence about the benefits of the treatments for unresectable oral cancer is lacking. These findings highlight the need to address future research focused on new treatments and knowledge gaps in this field, and increased efforts are required to improve the methodology quality and reporting process of SRs on treatments for oral cancer.

Vasodilators for women undergoing fertility treatment.

BACKGROUND: The rate of successful pregnancies brought to term has barely increased since the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) technique became available. Vasodilators have been proposed to increase endometrial receptivity, thicken the endometrium, and favour uterine relaxation, all of which could improve uterine receptivity and enhance the chances for successful assisted pregnancy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vasodilators in women undergoing fertility treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of of Controlled Trials, via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of relevant articles. We conducted the search in October 2017 and applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing vasodilators alone or in combination with other treatments versus placebo or no treatment or versus other agents in women undergoing fertility treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and calculated risk ratios (RRs). We combined study data using a fixed-effect model and assessed evidence quality using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and vasodilator side effects. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, endometrial thickness, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies with a total of 1326 women. All included studies compared a vasodilator versus placebo or no treatment. We judged most of these studies as having unclear risk of bias. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to moderate for most outcomes. The main limitations were imprecision due to low numbers of events and participants and risk of bias due to unclear methods of randomisation.Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of live birth compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.69; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) but probably increase overall rates of side effects including headache and tachycardia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.51 to 3.66; four RCTs; N = 418; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 236 per 1000 women achieve live birth with placebo or no treatment, then between 196 and 398 per 1000 will do so with the use of vasodilators.Compared with placebo or no treatment, vasodilators may slightly improve clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.77; 11 RCTs; N = 1054; I² = 6%; low-quality evidence). Vasodilators probably make little or no difference in rates of multiple gestation (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.42; three RCTs; N = 370; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), miscarriage (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; three RCTs; N = 350; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), or ectopic pregnancy (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 8.69; two RCTs; N = 250; I² = 5%; low-quality evidence). All studies found benefit for endometrial thickening, but reported effects varied (I² = 92%) and ranged from a mean difference of 0.80 higher (95% CI 0.18 to 1.42) to 3.57 higher (95% CI 3.01 to 4.13) with very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain how to interpret these results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to show whether vasodilators increase the live birth rate in women undergoing fertility treatment. However, low-quality evidence suggests that vasodilators may slightly increase clinical pregnancy rates. Moderate-quality evidence shows that vasodilators increase overall side effects in comparison with placebo or no treatment. Adequately powered studies are needed so that each treatment can be evaluated more accurately.