Impact of vitamin D replacement in adults and elderly in the Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), a vitamin D dose ≥2000 IU/day may be needed to allow to the majority of the population to reach the target 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) level ≥20 ng/ml. Data in the region on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on various skeletal and extra-skeletal effects are scarce. INTRODUCTION: Hypovitaminosis D is prevalent worldwide, more so in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). This study aims to determine the effects of vitamin D replacement on the mean difference in 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level reached and other outcomes, in the MENA. METHODS: This is a meta-analysis of randomized trials from the MENA, administering vitamin D supplementation for at least 3 months, without language or time restriction. We conducted a comprehensive search in seven databases until July 2015. We abstracted data from published reports, independently and in duplicate. We calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95 % CI of 25(OH)D level reached for eligible comparisons, and pooled data using RevMan version 5.3. RESULTS: We identified 2 studies in elderly and 17 in adults; for the latter, 11 were included in the meta-analysis. Comparing a high vitamin D dose (>2000 IU/day) to placebo (nine studies), the MD in 25(OH)D level achieved was 18.3 (CI 14.1; 22.5) ng/ml; p value < 0.001; I 2 = 92 %. Comparing an intermediate dose (800-2000 IU/day) to placebo (two studies), the MD in 25(OH)D level achieved was 14.7 (CI 4.6; 24.9) ng/ml; p value 0.004; I 2 = 91 %. Accordingly, 89 and 71 % of participants, in the high and intermediate dose groups, respectively, reached the desirable level of 20 ng/ml. The risk of bias in the included studies was unclear to high, except for three studies. CONCLUSION: In the MENA region, vitamin D doses ≥2000 IU/day may be needed to reach the target 25(OH)D level ≥20 ng/ml. The long-term safety and the efficacy of such doses on various outcomes are unknown.

Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference -2·6 (95 per cent c.i. -6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low-quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference -7·2 (-18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low-quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high-quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high-quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non-perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year. CONCLUSION: The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value- and preference-dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision-making is necessary.

The allure of the waterpipe: a narrative review of factors affecting the epidemic rise in waterpipe smoking among young persons globally.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this narrative review is to highlight the determinants of the epidemic rise in waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) among youth globally. The Ecological Model of Health Promotion (EMHP) was the guiding framework for the review. DATA SOURCES: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus with Full Text. Search terms included waterpipe and its many variant terms. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they were published between 1990 and 2014, were in English, were available in full text and included the age group 10-29 years. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles which analysed determinants of WTS at any of the levels of the EMHP were retained regardless of methodological rigour: 131 articles are included. Articles were coded in a standard template that abstracted methods as well as results. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review found that methodologies used to assess determinants of WTS among youth were often conventional and lacked rigor: 3/4 of the studies were cross-sectional surveys and most enrolled non-representative samples. Within the framework, the review identified determinants of WTS at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy levels. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests potential interventions to control WTS among youth, with emphasis on creative utilisation of social media, and tobacco control policies that include the specificities of WTS. The review further suggests the need for rigorous qualitative work to better contextualise determinants, and prospective observational and experimental studies that track and manipulate them to assess their viability as intervention targets.

Characteristics of physicians practising in Lebanon: a survey.

The last survey of the characteristics of the Lebanese physician workforce, in 1998, raised concerns about the oversupply of physicians and gaps in capacity building. This telephone survey in 2007 of a stratified random sample of physicians describes the demographic, educational and practice characteristics of 546 physicians practising in Lebanon. A majority of the physicians had graduated from an eastern European or a Lebanese medical school, in the1980s or 1990s, and had postgraduate training in a non-primary care specialty, in a western or eastern European country. The greatest numbers were practising solo, in a medical or surgical specialty, in a private hospital and in an urban setting. The average proportion of work time spent in teaching and research were 2.4% and 1.2% respectively. The findings suggest that less emphasis should be placed on training in specialty care compared with primary care/general practice and future policies should aim to attract physicians to rural areas.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations.

This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients' values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients' values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions.

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system's conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three-part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel's confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: Part 2 of 3. The GRADE approach to grading quality of evidence about diagnostic tests and strategies.

The GRADE approach to grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations provides a comprehensive and transparent approach for developing clinical recommendations about using diagnostic tests or diagnostic strategies. Although grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations about using tests shares the logic of grading recommendations for treatment, it presents unique challenges. Guideline panels and clinicians should be alert to these special challenges when using the evidence about the accuracy of tests as the basis for clinical decisions. In the GRADE system, valid diagnostic accuracy studies can provide high quality evidence of test accuracy. However, such studies often provide only low quality evidence for the development of recommendations about diagnostic testing, as test accuracy is a surrogate for patient-important outcomes at best. Inferring from data on accuracy that using a test improves outcomes that are important to patients requires availability of an effective treatment, improved patients' wellbeing through prognostic information, or - by excluding an ominous diagnosis - reduction of anxiety and the opportunity for earlier search for an alternative diagnosis for which beneficial treatment can be available. Assessing the directness of evidence supporting the use of a diagnostic test requires judgments about the relationship between test results and patient-important consequences. Well-designed and conducted studies of allergy tests in parallel with efforts to evaluate allergy treatments critically will encourage improved guideline development for allergic diseases.

Educational games for health professionals.

BACKGROUND: The use of games as an educational strategy has the potential to improve health professionals' performance (e.g. adherence to standards of care) through improving their knowledge, skills and attitudes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the effect of educational games on health professionals' performance, knowledge, skills, attitude and satisfaction, and on patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We used a comprehensive search strategy including an electronic search of the following databases: DARE, EPOC register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, and Dissertation Abstracts Online (search date: January 2007). We also screened the reference list of included studies and relevant reviews, contact authors of relevant papers and reviews, and searched ISI Web of Science for papers citing studies included in the review SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled clinical trials (CCT), controlled before and after (CBA) and interrupted time-series analysis (ITS). Study participants were qualified health professionals or in postgraduate training. The intervention was an educational game with "a form of competitive activity or sport played according to rules". DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included patient outcomes, professional behaviour (process of care outcomes), and professional's knowledge, skills, attitude and satisfaction. MAIN RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1156 citations. Out of 55 potentially eligible citations, we included one RCT. The methodological quality was fair. The game, used as a reinforcement technique, was based on the television game show "Family Feud" and focused on infection control. The study did not assess any patient or process of care outcomes. The group that was randomized to the game had statistically higher scores on the knowledge test (P = 0.02). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review do not confirm nor refute the utility of games as a teaching strategy for health professionals. There is a need for additional high-quality research to explore the impact of educational games on patient and performance outcomes.

Anticoagulation for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Compared to patients without cancer, patients with cancer receiving anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism are more likely to develop recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE). OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of three types of anticoagulants (i.e. low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), unfractionated heparin (UFH), and fondaparinux) for the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including a January 2007 electronic search of : Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing LMWH, UFH, and fondaparinux in patients with cancer and objectively confirmed VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form data was extracted in duplicate on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest that included all cause mortality, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations, 26 RCTs including cancer patients as subgroups fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Cancer subgroup data was obtained for 15 of the 26 RCTs. Thirteen studies compared a LMWH to UFH while one study compared fondaparinux to UFH and one study compared dalteparin to tinzaparin. Meta-analysis of 11 studies showed a statistically significant mortality reduction in patients treated with LMWH compared with those treated with UFH (Relative risk (RR) = 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 0.98). There was little change in the results after excluding studies of lower methodological quality (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00). A meta-analysis of three studies comparing LMWH with UFH in reducing recurrent VTE was inconclusive (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.29 to 2.08). No data was available for bleeding outcomes, thrombocytopenia or postphlebitic syndrome. Compared to UFH, fondaparinux showed a non-statistically significant benefit for the outcome of death (RR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.05). The one study comparing dalteparin to tinzaparin showed a non-statistically significant mortality reduction with dalteparin (RR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.73). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the included trials, LMWH is likely to be superior to UFH in the initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. However, there is a need for more trials to better address this research question in cancer patients. Moreover, researchers should consider making the raw data of RCTs available for individual patient data meta-analyses.

Anticoagulation for the long term treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer increases the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events while on anticoagulation. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and ximelagatran) for the long term treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search was undertaken including a January 2007 search of electronic databases; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1). MEDLINE (1966 onwards; accessed via OVID), EMBASE (1980 onwards; accessed via OVID) and ISI the Web of Science. Hand search of the proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and of the American Society of Hematology. Checking of references of included studies, relevant papers and related systematic reviews. Use of "related article" feature in PubMed; and (5) search of ISI the Web of Science for papers citing landmark studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing long term treatment with LMWH versus oral anticoagulants (VKA or ximelagatran) in patients with cancer and symptomatic objectively confirmed VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest: survival, recurrent VTE, major bleeding, minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia and postphlebitic syndrome. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations, eight RCTs were eligible and reported data for patients with cancer. Their overall methodological quality was moderate. Meta-analysis of six RCTs showed that LMWH, compared to VKA provided no statistically significant survival benefit (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) but a statistically significant reduction in VTE (HR = 0.47; 95% (Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.32 to 0.71). There was no statistically significant difference between LMWH and VKA in bleeding outcomes (RR = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.31) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.60 to 1.74). One RCT compared tinzaparin and dalteparin and showed no differences in the outcomes of interest. One RCT compared a six months extension of anticoagulation with 18 months Ximelagatran 24mg twice daily versus placebo. It showed a reduction in VTE (HR = 0.16; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.30) with no apparent effect on survival or bleeding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For the long term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer, LMWH compared to VKA reduces venous thromboembolic events but not death. The decision for a patient with cancer and VTE to start long term LMWH versus oral anticoagulation should balance the benefits and downsides and integrate the patient's values and preferences for the important outcomes and alternative management strategies.

McMaster RARE-Bestpractices clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome.

Background The McMaster RARE-Bestpractices project group selected the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) for a pilot exercise in guideline development for a rare disease. Objectives The objectives of this exercise were to provide a proof of principle that guidelines can be developed for rare diseases and assist in clinical decision making for CAPS. Patients/Methods The GIN-McMaster Guideline Development checklist and GRADE methodology were followed throughout the guideline process. The CAPS guideline was coordinated by a steering committee, and the guideline panel was formed with representation from all relevant stakeholder groups. Systematic reviews were performed for the key questions. To supplement the published evidence, we piloted novel methods, including use of an expert-based evidence elicitation process and ad hoc analysis of registry data. Results This paper describes the CAPS guideline recommendations, including evidence appraisal and discussion of special circumstances and implementation barriers identified by the panel. Many of these recommendations are conditional, because of subgroup considerations in this heterogeneous disease, as well as variability in patient values and preferences. Conclusions The CAPS clinical practice guideline initiative met the objective of the successful development of a clinical practice guideline in a rare disease using GRADE methodology. We expect that clinicians caring for patients with suspected CAPS will find the guideline useful in assisting with diagnosis and management of this rare disease.

Anticoagulation for thrombosis prophylaxis in cancer patients with central venous catheters.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheter (CVC) placement increases the risk of thrombosis in cancer patients. Thrombosis often necessitates the removal of the CVC, resulting in treatment delays and thrombosis related morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of anticoagulation in reducing venous thromboembolic (VTE) events in cancer patients with CVC. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients up to January 2006 was conducted in the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), fondaparinux or ximelagatran to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients with a CVC or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data was extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including all cause mortality (primary outcome), premature CVC removal, catheter-related infections, CVC site and non CVC site deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), major and minor bleeding and thrombocytopenia. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis including one published as an abstract and one focusing on paediatric patients not included in the meta-analysis. None of these RCTs tested fondaparinux or ximelagatran. The use of heparin in cancer patients with CVC was associated with a trend towards a reduction in symptomatic DVT (Relative Risk (RR) = 0.43; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.18 to 1.06), but the data did not show any statistically significant effect on mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.36), infection (RR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.36 to 2.28), major bleeding (RR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.10 to 4.78) or thrombocytopenia (RR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.46). The effect warfarin on symptomatic DVT was not statistically significant (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.27). When studies assessing different types of anticoagulants were pooled, symptomatic DVT rates were significantly reduced (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.92). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients with CVC considering anticoagulation, should consider the possible benefit of reduced incidence of thromboembolic complications with the burden and harms of anticoagulation. Future studies should be adequately powered and evaluate the effects of newer anticoagulants such as fondaparinux and ximelagatran in cancer patients with CVC.

Parenteral anticoagulation for prolonging survival in patients with cancer who have no other indication for anticoagulation.

BACKGROUND: Basic research and clinical studies have generated the hypothesis that anticoagulation may improve survival in patients with cancer through an antitumour effect in addition to the antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of heparin (including unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and fondaparinux to improve survival of patients with cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) A January 2007 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and ISI the Web of Science; (2) Hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and of the American Society of Hematology; (3) Checking of references of included studies; and (4) Use of "related article" feature in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism comparing UFH, LMWH or fondaparinux to no intervention or placebo and RCTs comparing two of the three agents of interest. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized form we extracted in duplicate data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes of interest including all cause mortality, venous thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all included RCTs the intervention consisted of heparin ( either UFH or LMWH). The overall methodological quality of the included studies was acceptable. Overall, heparin therapy was associated with a statistically and clinically significant survival benefit (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.91). In subgroup analyses, patients with limited small cell lung cancer experienced a clear survival benefit (HR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.83). The survival benefit was not statistically significant for either patients with extensive small cell lung cancer (HR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.06) or patients with advanced cancer (HR = 0.84; 95%: 0.68 to 1.03). The increased risk of bleeding with heparin was not statistically significant (RR = 1.78; 95% CI: 0.73 to 4.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Heparin has a survival benefit in cancer patients in general, and in patients with limited small cell lung cancer in particular. Heparin might be particularly beneficial in cancer patients with limited cancer or a longer life expectancy. Future research should investigate the survival benefit of different types of anticoagulants (in different dosing, schedules and duration of therapy) in patients with different types and stages of cancers.

Oral anticoagulation for prolonging survival in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: A number of basic research and clinical studies have led to the hypothesis that oral anticoagulants may improve the survival of patients with cancer through an antitumour effect in addition to their antithrombotic effect. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation (including vitamin K antagonists and ximelagatran) as an intervention to improve survival of patients with cancer. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive search for studies of anticoagulation in cancer patients including (1) a January 2007 electronic search of the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science; (2) hand search of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (starting with its first volume, 1982) and of the American Society of Hematology (starting with its 2003 issue); (3) checking of references of included studies; and (4) use of "related article" feature in PubMed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing vitamin K antagonist or ximelagatran to no intervention or placebo in cancer patients without clinical evidence of venous thromboembolism. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using a standardized data form we extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcome of interest that included all cause mortality, symptomatic deep venous thrombosis, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, major bleeding and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Of 3986 identified citations five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Warfarin was the oral anticoagulant in all of these RCTs and it was compared to either placebo or no intervention. The overall methodological quality of these RCTs was acceptable. The effect of warfarin on reduction in mortality was not statistically significant at six months (Relative risk (RR) = 0.96; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16), at one year (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05) at 2 years (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08) or at five years (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). In the subgroup of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), warfarin reduced mortality at six months (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96) but not at one year (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01). This six month mortality benefit was statistically significant in the subgroup of extensive SCLC (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.93) but not in the subgroup of limited SCLC (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.28). One study assessed the effect of warfarin on venous thromboembolism and showed a RR reduction of 85% (p = 0.031). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR = 4.24; 95% CI 1.85 to 9.68) and minor bleeding (RR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.66 to 6.74). Warfarin increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 5.46; 95% CI 3.04 to 9.81) and minor bleeding (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.30 to 12.42) also in patients with SCLC. There was no evidence for a significant reduction in mortality in any other cancer subtype. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence does not suggest a mortality benefit from oral anticoagulation in patients with cancer. In patients with SCLC, the evidence suggests a survival benefit at six months from warfarin particularly when the disease is extensive. The decision for a patient with extensive SCLC to start warfarin for survival benefit should balance that benefit with the downsides of increased bleeding risk in light of patient values for these outcomes.

Oral anticoagulation may prolong survival of a subgroup of patients with cancer: a cochrane systematic review.

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulants in improving survival of cancer patients. We conducted in January 2007 a comprehensive search for relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We extracted data on methodological quality, participants, interventions and outcomes using a standardized form. Five RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and all compared warfarin to either placebo or no intervention. Their overall methodological quality was acceptable. The effect of warfarin on mortality was not statistically significant at 6 months (RR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.80-1.16), at 1 year (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.86-1.05), at 2 years (RR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.08) or at 5 years (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.83-1.01). In the subgroup of patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), warfarin reduced mortality at 6 months (RR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.50-0.96) but not at 1 year (RR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.77-1.01). This 6 months mortality benefit was statistically significant in the subgroup of extensive SCLC (RR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.45-0.93) but not in the subgroup of limited SCLC (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.36-1.28). Warfarin increased both major bleeding (RR = 4.24; 95% CI 1.85-9.68) and minor bleeding (RR = 3.34; 95% CI 1.66-6.74). The evidence suggests a survival benefit from warfarin in patients with extensive SCLC, but not in other patient groups. This survival benefit should be weighed against the increased risk for hemorrhage.

Using the Grade Approach to Support the Development of Recommendations for Public Health Interventions in Radiation Emergencies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development policy requires that WHO guidelines be developed in a manner that is transparent and based on all available evidences, which must be synthesised and formally assessed for quality. To fulfil this requirement, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach of rating quality of evidence and grading strength of recommendations was applied when developing the WHO recommendations on public health interventions in radiation emergencies. The guideline development group (GDG) formulated 10 PICO (P: population; I: intervention; C: comparator; O: outcomes) questions to guide the development of recommendations on response interventions during the early/intermediate and late emergency phases and on risk communications for mitigating psycho-social impact of radiation emergencies. For each PICO question, an extensive evidence search and systematic review was conducted. The GDG then formulated the recommendations using the evidence to recommendation (E-2-R) decision-making matrix and evaluated the strength of each recommendation.

A guide to GRADE guidelines for the readers of JTH.

More than 70 organizations worldwide have adopted the GRADE methodology for guideline development. The ninth iteration of the American Collage of Chest Physicians guidelines (AT9) adopted structural and policy changes that resulted in a greater adherence to GRADE guidance than previous iterations. The most important of these changes include minimizing the impact of financial and intellectual conflict of interest, increasing the rigor of evidence evaluation, acknowledging uncertainty in estimates of typical values and preferences, and awareness of the large variability in values and preferences. One of the consequences of the greater adherence to GRADE methodology is an increase in weak vs. strong recommendations in AT9. The result of the GRADE process highlights the desirability of higher-quality evidence both regarding the outcomes of alternative management strategies and regarding the distribution of values and preferences in patients considering those alternatives. It also encourages shared decision making in encounters between physicians and patients. Although some physicians might find the uncertainty underlying medical practice discouraging or unsettling, relative to denying or obscuring the uncertainty, acknowledging and addressing the uncertainty will lead to more credible, realistic, and useful recommendations.

McMaster RARE-Bestpractices clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and management of the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome

Background The McMaster RARE-Bestpractices project group selected the catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS) for a pilot exercise in guideline development for a rare disease. Objectives The objectives of this exercise were to provide a proof of principle that guidelines can be developed for rare diseases and assist in clinical decision making for CAPS. Patients/Methods The GIN-McMaster Guideline Development checklist and GRADE methodology were followed throughout the guideline process. The CAPS guideline was coordinated by a steering committee, and the guideline panel was formed with representation from all relevant stakeholder groups. Systematic reviews were performed for the key questions. To supplement the published evidence, we piloted novel methods, including use of an expert-based evidence elicitation process and ad hoc analysis of registry data. Results This paper describes the CAPS guideline recommendations, including evidence appraisal and discussion of special circumstances and implementation barriers identified by the panel. Many of these recommendations are conditional, because of subgroup considerations in this heterogeneous disease, as well as variability in patient values and preferences. Conclusions The CAPS clinical practice guideline initiative met the objective of the successful development of a clinical practice guideline in a rare disease using GRADE methodology. We expect that clinicians caring for patients with suspected CAPS will find the guideline useful in assisting with diagnosis and management of this rare disease.

Effects of higher- versus lower-protein diets on health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in first tier medical journals have evaluated the health effects of diets high in protein. We conducted a rigorous systematic review of RCTs comparing higher- and lower-protein diets. METHODS: We searched several electronic databases up to July 2011 for studies focusing on patient-important outcomes (for example, cardiovascular disease) and secondary outcomes such as risk factors for chronic disease (for example, adiposity). RESULTS: We identified 111 articles reporting on 74 trials. Pooled effect sizes using standardised mean differences (SMDs) were small to moderate and favoured higher-protein diets for weight loss (SMD -0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.17), body mass index (-0.37, CI -0.56 to 0.19), waist circumference (-0.43, CI -0.69 to -0.16), blood pressure (systolic: -0.21, CI -0.32 to -0.09 and diastolic: -0.18, CI -0.29 to -0.06), high-density lipoproteins (HDL 0.25, CI 0.07 to 0.44), fasting insulin (-0.20, CI -0.39 to -0.01) and triglycerides (-0.51, CI -0.78 to -0.24). Sensitivity analysis of studies with lower risk of bias abolished the effect on HDL and fasting insulin, and reduced the effect on triglycerides. We observed nonsignificant effects on total cholesterol, low-density lipoproteins, C-reactive protein, HbA1c, fasting blood glucose, and surrogates for bone and kidney health. Adverse gastrointestinal events were more common with high-protein diets. Multivariable meta-regression analysis showed no significant dose response with higher protein intake. CONCLUSIONS: Higher-protein diets probably improve adiposity, blood pressure and triglyceride levels, but these effects are small and need to be weighed against the potential for harms.