QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies.

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Acute complications and mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses. RESULTS: A total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the third update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, or an active control intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 3 August 2020. We also searched the reference lists of identified studies and contacted content experts and trialists for relevant references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on risk of bias, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. We applied GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six additional randomised controlled trials (3326 participants) for this update, bringing the included study total to 32 (15,678 participants), all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The certainty of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. Thromboprophylaxis with direct oral anticoagulants (direct factor Xa inhibitors apixaban and rivaroxaban) may decrease the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.06; 3 studies, 1526 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably increases the risk of major bleeding compared with placebo (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.82 to 3.68; 3 studies, 1494 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83; 11 studies, 3931 participants; high-certainty evidence); and probably increased the risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.35; 15 studies, 7282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH resulted in lower symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83; 1 study, 439 participants; high-certainty evidence), while LMWH probably lowers symptomatic VTE more than aspirin (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17; 2 studies, 781 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants with multiple myeloma treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis, but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis, warfarin may importantly reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20; 1 study, 311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may result in a large increase in major bleeding (RR 3.82, 95% CI 0.97 to 15.04; 4 studies, 994 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study evaluated antithrombin versus no antithrombin in children. This study did not report on symptomatic VTE but did report any VTE (symptomatic and incidental VTE). The effect of antithrombin on any VTE and major bleeding is uncertain (any VTE: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.73; major bleeding: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.03 to 18.57; 1 study, 85 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In ambulatory cancer patients, primary thromboprophylaxis with direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce the incidence of symptomatic VTE (low-certainty evidence) and probably increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. LMWH decreases the incidence of symptomatic VTE (high-certainty evidence), but increases the risk of major bleeding (moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. Evidence for the use of thromboprophylaxis with anticoagulants other than direct factor Xa inhibitors and LMWH is limited. More studies are warranted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of primary prophylaxis in specific types of chemotherapeutic agents and types of cancer, such as gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancer.

Computerised cognitive training for 12 or more weeks for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life.

BACKGROUND: Increasing age is associated with a natural decline in cognitive function and is the greatest risk factor for dementia. Cognitive decline and dementia are significant threats to independence and quality of life in older adults. Therefore, identifying interventions that help to maintain cognitive function in older adults or that reduce the risk of dementia is a research priority. Cognitive training uses repeated practice on standardised exercises targeting one or more cognitive domains and may be intended to improve or maintain optimal cognitive function. This review examines the effects of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks on the cognitive function of healthy adults aged 65 or older and has formed part of a wider project about modifying lifestyle to maintain cognitive function. We chose a minimum 12 weeks duration as a trade-off between adequate exposure to a sustainable intervention and feasibility in a trial setting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks on cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched to 31 March 2018 in ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), and we performed additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP (www.apps.who.int/trialsearch), to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, published or unpublished, reported in any language. Participants were cognitively healthy people, and at least 80% of the study population had to be aged 65 or older. Experimental interventions adhered to the following criteria: intervention was any form of interactive computerised cognitive intervention - including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality - that involved repeated practice on standardised exercises of specified cognitive domain(s) for the purpose of enhancing cognitive function; the duration of the intervention was at least 12 weeks; cognitive outcomes were measured; and cognitive training interventions were compared with active or inactive control interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed preliminary screening of search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method to identify RCTs. At least two review authors working independently screened the remaining citations against inclusion criteria. At least two review authors also independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included RCTs. Where appropriate, we synthesised data in random-effects meta-analyses, comparing computerised cognitive training (CCT) separately with active and inactive controls. We expressed treatment effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE methods to describe the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs with a total of 1183 participants. The duration of the interventions ranged from 12 to 26 weeks; in five trials, the duration of intervention was 12 or 13 weeks. The included studies had moderate risk of bias, and the overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes. We compared CCT first against active control interventions, such as watching educational videos. Negative SMDs favour CCT over control. Trial results suggest slight improvement in global cognitive function at the end of the intervention period (12 weeks) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to -0.05; 232 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). One of these trials also assessed global cognitive function 12 months after the end of the intervention; this trial provided no clear evidence of a persistent effect (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.66 to 0.24; 77 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). CCT may result in little or no difference at the end of the intervention period in episodic memory (12 to 17 weeks) (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.26; 439 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) or working memory (12 to 16 weeks) (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.02; 392 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Because of the very low quality of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of CCT on speed of processing and executive function. We also compared CCT to inactive control (no interventions). We found no data on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. At the end of the intervention, CCT may lead to slight improvement in episodic memory (6 months) (mean difference (MD) in Rivermead Behavioural Memory Test (RBMT) -0.90 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.73 to -0.07; 150 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence) but can have little or no effect on executive function (12 weeks to 6 months) (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.15; 292 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence), working memory (16 weeks) (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.27; 60 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence), or verbal fluency (6 months) (MD -0.11, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.36; 150 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). We could not determine any effects on speed of processing because the evidence was of very low quality. We found no evidence on quality of life, activities of daily living, or adverse effects in either comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence suggesting that immediately after completion of the intervention, small benefits of CCT may be seen for global cognitive function when compared with active controls, and for episodic memory when compared with an inactive control. These benefits are of uncertain clinical importance. We found no evidence that the effect on global cognitive function persisted 12 months later. Our confidence in the results was low, reflecting the overall quality of the evidence. In five of the eight trials, the duration of the intervention was just three months. The possibility that more extensive training could yield larger benefit remains to be more fully explored. We found substantial literature on cognitive training, and collating all available scientific information posed problems. Duration of treatment may not be the best way to categorise interventions for inclusion. As the primary interest of older people and of guideline writers and policymakers involves sustained cognitive benefit, an alternative would be to categorise by length of follow-up after selecting studies that assess longer-term effects.

Screening test accuracy of portable devices that can be used to perform colposcopy for detecting CIN2+ in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Portable devices that can be used to perform colposcopy may improve cervical cancer screening in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) where access to colposcopy is limited. The objective of this study was to systematically review the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of these devices for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or higher (CIN2+). METHODS: In accordance with our protocol (Prospero CRD42018104286), we searched Embase, Medline and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials up to 9/2019. We included DTA studies, which investigated portable devices with moderate-to-high optical magnification (≥ 6×) for colposcopy, as described in the manual for Colposcopy and Treatment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, with a histopathological reference standard. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess study quality. We examined results for sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, stratified by stages in the clinical pathway. We pooled estimates of test accuracy for the index test, used as an add-on to other tests, using a bivariate random-effect model. RESULTS: We screened 1737 references and assessed 239 full-text articles for eligibility. Five single-gate DTA studies, including 2693 women, met the inclusion criteria. Studies evaluated two devices (Gynocular™ and Pocket) at different stages of the screening pathway. In three studies, which used the index test in an add-on capacity in 1273 women, we found a pooled sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.55-0.92) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.59-0.94). The main sources of bias were partial verification, incorporation and classification bias. CONCLUSION: Few studies have evaluated portable devices able to perform colposcopy, so their accuracy for the detection of CIN2+ remains uncertain. Future studies should include patient-relevant and long-term outcomes, including missed cases, overtreatment, residual and recurrent disease. To meet the challenge of eliminating cervical cancer in LMIC, methods for visual assessment of the cervix need urgent redress.

Insufficient uptake of systematic search methods in oncological clinical practice guideline: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The use of systematic review methods are widely recognized to be essential in the development of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines to prove their trustworthiness. The objective of this study was to assess the use of systematic search methods by authors of guidelines published in the oncology field. METHODS: We analyzed 590 guidance documents identified in PubMed, NGC, GIN and web sites for guidelines in 2009-2015 in oncology. The main outcome measure used was incidence of guidance documents supported by a systematic search of the literature. In addition to descriptive analyses, logistic regression was used to evaluate if adequate search methods were explained by guideline characteristics. RESULTS: Of 590 guidance documents included in the study, 305 (51.7%) declared the use of systematic search methods but only 168 (28.5%) applied methods meeting minimum standards for quality and provided sufficient details to allow classification. 164 (27.8%) guidance documents did not report any use of literature evaluation. Guidance documents produced by a Government Agency in North America (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.16-4.17) and those with a focused scope (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.97-5.56) were positively associated with the use of systematic search methods. We found no association between the year of publication and use of systematic search methods. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small number of guidance documents was informed by scientific evidence identified through adequate systematic search methods. We observed substantial room for improvement of applied methods and reporting, especially in documents with a broad focus, or those produced by professional societies or independent expert panels in other continents than North America.

Long-term performance of risk scores for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients.

The long-term performance of prediction scores for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients has been poorly investigated. We evaluated the discriminatory performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores for the first 3-6 months and for 12 months, and re-assessed scores after 3-6 months to determine the influence of variations in patients' risk classification on performance. Retrospective cohort of ambulatory patients with active cancer who were scheduled to receive first or new line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was symptomatic or incidental VTE. A total of 776 patients were included of whom 540 (70%) had distant metastases. The time-dependent c-statistics of Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores at 6 months were 0.61 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.66), 0.61 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.66), 0.60 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.66), and 0.59 (0.52 to 0.66), respectively, with a tendency to decrease during follow-up. None of the scores discriminated between high and low risk patients at the conventional 3-point positivity threshold. The use of a 2-point positivity threshold improved performance of all scores and captured a higher proportion of VTE. The accuracy of risk scores re-assessed at 3-6 months was modest. The Khorana, PROTECHT, CONKO, and ONKOTEV scores are not sufficiently accurate when used at a conventional threshold of 3 points. Performance improves at positivity threshold of 2 points, as evaluated in recent randomized studies on VTE prophylaxis. Score accuracy tends to decrease over time suggesting the need of periodic re-evaluation to estimate possible variation of risk.

Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life.

BACKGROUND: Increasing age is associated with a natural decline in cognitive function and is also the greatest risk factor for dementia. Cognitive decline and dementia are significant threats to independence and quality of life in older adults. Therefore, identifying interventions that help to maintain cognitive function in older adults or to reduce the risk of dementia is a research priority. Cognitive training uses repeated practice on standardised exercises targeting one or more cognitive domains and is intended to maintain optimum cognitive function. This review examines the effect of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks on the cognitive function of healthy adults aged 65 or older. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks for the maintenance or improvement of cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in late life. SEARCH METHODS: We searched to 31 March 2018 in ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois) and performed additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP (www.apps.who.int/trialsearch) to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs, published or unpublished, reported in any language. Participants were cognitively healthy people, and at least 80% of the study population had to be aged 65 or older. Experimental interventions adhered to the following criteria: intervention was any form of interactive computerised cognitive intervention - including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality - that involved repeated practice on standardised exercises of specified cognitive domain(s) for the purpose of enhancing cognitive function; duration of the intervention was at least 12 weeks; cognitive outcomes were measured; and cognitive training interventions were compared with active or inactive control interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed preliminary screening of search results using a 'crowdsourcing' method to identify RCTs. At least two review authors working independently screened the remaining citations against inclusion criteria. At least two review authors also independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included RCTs. Where appropriate, we synthesised data in random-effect meta-analyses, comparing computerised cognitive training (CCT) separately with active and inactive controls. We expressed treatment effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE methods to describe the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight RCTs with a total of 1183 participants. Researchers provided interventions over 12 to 26 weeks; in five trials, the duration of intervention was 12 or 13 weeks. The included studies had a moderate risk of bias. Review authors noted a lot of inconsistency between trial results. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes.We compared CCT first against active control interventions, such as watching educational videos. Because of the very low quality of the evidence, we were unable to determine any effect of CCT on our primary outcome of global cognitive function or on secondary outcomes of episodic memory, speed of processing, executive function, and working memory.We also compared CCT versus inactive control (no interventions). Negative SMDs favour CCT over control. We found no studies on our primary outcome of global cognitive function. In terms of our secondary outcomes, trial results suggest slight improvement in episodic memory (mean difference (MD) -0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.73 to -0.07; 150 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence) and no effect on executive function (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.15; 292 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence), working memory (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.27; 60 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence), or verbal fluency (MD -0.11, 95% CI -1.58 to 1.36; 150 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). We could not determine any effects on speed of processing at trial endpoints because the evidence was of very low quality.We found no evidence on quality of life, activities of daily living, or adverse effects in either comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence from the included studies to suggest that 12 or more weeks of CCT improves cognition in healthy older adults. However, our limited confidence in the results reflects the overall quality of the evidence. Inconsistency between trials was a major limitation. In five of the eight trials, the duration of intervention was just three months. The possibility that longer periods of training could be beneficial remains to be more fully explored.

Computerised cognitive training for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife.

BACKGROUND: Normal aging is associated with changes in cognitive function that are non-pathological and are not necessarily indicative of future neurocognitive disease. Low cognitive and brain reserve and limited cognitive stimulation are associated with increased risk of dementia. Emerging evidence now suggests that subtle cognitive changes, detectable years before criteria for mild cognitive impairment are met, may be predictive of future dementia. Important for intervention and reduction in disease risk, research also suggests that engaging in stimulating mental activity throughout adulthood builds cognitive and brain reserve and reduces dementia risk. Therefore, midlife (defined here as 40 to 65 years) may be a suitable time to introduce cognitive interventions for maintaining cognitive function and, in the longer term, possibly preventing or delaying the onset of clinical dementia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of computerised cognitive training interventions lasting at least 12 weeks for maintaining or improving cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in midlife. SEARCH METHODS: We searched up to 31 March 2018 in ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois), the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group (CDCIG). We ran additional searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP at www.apps.who.int/trialsearch, to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible, to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, published or unpublished, reported in any language. Participants were cognitively healthy people between 40 and 65 years of age (80% of study population within this age range). Experimental interventions adhered to the following criteria: intervention was any form of interactive computerised cognitive intervention - including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality - that involved repeated practice on standardised exercises of specified cognitive domain(s) for the purpose of enhancing cognitive function; duration of the intervention was at least 12 weeks; cognitive outcomes were measured; and cognitive training interventions were compared with active or inactive control interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For preliminary screening of search results, we used a 'crowd' method to identify RCTs. At least two review authors working independently screened remaining citations against inclusion criteria; independently extracted data; and assessed the quality of the included trial, using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. We used GRADE to describe the overall quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one eligible study that examined the effect of computerised cognitive training (CCT) in 6742 participants over 50 years of age, with training and follow-up duration of six months. We considered the study to be at high risk of attrition bias and the overall quality of the evidence to be low.Researchers provided no data on our primary outcome. Results indicate that there may be a small advantage for the CCT group for executive function (mean difference (MD) -1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.85 to -1.29; participants = 3994; low-quality evidence) and a very small advantage for the control group for working memory (MD 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.15; participants = 5831; low-quality evidence). The intervention may have had little or no effect on episodic memory (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.04; participants = 3090; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence from only one study. We are unable to determine whether computerised cognitive training is effective in maintaining global cognitive function among healthy adults in midlife. We strongly recommend that high-quality studies be undertaken to investigate the effectiveness and acceptability of cognitive training in midlife, using interventions that last long enough that they may have enduring effects on cognitive and brain reserve, and with investigators following up long enough to assess effects on clinically important outcomes in later life.

Computerised cognitive training for preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: The number of people living with dementia is increasing rapidly. Clinical dementia does not develop suddenly, but rather is preceded by a period of cognitive decline beyond normal age-related change. People at this intermediate stage between normal cognitive function and clinical dementia are often described as having mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Considerable research and clinical efforts have been directed toward finding disease-modifying interventions that may prevent or delay progression from MCI to clinical dementia. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of at least 12 weeks of computerised cognitive training (CCT) on maintaining or improving cognitive function and preventing dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched to 31 May 2018 in ALOIS (www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/alois) and ran additional searches in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO portal/ICTRP (www.apps.who.int/trialsearch) to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in which cognitive training via interactive computerised technology was compared with an active or inactive control intervention. Experimental computerised cognitive training (CCT) interventions had to adhere to the following criteria: minimum intervention duration of 12 weeks; any form of interactive computerised cognitive training, including computer exercises, computer games, mobile devices, gaming console, and virtual reality. Participants were adults with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild neurocognitive disorder (MND), or otherwise at high risk of cognitive decline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included RCTs. We expressed treatment effects as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to describe the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs with a total of 660 participants met review inclusion criteria. Duration of the included trials varied from 12 weeks to 18 months. Only one trial used an inactive control. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in several domains. Overall, our ability to draw conclusions was hampered by very low-quality evidence. Almost all results were very imprecise; there were also problems related to risk of bias, inconsistency between trials, and indirectness of the evidence.No trial provided data on incident dementia. For comparisons of CCT with both active and inactive controls, the quality of evidence on our other primary outcome of global cognitive function immediately after the intervention period was very low. Therefore, we were unable to draw any conclusions about this outcome.Due to very low quality of evidence, we were also unable to determine whether there was any effect of CCT compared to active control on our secondary outcomes of episodic memory, working memory, executive function, depression, functional performance, and mortality. We found low-quality evidence suggesting that there is probably no effect on speed of processing (SMD 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to 0.56; 2 studies; 119 participants), verbal fluency (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.76 to 0.44; 3 studies; 150 participants), or quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.40, 95% CI -1.85 to 2.65; 1 study; 19 participants).When CCT was compared with inactive control, we obtained data on five secondary outcomes, including episodic memory, executive function, verbal fluency, depression, and functional performance. We found very low-quality evidence; therefore, we were unable to draw any conclusions about these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence does not allow us to determine whether or not computerised cognitive training will prevent clinical dementia or improve or maintain cognitive function in those who already have evidence of cognitive impairment. Small numbers of trials, small samples, risk of bias, inconsistency between trials, and highly imprecise results mean that it is not possible to derive any implications for clinical practice, despite some observed large effect sizes from individual studies. Direct adverse events are unlikely to occur, although the time and sometimes the money involved in computerised cognitive training programmes may represent significant burdens. Further research is necessary and should concentrate on improving methodological rigour, selecting suitable outcomes measures, and assessing generalisability and persistence of any effects. Trials with long-term follow-up are needed to determine the potential of this intervention to reduce the risk of dementia.

Tramadol for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events.

The performance of non-invasive tests to rule-in and rule-out significant coronary artery stenosis in patients with stable angina: a meta-analysis focused on post-test disease probability.

Aims: To determine the ranges of pre-test probability (PTP) of coronary artery disease (CAD) in which stress electrocardiogram (ECG), stress echocardiography, coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) can reclassify patients into a post-test probability that defines (>85%) or excludes (<15%) anatomically (defined by visual evaluation of invasive coronary angiography [ICA]) and functionally (defined by a fractional flow reserve [FFR] ≤0.8) significant CAD. Methods and results: A broad search in electronic databases until August 2017 was performed. Studies on the aforementioned techniques in >100 patients with stable CAD that utilized either ICA or ICA with FFR measurement as reference, were included. Study-level data was pooled using a hierarchical bivariate random-effects model and likelihood ratios were obtained for each technique. The PTP ranges for each technique to rule-in or rule-out significant CAD were defined. A total of 28 664 patients from 132 studies that used ICA as reference and 4131 from 23 studies using FFR, were analysed. Stress ECG can rule-in and rule-out anatomically significant CAD only when PTP is ≥80% (76-83) and ≤19% (15-25), respectively. Coronary computed tomography angiography is able to rule-in anatomic CAD at a PTP ≥58% (45-70) and rule-out at a PTP ≤80% (65-94). The corresponding PTP values for functionally significant CAD were ≥75% (67-83) and ≤57% (40-72) for CCTA, and ≥71% (59-81) and ≤27 (24-31) for ICA, demonstrating poorer performance of anatomic imaging against FFR. In contrast, functional imaging techniques (PET, stress CMR, and SPECT) are able to rule-in functionally significant CAD when PTP is ≥46-59% and rule-out when PTP is ≤34-57%. Conclusion: The various diagnostic modalities have different optimal performance ranges for the detection of anatomically and functionally significant CAD. Stress ECG appears to have very limited diagnostic power. The selection of a diagnostic technique for any given patient to rule-in or rule-out CAD should be based on the optimal PTP range for each test and on the assumed reference standard.

Identification of behaviour change techniques in deprescribing interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Deprescribing interventions safely and effectively optimize medication use in older people. However, questions remain about which components of interventions are key to effectively reduce inappropriate medication use. This systematic review examines the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of deprescribing interventions and summarizes intervention effectiveness on medication use and inappropriate prescribing. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Academic Search Complete and grey literature were searched for relevant literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported on interventions in people aged ≥65 years. The BCT taxonomy was used to identify BCTs frequently observed in deprescribing interventions. Effectiveness of interventions on inappropriate medication use was summarized in meta-analyses. Medication appropriateness was assessed in accordance with STOPP criteria, Beers' criteria and national or local guidelines. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated by I-squared and Chi-squared statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for randomized controlled studies. RESULTS: Of the 1561 records identified, 25 studies were included in the review. Deprescribing interventions were effective in reducing number of drugs and inappropriate prescribing, but a large heterogeneity in effects was observed. BCT clusters including goals and planning; social support; shaping knowledge; natural consequences; comparison of behaviour; comparison of outcomes; regulation; antecedents; and identity had a positive effect on the effectiveness of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In general, deprescribing interventions effectively reduce medication use and inappropriate prescribing in older people. Successful deprescribing is facilitated by the combination of BCTs involving a range of intervention components.

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for maintaining cognitive function in cognitively healthy people in mid and late life.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and minerals play multiple functions within the central nervous system which may help to maintain brain health and optimal cognitive functioning. Supplementation of the diet with various vitamins and minerals has been suggested as a means of maintaining cognitive function, or even of preventing dementia, in later life. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function in cognitively healthy people aged 40 years or more. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP from inception to 26th January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the cognitive effects on people aged 40 years or more of any vitamin or mineral supplements taken by mouth for at least three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were done in duplicate. Vitamins were considered broadly in the categories of B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins, and combinations of both. Minerals were considered separately, where possible. If interventions and outcomes were considered sufficiently similar, then data were pooled. In order to separate short-term cognitive effects from possible longer-term effects on the trajectory of cognitive decline, data were pooled for various treatment durations from 3 months to 12 months and up to 10 years or more. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 28 studies with more than 83,000 participants. There were some general limitations of the evidence. Most participants were enrolled in studies which were not designed primarily to assess cognition. These studies often had no baseline cognitive assessment and used only brief cognitive assessments at follow-up. Very few studies assessed the incidence of dementia. Most study reports did not mention adverse events or made only very general statements about them. Only 10 studies had a mean follow-up > 5 years. Only two studies had participants whose mean age was < 60 years at baseline. The risk of bias in the included studies was generally low, other than a risk of attrition bias for longer-term outcomes. We considered the certainty of the evidence behind almost all results to be moderate or low.We included 14 studies with 27,882 participants which compared folic acid, vitamin B12, vitamin B6, or a combination of these to placebo. The majority of participants were aged over 60 years and had a history of cardio- or cerebrovascular disease. We found that giving B vitamin supplements to cognitively healthy adults, mainly in their 60s and 70s, probably has little or no effect on global cognitive function at any time point up to 5 years (SMD values from -0.03 to 0.06) and may also have no effect at 5-10 years (SMD -0.01). There were very sparse data on adverse effects or on incidence of cognitive impairment or dementia.We included 8 studies with 47,840 participants in which the active intervention was one or more of the antioxidant vitamins: ß-carotene, vitamin C or vitamin E. Results were mixed. For overall cognitive function, there was low-certainty evidence of benefit associated with ß-carotene after a mean of 18 years of treatment (MD 0.18 TICS points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35) and of vitamin C after 5 years to 10 years (MD 0.46 TICS points, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.78), but not at earlier time points. From two studies which reported on dementia incidence, there was low-certainty evidence of no effect of an antioxidant vitamin combination or of vitamin E, either alone or combined with selenium. One of the included studies had been designed to look for effects on the incidence of prostate cancer; it found a statistically significant increase in prostate cancer diagnoses among men taking vitamin E.One trial with 4143 participants compared vitamin D3 (400 IU/day) and calcium supplements to placebo. We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence of no effect of vitamin D3 and calcium supplements at any time-point up to 10 years on overall cognitive function (MD after a mean of 7.8 years -0.1 MMSE points, 95% CI -0.81 to 0.61) or the incidence of dementia (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.24). A pilot study with 60 participants used a higher dose of vitamin D3 (4000 IU on alternate days) and found preliminary evidence that this dose probably has no effect on cognitive function over six months.We included data from one trial of zinc and copper supplementation with 1072 participants. There was moderate-certainty evidence of little or no effect on overall cognitive function (MD 0.6 MMSE points, 95% CI -0.19 to 1.39) or on the incidence of cognitive impairment after 5 years to 10 years. A second smaller trial provided no usable data, but reported no cognitive effects of six months of supplementation with zinc gluconate.From one study with 3711 participants, there was low-certainty evidence of no effect of approximately five years of selenium supplementation on the incidence of dementia (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13).Finally, we included three trials of complex supplements (combinations of B vitamins, antioxidant vitamins, and minerals) with 6306 participants. From the one trial which assessed overall cognitive function, there was low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on the TICS (MD after a mean of 8.5 years 0.12, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.38). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that any vitamin or mineral supplementation strategy for cognitively healthy adults in mid or late life has a meaningful effect on cognitive decline or dementia, although the evidence does not permit definitive conclusions. There were very few data on supplementation starting in midlife (< 60 years); studies designed to assess cognitive outcomes tended to be too short to assess maintenance of cognitive function; longer studies often had other primary outcomes and used cognitive measures which may have lacked sensitivity. The only positive signals of effect came from studies of long-term supplementation with antioxidant vitamins. These may be the most promising for further research.

Vitamin and mineral supplementation for preventing dementia or delaying cognitive decline in people with mild cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Vitamins and minerals have many functions in the nervous system which are important for brain health. It has been suggested that various different vitamin and mineral supplements might be useful in maintaining cognitive function and delaying the onset of dementia. In this review, we sought to examine the evidence for this in people who already had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of vitamin and mineral supplementation on cognitive function and the incidence of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's (CDCIG) specialised register, as well as MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACs, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Portal/ICTRP, from inception to 25 January 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised, placebo-controlled trials which evaluated orally administered vitamin or mineral supplements in participants with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and which assessed the incidence of dementia or cognitive outcomes, or both. We were interested in studies applicable to the general population of older people and therefore excluded studies in which participants had severe vitamin or mineral deficiencies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We sought data on our primary outcomes of dementia incidence and overall cognitive function and on secondary outcomes of episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, quality of life, functional performance, clinical global impression, adverse events, and mortality. We conducted data collection and analysis according to standard Cochrane systematic review methods. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We grouped vitamins and minerals according to their putative mechanism of action and, where we considered it to be clinically appropriate, we pooled data using random-effects methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials with 879 participants which investigated B vitamin supplements. In four trials, the intervention was a combination of vitamins B6, B12, and folic acid; in one, it was folic acid only. Doses varied. We considered there to be some risks of performance and attrition bias and of selective outcome reporting among these trials. Our primary efficacy outcomes were the incidence of dementia and scores on measures of overall cognitive function. None of the trials reported the incidence of dementia and the evidence on overall cognitive function was of very low-quality. There was probably little or no effect of B vitamins taken for six to 24 months on episodic memory, executive function, speed of processing, or quality of life. The evidence on our other secondary clinical outcomes, including harms, was very sparse or very low-quality. There was evidence from one study that there may be a slower rate of brain atrophy over two years in participants taking B vitamins. The same study reported subgroup analyses based on the level of serum homocysteine (tHcy) at baseline and found evidence that B vitamins may improve episodic memory in those with tHcy above the median at baseline.We included one trial (n = 516) of vitamin E supplementation. Vitamin E was given as 1000 IU of alpha-tocopherol twice daily. We considered this trial to be at risk of attrition and selective reporting bias. There was probably no effect of vitamin E on the probability of progression from MCI to Alzheimer's dementia over three years (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; n = 516; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of an effect at intermediate time points. The available data did not allow us to conduct analyses, but the authors reported no significant effect of three years of supplementation with vitamin E on overall cognitive function, episodic memory, speed of processing, clinical global impression, functional performance, adverse events, or mortality (five deaths in each group). We considered this to be low-quality evidence.We included one trial (n = 256) of combined vitamin E and vitamin C supplementation and one trial (n = 26) of supplementation with chromium picolinate. In both cases, there was a single eligible cognitive outcome, but we considered the evidence to be very low-quality and so could not be sure of any effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on vitamin and mineral supplements as treatments for MCI is very limited. Three years of treatment with high-dose vitamin E probably does not reduce the risk of progression to dementia, but we have no data on this outcome for other supplements. Only B vitamins have been assessed in more than one RCT. There is no evidence for beneficial effects on cognition of supplementation with B vitamins for six to 24 months. Evidence from a single study of a reduced rate of brain atrophy in participants taking vitamin B and a beneficial effect of vitamin B on episodic memory in those with higher tHcy at baseline warrants attempted replication.

Trigger Tool-Based Automated Adverse Event Detection in Electronic Health Records: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to detect AEs, although automated approaches using electronic health records may offer real-time adverse event detection, allowing timely corrective interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to describe current study methods and challenges regarding the use of automatic trigger tool-based adverse event detection methods in electronic health records. In addition, we aimed to appraise the applied studies' designs and to synthesize estimates of adverse event prevalence and diagnostic test accuracy of automatic detection methods using manual trigger tool as a reference standard. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were queried. We included observational studies, applying trigger tools in acute care settings, and excluded studies using nonhospital and outpatient settings. Eligible articles were divided into diagnostic test accuracy studies and prevalence studies. We derived the study prevalence and estimates for the positive predictive value. We assessed bias risks and applicability concerns using Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic test accuracy studies and an in-house developed tool for prevalence studies. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies met all criteria: 2 concerned diagnostic test accuracy and 9 prevalence. We judged several studies to be at high bias risks for their automated detection method, definition of outcomes, and type of statistical analyses. Across all the 11 studies, adverse event prevalence ranged from 0% to 17.9%, with a median of 0.8%. The positive predictive value of all triggers to detect adverse events ranged from 0% to 100% across studies, with a median of 40%. Some triggers had wide ranging positive predictive value values: (1) in 6 studies, hypoglycemia had a positive predictive value ranging from 15.8% to 60%; (2) in 5 studies, naloxone had a positive predictive value ranging from 20% to 91%; (3) in 4 studies, flumazenil had a positive predictive value ranging from 38.9% to 83.3%; and (4) in 4 studies, protamine had a positive predictive value ranging from 0% to 60%. We were unable to determine the adverse event prevalence, positive predictive value, preventability, and severity in 40.4%, 10.5%, 71.1%, and 68.4% of the studies, respectively. These studies did not report the overall number of records analyzed, triggers, or adverse events; or the studies did not conduct the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: We observed broad interstudy variation in reported adverse event prevalence and positive predictive value. The lack of sufficiently described methods led to difficulties regarding interpretation. To improve quality, we see the need for a set of recommendations to endorse optimal use of research designs and adequate reporting of future adverse event detection studies.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.

Importance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set.

AIM: Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the trade-off between safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is the second update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Group Specialised Register (June 2016). In addition, the Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 5). Clinical trials registries were searched up to June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no thromboprophylaxis or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on methodological quality, participant characteristics, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified five additional randomised controlled trials (2491 participants) in the updated search, considering in this update 26 trials with a total of 12,352 participants, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in people with locally advanced or metastatic cancer. The quality of the evidence ranged from high to very low across the different outcomes and comparisons. The main limiting factors were imprecision and risk of bias. One large trial of 3212 participants found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). When compared with no thromboprophylaxis, LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau2 = 0.00%) with a non-statistically significant 44% higher risk of major bleeding events (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.11). In participants with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). Major bleeding was observed in none of the participants treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against no thromboprophylaxis but did not report on VTE or major bleeding. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a non-statistically significant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE or on major bleeding when compared with no antithrombin. The direct oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase II dose-finding study that suggested a low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.4%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 13.8%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this second update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin, which is not commercially available, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. The risk of major bleeding associated with LMWH, while not reaching statistical significance, suggest caution and mandate additional studies to determine the risk-to-benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed. We need additional studies investigating targeted primary prophylaxis in people with specific types or stages of cancer associated with a higher risk of VTE.

The Effects of High Insertion Torque Versus Low Insertion Torque on Marginal Bone Resorption and Implant Failure Rates: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to analyze the data about the effects on marginal bone resorption and implant failure rates between implants inserted with high or low insertion torque values. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search until July 2015 was conducted. Data were summarized qualitatively in descriptive tables and quantitatively by performing random effects meta-analyses of effect sizes (ESs) for bone resorption and bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and relative risks (RRs) for implant failures. Risk of bias assessments were performed using the Cochrane tool for human studies and the SYRCLE's tool for animal studies. RESULTS: Four studies in humans and 6 quasirandomized animal studies were included. A total of 591 implants were evaluated qualitatively: 348 installed with high insertion torque (>25 Ncm, up to 176 Ncm) and 243 implants inserted with low torque values (<30-35 Ncm). No significant differences were detected for bone resorption (ES, 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.12 to 0.38 in human studies; ES predictive interval from 35.03 to 34.50 in animal studies), implant failure (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.01-20.77 in human studies; RR, 2.05; 95% CI, 0.19-21.71 in animal studies), or BIC (ES predictive interval from -3.84 to 5.13 in animal studies). CONCLUSION: The current review indicated that there is no significant difference in marginal bone resorption and implant failure rate between implants inserted with high or low insertion torque values.