Sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Is our public research money well spent? Publication of research outputs from Health Research Council of New Zealand-funded studies: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting of results from the projects and programmes funded by the Health Research Council (HRC) New Zealand. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: Research projects and programmes funded by the HRC New Zealand from 2006 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Publicly available data provided by the HRC. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and proportion with evidence of publication and dissemination of a research output from HRC grants and the time taken to disseminate the results. RESULTS: Of the 374 HRC grants from 2006 to 2014, there was no evidence of publication or reporting of any research output for 48 studies (13%). Of the 326 (87%) grants with research outputs, there was a mean dissemination time of 4.73 years (SD 2.37). The total funding provided by the HRC was NZ$471 663 336, while the 48 grants with no evidence of dissemination represented NZ$47 095 727 (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Thirteen per cent of the HRC projects and programmes from 2006 to 2014 have not contributed to the healthcare evidence as their results remain unknown.

Publication bias in trials registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Is it a problem? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Timely publication of clinical trials is critical to ensure the dissemination and implementation of high-quality healthcare evidence. This study investigates the publication rate and time to publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of RCTs registered with the ANZCTR in 2007, 2009, and 2011. Multiple bibliographic databases were searched until October 2021 to identify trial publications. We then calculated publication rates, proportions, and the time to publish calculated from the date of first participation enrolment to publication date. RESULTS: Of 1,970 trial registrations, 541 (27%) remained unpublished 10 to 14 years later, and the proportion of trials published decreased by 7% from 2007 to 2011. The average time to publish was 4.63 years. The prospective trial registration rate for 2007, 2009 and 2011 was 48% (952 trials) and over this time there was an increase of 19% (280 prospective trials). Trials funded by non-Industry organizations were more likely to be published (74%, 1204/1625 trials) than the industry-funded trials (61%, 224/345 trials). Larger trials with at least 1000 participants were published at a rate of 88% (85/97 trials) and on average took 5.4 years to be published. Smaller trials with less than 100 participants were published at a lower rate with 67% (687/1024 trials) published and these trials took 4.31 years on average to publish. CONCLUSIONS: Just over a quarter of all trials on the ANZCTR for 2007, 2009, and 2011 remain unpublished over a decade later. The average time to publication of nearly five years may reflect the larger trials which will have taken longer to recruit participants. Over half of study sample trials were retrospectively registered, but prospective registration improved over time, highlighting the role of mandating trial registration.

Prothrombin complex concentrate in cardiac surgery for the treatment of coagulopathic bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Coagulopathy following cardiac surgery is associated with considerable blood product transfusion and high morbidity and mortality. The treatment of coagulopathy following cardiac surgery is challenging, with the replacement of clotting factors being based on transfusion of fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCCs) is an alternative method to replace clotting factors and warrants evaluation. PCCs are also an alternative method to treat refractory ongoing bleeding post-cardiac surgery compared to recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) and also warrants evaluation.   OBJECTIVES: Assess the benefits and harms of PCCs in people undergoing cardiac surgery who have coagulopathic non-surgical bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) on the Web of Science on 20 April 2021. We searched Clinicaltrials.gov (www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov), and the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch/), for ongoing or unpublished trials. We checked the reference lists for additional references. We did not limit the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised trials (NRSs).  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.   MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included  (4993 participants). Two were RCTs (151 participants) and 16 were NRSs. Both RCTs had low risk of bias (RoB) in almost all domains. Of the 16 NRSs, 14 were retrospective cohort analyses with one prospective study and one case report. The nine studies used in quantitative analysis were judged to have critical RoB, three serious and three moderate.   1. PCC versus standard treatment Evidence from RCTs showed PCCs are likely to reduce the number of units transfused compared to standard care (MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.78 to 0.00; participants = 151; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence from NRSs agreed with this, showing that PCCs may reduce the mean number of units transfused compared to standard care but the evidence is uncertain (MD -1.87 units, 95% CI -2.53 to -1.20; participants = 551; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence from RCTs showing a difference in the incidence of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion compared to standard care (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.40; participants = 101; studies = 1; low-quality evidence). Evidence from NRSs disagreed with this, showing that PCCs may reduce the mean number of units transfused compared to standard care but the evidence is uncertain (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.98; participants = 1046; studies = 4; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence from RCTs showing a difference in the number of thrombotic events with PCC compared to standard care (OR 0.68 95% CI 0.20 to 2.31; participants = 152; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). This is supported by NRSs, showing that PCCs may have no effect on the number of thrombotic events compared to standard care but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.99; participants = 1359; studies = 7; very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence from RCTs showing a difference in mortality with PCC compared to standard care  (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.35; participants = 149; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence). This is supported by evidence from NRSs, showing that PCCs may have little to no effect on mortality compared to standard care but the evidence is very uncertain (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.51; participants = 1334; studies = 6; very low-quality evidence). Evidence from RCTs indicated that there was little to no difference in postoperative bleeding (MD -107.05 mLs, 95% CI -278.92 to 64.83; participants = 151, studies = 2; low-quality evidence).  PCCs may have little to no effect on intensive care length of stay (RCT evidence: MD -0.35 hours, 95% CI -19.26 to 18.57; participants = 151; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence) (NRS evidence: MD -18.00, 95% CI -43.14 to 7.14; participants = 225; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) or incidence of renal replacement therapy (RCT evidence: OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.59; participants = 50; studies = 1; low-quality evidence) (NRS evidence: OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.98; participants = 684; studies = 2; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported on additional adverse outcomes.   2. PCC versus rFVIIa For this comparison, all evidence was provided from NRSs.  PCC likely results in a large reduction of RBCs transfused intra-operatively in comparison to rFVIIa (MD-4.98 units, 95% CI -6.37 to -3.59; participants = 256; studies = 2; moderate-quality evidence).  PCC may have little to no effect on the incidence of RBC units transfused comparative to rFVIIa; evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.56; participants = 150; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence). PCC may have little to no effect on the number of thrombotic events comparative to rFVIIa; evidence is very uncertain (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; participants = 407; studies = 4; very low-quality evidence). PCC may have little to no effect on the incidence of mortality (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.38 to 3.03; participants = 278; studies = 3; very low-quality evidence) or intensive care length of stay comparative to rFVIIa (MD -40 hours, 95% CI -110.41 to 30.41; participants = 106; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence); evidence is very uncertain . PCC may reduce bleeding (MD -674.34 mLs, 95% CI -906.04 to -442.64; participants = 150; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) and incidence of renal replacement therapy (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.71; participants = 106; studies = 1; very low-quality evidence) comparative to rFVIIa; evidence is very uncertain. No studies reported on other adverse events.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PCCs could potentially be used as an alternative to standard therapy for coagulopathic bleeding post-cardiac surgery compared to FFP as shown by moderate-quality evidence and it may be an alternative to rFVIIa in refractory non-surgical bleeding but this is based on moderate to very low quality of evidence.

'As Long as It's Used for Beneficial Things': An Investigation of non-Maori, Maori and Young People's Perceptions Regarding the Research use of the Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI).

The Aotearoa New Zealand Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI) is a national database containing a wide range of data about people and households. There is limited information about public views regarding its use for research.A qualitative study was undertaken to examine the views of forty individuals attending a large hospital in Auckland, including those of Maori ethnicity and young people. Semi-structured interview data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's method of thematic analysis.Seven key themes emerged: 1) Limited knowledge about medical data held in national databases; 2) Conditional support for the use of the IDI, including for research; 3) Concerns regarding the misuse of IDI data; 4) The importance of privacy; 5) Different views regarding consent for use of data for research; 6) Desire for access to personal data and the results of research; and 7) Concerns regarding third party and commercial use. Young people and those of Maori ethnicity were more wary of data misuse than others.Although there is reasonable support for the secondary use of public administrative data in the IDI for research, there is more work to be done to ensure ethical and culturally appropriate use of this data via improved consent privacy management processes and researcher training.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences. OBJECTIVES: To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB. METHODS: We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

Antioxidants for male subfertility.

BACKGROUND: The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part two: fertility.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of fertility evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of The Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on fertility problems published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing CSRs. Unmatched trials were analyzed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: We exported 564 trials from the CGF specialized register and found that 115 (23%) of these could be included in an existing CSR if these were updated while 72 trials (14%) were not matched to any review topic, and from these, eight new Cochrane review titles were developed. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Traditional Chinese medicine for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques'. CONCLUSION: This project found that 14% of fertility trials were 'unused' and from these we identified new review topics and identified those reviews that need to be updated, thereby identifying the gaps in evidence for people with infertility.

New research questions identified for Cochrane reviews: a cross-sectional study of a specialized register: part one: gynecology.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this project was to identify gaps and research waste in the dissemination of gynecology evidence in Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of the Cochrane Gynecology and Fertility (CGF) Group's specialized register of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We included trials on benign gynecological conditions, published in 2010 and 2011. These trials were matched, by the condition and treatment, to existing Cochrane reviews. Unmatched trials were analysed to prioritize new review titles. RESULTS: After exporting 740 trials from the CGF specialized register, we found that 192 (26%) could be included in an existing CSR if it was updated, whereas 230 trials (32%) were not matched to any review title, and from these, we developed 21 new review titles. The topic with the largest number of associated 'unused' trials was 'Plant and herbal extracts for symptoms of menopause'. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a third of the benign gynecology trials published in 2010 and 2011 had no associated CSR. After identifying new topics from unmatched trials, we developed new CSR titles. This study identified the gaps in the evidence for women with gynecological problems.

Targeted therapy for advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Targeted therapies directed at specific driver oncogenes have improved outcomes for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Approximately 5% of lung adenocarcinomas, the most common histologic subtype of NSCLC, harbour rearrangements in the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene leading to constitutive activity of the ALK kinase. Crizotinib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) demonstrated to be effective in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation ALK TKIs have since been developed including ceritinib, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib, and have been compared with crizotinib or chemotherapy in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These ALK-targeted therapies are currently used in clinical practice and are endorsed in multiple clinical oncology guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of ALK inhibitors given as monotherapy to treat advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in the Cochrane Lung Cancer Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched conference proceedings from the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) World Conference on Lung Cancer, as well as the reference lists of retrieved articles. All searches were conducted from 2007 until 7 January 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing ALK inhibitors with cytotoxic chemotherapy or another ALK inhibitor in individuals with incurable locally advanced or metastatic pathologically confirmed ALK-rearranged NSCLC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted study characteristics and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for each included study. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Primary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AE); secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), OS at one year, overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours) criteria, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We performed a meta-analysis for all outcomes, where appropriate, using the fixed-effect model. We reported hazard ratios (HR) for PFS, OS, and a composite HRQoL of life outcome (time to deterioration), and risk ratios (RR) for AE, ORR, and one-year OS. We presented 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and used the I² statistic to investigate heterogeneity. We planned comparisons of 'ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy' and 'next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib' with subgroup analysis by type of ALK inhibitor, line of treatment, and baseline central nervous system involvement. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies (2874 participants) met our inclusion criteria: six studies compared an ALK inhibitor (crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib) to chemotherapy, and five studies compared a next-generation ALK inhibitor (alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib) to crizotinib. We assessed the evidence for most outcomes as of moderate to high certainty. Most studies were at low risk for selection, attrition, and reporting bias; however, no RCTs were blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance and detection bias for outcomes reliant on subjective measurement. ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy Treatment with ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS compared to chemotherapy (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.52, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence). This was found regardless of line of treatment. ALK inhibitors may result in no difference in overall AE rate when compared to chemotherapy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.03, 5 RCTs, 1404 participants, low-certainty evidence). ALK inhibitors slightly improved OS (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, high-certainty evidence), despite most included studies having a significant number of participants crossing over from chemotherapy to receive an ALK inhibitor after the study period. ALK inhibitors likely increase ORR (RR 2.43, 95% CI 2.16 to 2.75, 6 RCTs, 1611 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including in measurable baseline brain metastases (RR 4.88, 95% CI 2.18 to 10.95, 3 RCTs, 108 participants) when compared to chemotherapy. ALK inhibitors result in a large increase in the HRQoL measure, time to deterioration (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60, 5 RCTs, 1504 participants, high-certainty evidence) when compared to chemotherapy. Next-generation ALK inhibitor versus crizotinib Next-generation ALK inhibitors resulted in a large increase in PFS (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, high-certainty evidence), particularly in participants with baseline brain metastases. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely result in no difference in overall AE (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) when compared to crizotinib. Next-generation ALK inhibitors likely increase OS (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, 1263 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) and slightly increase ORR (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.25, 5 RCTs, 1229 participants, moderate-certainty evidence) including a response in measurable brain metastases (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.54, 4 RCTs, 138 participants) when compared to crizotinib. Studies comparing ALK inhibitors were conducted exclusively or partly in the first-line setting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Next-generation ALK inhibitors including alectinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib are the preferred first systemic treatment for individuals with advanced ALK-rearranged NSCLC. Further trials are ongoing including investigation of first-line ensartinib. Next-generation inhibitors have not been compared to each other, and it is unknown which should be used first and what subsequent treatment sequence is optimal.

Pregnancy and birth outcomes of single versus multiple embryo transfer in gestational surrogacy arrangements: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Multiple embryo transfer (MET) is associated with both an increased risk of multiple pregnancy and of live birth. In recent years, MET has become standard practice for most surrogacy arrangements. There is limited review of the use of MET versus single embryo transfer (SET) in surrogacy practice. The present review systematically evaluated the pregnancy outcomes of surrogacy arrangements between MET versus SET among gestational carriers. A systematic search of five computerized databases without restriction to the English language or study type was conducted to evaluate the primary outcomes: (i) clinical pregnancy; (ii) live delivery; and (iii) multiple delivery rates. The search returned 97 articles, five of which met the inclusion criteria. The results showed that clinical pregnancy (RR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06-1.39, n = 5, I2 = 41%), live delivery (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.10-1.51, n = 4, I2 = 35%) and multiple delivery rates (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 6.58-69.73, n = 4, I2 = 54%) were statistically significantly different in MET compared to SET. Adverse events including miscarriage, preterm birth and low birthweight were found following MET. Our findings support the existing evidence that MET results in multiple pregnancy and subsequently more adverse outcomes compared to SET. From a public health perspective, SET should be advocated as the preferred treatment for gestational carriers.