Research priority setting related to older adults: a scoping review to inform the Cochrane-Campbell Global Ageing Partnership work programme.

OBJECTIVE: To explore and map the findings of prior research priority-setting initiatives related to improving the health and well-being of older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AgeLine, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from January 2014 to 26 April 2021, and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included primary studies reporting research priorities gathered from stakeholders that focused on ageing or the health of older adults (≥60 years). There were no restrictions by setting, but language was limited to English and French. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a modified Reporting Guideline for Priority Setting of Health Research (REPRISE) guideline to assess the transparency of the reported methods. Population-intervention-control-outcome (PICO) priorities were categorised according to their associated International Classification of Health Interventions (ICHI) and International Classification of Functioning (ICF) outcomes. Broad research topics were categorised thematically. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies met our inclusion criteria. The studies gathered opinions from various stakeholder groups, including clinicians (n=56 studies) and older adults (n=35), and caregivers (n=24), with 75% of the initiatives involving multiple groups. None of the included priority-setting initiatives reported gathering opinions from stakeholders located in low-income or middle-income countries. Of the priorities extracted, 272 were identified as broad research topics, while 217 were identified as PICO priorities. PICO priorities that involved clinical outcomes (n=165 priorities) and interventions concerning health-related behaviours (n=59) were identified most often. Broad research topics on health services and systems were identified most often (n=60). Across all these included studies, the reporting of six REPRISE elements was deemed to be critically low. CONCLUSION: Future priority setting initiatives should focus on documenting a more detailed methodology with all initiatives eliciting opinions from caregivers and older adults to ensure priorities reflect the opinions of all key stakeholder groups.

An evaluation of Cochrane Crowd found that crowdsourcing produced accurate results in identifying randomized trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Filtering the deluge of new research to facilitate evidence synthesis has proven to be unmanageable using current paradigms of search and retrieval. Crowdsourcing, a way of harnessing the collective effort of a "crowd" of people, has the potential to support evidence synthesis by addressing this information overload created by the exponential growth in primary research outputs. Cochrane Crowd, Cochrane's citizen science platform, offers a range of tasks aimed at identifying studies related to health care. Accompanying each task are brief, interactive training modules, and agreement algorithms that help ensure accurate collective decision-making.The aims of the study were to evaluate the performance of Cochrane Crowd in terms of its accuracy, capacity, and autonomy and to examine contributor engagement across three tasks aimed at identifying randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Crowd accuracy was evaluated by measuring the sensitivity and specificity of crowd screening decisions on a sample of titles and abstracts, compared with "quasi gold-standard" decisions about the same records using the conventional methods of dual screening. Crowd capacity, in the form of output volume, was evaluated by measuring the number of records processed by the crowd, compared with baseline. Crowd autonomy, the capability of the crowd to produce accurate collectively derived decisions without the need for expert resolution, was measured by the proportion of records that needed resolving by an expert. RESULTS: The Cochrane Crowd community currently has 18,897 contributors from 163 countries. Collectively, the Crowd has processed 1,021,227 records, helping to identify 178,437 reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Cochrane's Central Register of Controlled Trials. The sensitivity for each task was 99.1% for the RCT identification task (RCT ID), 99.7% for the RCT identification task of trials from ClinicalTrials.gov (CT ID), and 97.7% for the identification of RCTs from the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP ID). The specificity for each task was 99% for RCT ID, 98.6% for CT ID, and 99.1% for CT ICTRP ID. The capacity of the combined Crowd and machine learning workflow has increased fivefold in 6 years, compared with baseline. The proportion of records requiring expert resolution across the tasks ranged from 16.6% to 19.7%. CONCLUSION: Cochrane Crowd is sufficiently accurate and scalable to keep pace with the current rate of publication (and registration) of new primary studies. It has also proved to be a popular, efficient, and accurate way for a large number of people to play an important voluntary role in health evidence production. Cochrane Crowd is now an established part of Cochrane's effort to manage the deluge of primary research being produced.

Cochrane's Linked Data Project: How it Can Advance our Understanding of Surrogate Endpoints.

Cochrane has developed a linked data infrastructure to make the evidence and data from its rich repositories more discoverable to facilitate evidence-based health decision-making. These annotated resources can enhance the study and understanding of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints.

Helicopter emergency medical services for adults with major trauma.

BACKGROUND: Although helicopters are presently an integral part of trauma systems in most developed nations, previous reviews and studies to date have raised questions about which groups of traumatically injured people derive the greatest benefit. OBJECTIVES: To determine if helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport, compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) transport, is associated with improved morbidity and mortality for adults with major trauma. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the most recent search on 29 April 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), four other sources, and clinical trials registers. We screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible trials included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized intervention studies. We also evaluated nonrandomized studies (NRS), including controlled trials and cohort studies. Each study was required to have a GEMS comparison group. An Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 15 or an equivalent marker for injury severity was required. We included adults age 16 years or older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We applied the Downs and Black quality assessment tool for NRS. We analyzed the results in a narrative review, and with studies grouped by methodology and injury type. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables in accordance with the GRADE Working Group criteria. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 38 studies, of which 34 studies examined survival following transportation by HEMS compared with GEMS for adults with major trauma. Four studies were of inter-facility transfer to a higher level trauma center by HEMS compared with GEMS. All studies were NRS; we found no RCTs. The primary outcome was survival at hospital discharge. We calculated unadjusted mortality using data from 282,258 people from 28 of the 38 studies included in the primary analysis. Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity and we could not determine an accurate estimate of overall effect.Based on the unadjusted mortality data from six trials that focused on traumatic brain injury, there was no decreased risk of death with HEMS. Twenty-one studies used multivariate regression to adjust for confounding. Results varied, some studies found a benefit of HEMS while others did not. Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score (TRISS)-based analysis methods were used in 14 studies; studies showed survival benefits in both the HEMS and GEMS groups as compared with MTOS. We found no studies evaluating the secondary outcome, morbidity, as assessed by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). Four studies suggested a small to moderate benefit when HEMS was used to transfer people to higher level trauma centers. Road traffic and helicopter crashes are adverse effects which can occur with either method of transport. Data regarding safety were not available in any of the included studies. Overall, the quality of the included studies was very low as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the methodological weakness of the available literature, and the considerable heterogeneity of effects and study methodologies, we could not determine an accurate composite estimate of the benefit of HEMS. Although some of the 19 multivariate regression studies indicated improved survival associated with HEMS, others did not. This was also the case for the TRISS-based studies. All were subject to a low quality of evidence as assessed by the GRADE Working Group criteria due to their nonrandomized design. The question of which elements of HEMS may be beneficial has not been fully answered. The results from this review provide motivation for future work in this area. This includes an ongoing need for diligent reporting of research methods, which is imperative for transparency and to maximize the potential utility of results. Large, multicenter studies are warranted as these will help produce more robust estimates of treatment effects. Future work in this area should also examine the costs and safety of HEMS, since multiple contextual determinants must be considered when evaluating the effects of HEMS for adults with major trauma.

Comparison of routes for achieving parenteral access with a focus on the management of patients with Ebola virus disease.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration is an important cause of death in patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD). Parenteral fluids are often required in patients with fluid requirements in excess of their oral intake. The peripheral intravenous route is the most commonly used method of parenteral access, but inserting and maintaining an intravenous line can be challenging in the context of EVD. Therefore it is important to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different routes for achieving parenteral access (e.g. intravenous, intraosseous, subcutaneous and intraperitoneal). OBJECTIVES: To compare the reliability, ease of use and speed of insertion of different parenteral access methods. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the search on 17 November 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily, Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), clinicaltrials.gov and screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing different parenteral routes for the infusion of fluids or medication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors examined the titles and abstracts of records obtained by searching the electronic databases to determine eligibility. Two review authors extracted data from the included trials and assessed the risk of bias. Outcome measures of interest were success of insertion; time required for insertion; number of insertion attempts; number of dislodgements; time period with functional access; local site reactions; clinicians' perception of ease of administration; needlestick injury to healthcare workers; patients' discomfort; and mortality. For trials involving the administration of fluids we also collected data on the volume of fluid infused, changes in serum electrolytes and markers of renal function. We rated the quality of the evidence as 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'very low' according to the GRADE approach for the following outcomes: success of insertion, time required for insertion, number of dislodgements, volume of fluid infused and needlestick injuries. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials involving 885 participants. Parenteral access was used to infuse fluids in 11 trials and medications in six trials. None of the trials involved patients with EVD. Intravenous and intraosseous access was compared in four trials; intravenous and subcutaneous access in 11; peripheral intravenous and intraperitoneal access in one; saphenous vein cutdown and intraosseous access in one; and intraperitoneal with subcutaneous access in one. All of the trials assessing the intravenous method involved peripheral intravenous access.We judged few trials to be at low risk of bias for any of the assessed domains.Compared to the intraosseous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (risk ratio (RR) 3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.39 to 6.33; n = 242; GRADE rating: low). We did not pool data for time to insertion but estimates from the trials suggest that inserting intravenous access takes longer (GRADE rating: moderate). Clinicians judged the intravenous route to be easier to insert (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; n = 182). A larger volume of fluids was infused via the intravenous route (GRADE rating: moderate). There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcomes, including adverse events.Compared to the subcutaneous group, patients in the intravenous group were more likely to experience an insertion failure (RR 14.79, 95% CI 2.87 to 76.08; n = 238; GRADE rating: moderate) and dislodgement of the device (RR 3.78, 95% CI 1.16 to 12.34; n = 67; GRADE rating: low). Clinicians also judged the intravenous route as being more difficult to insert and patients were more likely to be agitated in the intravenous group. Patients in the intravenous group were more likely to develop a local infection and phlebitis, but were less likely to develop erythema, oedema or swelling than those in the subcutaneous group. A larger volume of fluids was infused into patients via the intravenous route. There was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine if the risk of insertion failure differed between the saphenous vein cutdown (SVC) and intraosseous method (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 31.13; GRADE rating: low). Insertion using SVC took longer than the intraosseous method (MD 219.60 seconds, 95% CI 135.44 to 303.76; GRADE rating: moderate). There were no data and therefore there was no evidence of a difference between the two routes for any other outcome.There were insufficient data to reliably determine the relative effects of intraperitoneal or central intravenous access relative to any other parenteral access method. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are several different ways of achieving parenteral access in patients who are unable meet their fluid requirements with oral intake alone. The quality of the evidence, as assessed using the GRADE criteria, is somewhat limited because of the lack of adequately powered trials at low risk of bias. However, we believe that there is sufficient evidence to draw the following conclusions: if peripheral intravenous access can be achieved easily, this allows infusion of larger volumes of fluid than other routes; but if this is not possible, the intraosseous and subcutaneous routes are viable alternatives. The subcutaneous route may be suitable for patients who are not severely dehydrated but in whom ongoing fluid losses cannot be met by oral intake.A film to accompany this review can be viewed here (http://youtu.be/ArVPzkf93ng).

Glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for paraquat-induced lung fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Paraquat is an effective and widely used herbicide but is also a lethal poison. In many developing countries paraquat is widely available and inexpensive, making poisoning prevention difficult. However most of the people who become poisoned from paraquat have taken it as a means of suicide.Standard treatment for paraquat poisoning both prevents further absorption and reduces the load of paraquat in the blood through haemoperfusion or haemodialysis. The effectiveness of standard treatments is extremely limited.The immune system plays an important role in exacerbating paraquat-induced lung fibrosis. Immunosuppressive treatment using glucocorticoid and cyclophosphamide in combination is being developed and studied. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide on mortality in patients with paraquat-induced lung fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: The most recent search was run on the 15th April 2014. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), ISI WOS (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), trials registries, Chinese databases (, , ) and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs were included in this review. All patients were to receive standard care, plus the intervention or control. The intervention was glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide in combination versus a control of a placebo, standard care alone or any other therapy in addition to standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The mortality risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each study on an intention-to-treat basis. Data for all-cause mortality at final follow-up were summarised in a meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. MAIN RESULTS: This systematic review includes three trials with a combined total of 164 participants who had moderate to severe paraquat poisoning. Patients who received glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care had a lower risk of death at final follow-up than those receiving standard care only (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of three small RCTs of moderate to severely poisoned patients, glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide in addition to standard care may be a beneficial treatment for patients with paraquat-induced lung fibrosis. To enable further study of the effects of glucocorticoid with cyclophosphamide for patients with moderate to severe paraquat poisoning, hospitals may provide this treatment as part of an RCT with allocation concealment.

Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram.

Cochrane systematic reviews are conducted and reported according to rigorous standards. A study flow diagram must be included in a new review, and there is clear guidance from the PRISMA statement on how to do this. However, for a review update, there is currently no guidance on how study flow diagrams should be presented. To address this, a working group was formed to find a solution and produce guidance on how to use these diagrams in review updates.A number of different options were devised for how these flow diagrams could be used in review updates, and also in cases where multiple searches for a review or review update have been conducted. These options were circulated to the Cochrane information specialist community for consultation and feedback. Following the consultation period, the working group refined the guidance and made the recommendation that for review updates an adapted PRISMA flow diagram should be used, which includes an additional box with the number of previously included studies feeding into the total. Where multiple searches have been conducted, the results should be added together and treated as one set of results.There is no existing guidance for using study flow diagrams in review updates. Our adapted diagram is a simple and pragmatic solution for showing the flow of studies in review updates.

Topical application of tranexamic acid for the reduction of bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous tranexamic acid reduces bleeding in surgery, however, its effect on the risk of thromboembolic events is uncertain and an increased risk remains a theoretical concern. Because there is less systemic absorption following topical administration, the direct application of tranexamic acid to the bleeding surface has the potential to reduce bleeding with minimal systemic effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the topical administration of tranexamic acid in the control of bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE® Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE®; Embase Classic + Embase (OvidSP); PubMed and ISI Web of Science (including Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Science Citation Index (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S)). We also searched online trials registers to identify ongoing or unpublished trials. The search was run on the 31st May 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing topical tranexamic acid with no topical tranexamic acid or placebo in bleeding patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors examined the titles and abstracts of citations from the electronic databases for eligibility. Two authors extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias for each trial. Outcome measures of interest were blood loss, mortality, thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction, stroke, deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) and receipt of a blood transfusion. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 trials involving 2612 participants. Twenty-eight trials involved patients undergoing surgery and one trial involved patients with epistaxis (nosebleed). Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduced blood loss by 29% (pooled ratio 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 0.72; P < 0.0001). There was uncertainty regarding the effect on death (risk ratio (RR) 0.28, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.34; P = 0.11), myocardial infarction (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.08; P = 0.33), stroke (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.96; P = 0.49), deep vein thrombosis (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.57; P = 0.38) and pulmonary embolism (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.15; P = 0.48). TXA reduced the risk of receiving a blood transfusion by a relative 45% (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.46; P < 0.0001). There was substantial statistical heterogeneity between trials for the blood loss and blood transfusion outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is reliable evidence that topical application of tranexamic acid reduces bleeding and blood transfusion in surgical patients, however the effect on the risk of thromboembolic events is uncertain. The effects of topical tranexamic acid in patients with bleeding from non-surgical causes has yet to be reliably assessed. Further high-quality trials are warranted to resolve these uncertainties before topical tranexamic acid can be recommended for routine use.

Immunomodulators and immunosuppressants for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Different therapeutic strategies are available for treatment of multiple sclerosis (MS) including immunosuppressants, immunomodulators, and monoclonal antibodies. Their relative effectiveness in the prevention of relapse or disability progression is unclear due to the limited number of direct comparison trials. A summary of the results, including both direct and indirect comparisons of treatment effects, may help to clarify the above uncertainty. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the relative efficacy and acceptability of interferon ß-1b (IFNß-1b) (Betaseron), interferon ß-1a (IFNß-1a) (Rebif and Avonex), glatiramer acetate, natalizumab, mitoxantrone, methotrexate, cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, intravenous immunoglobulins, and long-term corticosteroids versus placebo or another active agent in participants with MS and to provide a ranking of the treatments according to their effectiveness and risk-benefit balance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane MS Group Trials Register, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports. The most recent search was run in February 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied one of the 11 treatments for use in adults with MS and that reported our pre-specified efficacy outcomes were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Identifying search results and data extraction were performed independently by two authors. Data synthesis was performed by pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis that was performed within a Bayesian framework. The body of evidence for outcomes within the pairwise meta-analysis was assessed according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high quality. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-four trials were included in this review, in which 17,401 participants had been randomised. Twenty-three trials included relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) (9096 participants, 52%), 18 trials included progressive MS (7726, 44%), and three trials included both RRMS and progressive MS (579, 3%). The majority of the included trials were short-term studies, with the median duration being 24 months. The results originated mostly from 33 trials on IFNß, glatiramer acetate, and natalizumab that overall contributed outcome data for 9881 participants (66%).From the pairwise meta-analysis, there was high quality evidence that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) were effective against recurrence of relapses in RRMS during the first 24 months of treatment compared to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.43; OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71, respectively); they were more effective than IFNß-1a (Avonex) (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.36; OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.60, respectively). IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having clinical relapses compared to placebo (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.54, respectively) but the quality of evidence for these treatments was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analysis, the most effective drug appeared to be natalizumab (median OR versus placebo 0.29, 95% credible intervals (CrI) 0.17 to 0.51), followed by IFNß-1a (Rebif) (median OR versus placebo 0.44, 95% CrI 0.24 to 0.70), mitoxantrone (median OR versus placebo 0.43, 95% CrI 0.20 to 0.87), glatiramer acetate (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.38 to 0.75), IFNß-1b (Betaseron) (median OR versus placebo 0.48, 95% CrI 0.29 to 0.78). However, our confidence was moderate for direct comparison of mitoxantrone and IFNB-1b vs placebo and very low for direct comparison of glatiramer vs placebo. The relapse outcome for RRMS at three years' follow-up was not reported by any of the included trials.Disability progression was based on surrogate markers in the majority of included studies and was unavailable for RRMS beyond two to three years. The pairwise meta-analysis suggested, with moderate quality evidence, that natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having disability progression at two years' follow-up, with an absolute reduction of 14% and 10%, respectively, compared to placebo. Natalizumab and IFNß-1b (Betaseron) were significantly more effective (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70, respectively) than IFNß-1a (Avonex) in reducing the number of the participants with RRMS who had progression at two years' follow-up, and confidence in this result was graded as moderate. From the network meta-analyses, mitoxantrone appeared to be the most effective agent in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having progression at two years' follow-up, but our confidence was very low for direct comparison of mitoxantrone vs placebo. Both pairwise and network meta-analysis revealed that none of the individual agents included in this review were effective in preventing disability progression over two or three years in patients with progressive MS.There was not a dose-effect relationship for any of the included treatments with the exception of mitoxantrone. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review should provide some guidance to clinicians and patients. On the basis of high quality evidence, natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) are superior to all other treatments for preventing clinical relapses in RRMS in the short-term (24 months) compared to placebo. Moderate quality evidence supports a protective effect of natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) against disability progression in RRMS in the short-term compared to placebo. These treatments are associated with long-term serious adverse events and their benefit-risk balance might be unfavourable. IFNß-1b (Betaseron) and mitoxantrone probably decreased the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses, compared with placebo (moderate quality of evidence). The benefit-risk balance with azathioprine is uncertain, however this agent might be effective in decreasing the odds of the participants with RRMS having relapses and disability progression over 24 to 36 months, compared with placebo. The lack of convincing efficacy data shows that IFNß-1a (Avonex), intravenous immunoglobulins, cyclophosphamide and long-term steroids have an unfavourable benefit-risk balance in RRMS. None of the included treatments are effective in decreasing disability progression in patients with progressive MS. It is important to consider that the clinical effects of all these treatments beyond two years are uncertain, a relevant point for a disease of 30 to 40 years duration. Direct head-to-head comparison(s) between natalizumab and IFNß-1a (Rebif) or between azathioprine and IFNß-1a (Rebif) should be top priority on the research agenda and follow-up of the trial cohorts should be mandatory.

Perioperative thromboprophylaxis in patients with craniotomy for brain tumours: a systematic review.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) events are frequent in neurooncological patients in perioperative period thus increasing mortality and morbidity. The role of prophylaxis has not yet been established with certainty, and in various neurosurgery and intensive care units the practice is inconsistent. A better definition of the risk/cost/benefit ratio of the various methods, both mechanical (intermittent pneumatic compression-IPC, graduated compression stockings-GCS) and pharmacological (unfractionated heparin-UFH or low molecular weight heparin-LMWH), is warranted. We aim to define the optimal prophylactic treatment in the perioperative period in neurooncological patients. A systematic review of the literature was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library. Thirteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, in which physical methods (IPC or GCS) and/or drugs (UFH or LMWHs) were evaluated in perioperative prophylaxis of neurological patients, mostly with brain cancer not treated with anticoagulants for other diseases. The analysis was conducted on a total of 1,932 randomized patients of whom 1,558 had brain tumours. Overall data show a trend of reduction of VTE in patients treated with mechanical methods (IPC or GCS) that should be initiated preoperatively and continued until discharge or longer in case of persistence of risk factors. The addition of enoxaparin starting the day after surgery, significantly reduces clinically manifest VTE, despite an increase in major bleeding events. Further studies are needed to delineate the types of patients with an increase of VTE risk and risk/benefits ratio of physical and pharmacological treatments in the perioperative period.

Presenting evidence-based health information for people with multiple sclerosis: the IN-DEEP project protocol.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, evidence-based health information, in particular evidence from systematic reviews, is being made available to lay audiences, in addition to health professionals. Research efforts have focused on different formats for the lay presentation of health information. However, there is a paucity of data on how patients integrate evidence-based health information with other factors such as their preferences for information and experiences with information-seeking. The aim of this project is to explore how people with multiple sclerosis (MS) integrate health information with their needs, experiences, preferences and values and how these factors can be incorporated into an online resource of evidence-based health information provision for people with MS and their families. METHODS: This project is an Australian-Italian collaboration between researchers, MS societies and people with MS. Using a four-stage mixed methods design, a model will be developed for presenting evidence-based health information on the Internet for people with MS and their families. This evidence-based health information will draw upon systematic reviews of MS interventions from The Cochrane Library. Each stage of the project will build on the last. After conducting focus groups with people with MS and their family members (Stage 1), we will develop a model for summarising and presenting Cochrane MS reviews that is integrated with supporting information to aid understanding and decision making. This will be reviewed and finalised with people with MS, family members, health professionals and MS Society staff (Stage 2), before being uploaded to the Internet and evaluated (Stages 3 and 4). DISCUSSION: This project aims to produce accessible and meaningful evidence-based health information about MS for use in the varied decision making and management situations people encounter in everyday life. It is expected that the findings will be relevant to broader efforts to provide evidence-based health information for patients and the general public. The international collaboration also permits exploration of cultural differences that could inform international practice.