Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess whether limiting the inclusion criteria solely to English-language publications affected the overall conclusions of evidence syntheses. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Our analyses used a dataset of a previous methods study that included 59 randomly selected Cochrane intervention reviews with no language restrictions. First, we ascertained the publication language of all 2,026 included publications. Next, we excluded studies based on the following criteria: (1) publication solely in non-English language, or (2) main publication (in case of multiple publications of the same study) in non-English language. We then re-calculated meta-analyses for outcomes that were presented in the main summary of findings tables of the Cochrane reports. If the direction of the effect estimate or the statistical significance changed, authors of the respective Cochrane reviews were consulted to assess whether the new evidence base would have changed their conclusions. The primary outcome of our analyses examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of non-English publications. We set the threshold for the approach as noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of changed conclusions did not cross a margin of 10%. RESULTS: Across all 59 Cochrane reviews, 29 (49%) included 80 non-English publications. For 16 (27%) of these Cochrane reviews, the exclusion of non-English publications resulted in the exclusion of at least one study. In the remaining 13 Cochrane reviews, the non-English publications were not the only or main publication of the study or they did not contribute to the main summary of the findings table, so their exclusion did not result in an exclusion of the study. Overall, the exclusion of non-English publications led to the exclusion of 31 studies contributing to 40 outcomes. For 38 of the 40 outcomes, the exclusion of non-English studies did not markedly alter the size or direction of effect estimates or statistical significance. In two outcomes, the statistical significance changed, but authors would have still drawn the same conclusion, albeit with less certainty. Thus, the proportion of changed conclusions in our sample was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-0.6), which indicated the noninferiority of the approach. However, the majority of excluded studies were small. CONCLUSION: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews.

Impact of vaccination on antibiotic usage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines may reduce antibiotic use and the development of resistance. OBJECTIVES: To provide a comprehensive, up-to-date assessment of the evidence base relating to the effect of vaccines on antibiotic use. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO Trials Registry. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies published from January 1998 to March 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Any population. INTERVENTIONS: Vaccines versus placebo, no vaccine or another vaccine. METHODS: Titles, abstracts and full-texts were screened independently by two reviewers. Certainty of RCT evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: In all, 4980 records identified; 895 full-text reports assessed; 96 studies included (24 RCTs, 72 observational). There was high-certainty evidence that influenza vaccine reduces days of antibiotic use among healthy adults (one RCT; n = 4253; rate reduction 28·1%; 95% CI 16·0-38·4); moderate-certainty evidence that influenza vaccines probably reduce antibiotic use in children aged 6 months to 14 years (three RCTs; n = 610; ratio of means 0·62; 95% CI 0·54-0·70) and probably reduce community antibiotic use in children aged 3-15 years (one RCT; n = 10 985 person-seasons; risk ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·58-0·83); and moderate-certainty evidence that pneumococcal vaccination probably reduces antibiotic use in children aged 6 weeks to 6 years (two RCTs; n = 47 945; rate ratio 0·93, 95% CI 0·87-0·99) and reduces illness episodes requiring antibiotics in children aged 12-35 months (one RCT; n = 264; rate ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·97). Other RCT evidence was of low or very low certainty, and observational evidence was affected by confounding. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is poor. Although some vaccines may reduce antibiotic use, collection of high-quality data in future vaccine trials is needed to improve the evidence base. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018103881.

Knowledge Synthesis in Evidence-Based Medicine.

Systematic reviews are the most common form of knowledge synthesis and remain a cornerstone of the practice of evidence-based medicine. They offer enhanced rigor and validity relative to traditional narrative review articles by reducing bias and increasing objectivity. In answering focused research questions, systematic reviews are directly applicable to clinical practice as well as the development of clinical guidelines and the identification of knowledge gaps, which may drive future primary research directions. Typically, such a rigorous process necessarily requires substantive time to carefully and systematically identify, screen, and synthesize all relevant available primary research on a topic. Further, other knowledge synthesis methods have emerged to address the varying needs of decision makers with respect to condensed timelines and more diverse research questions, as well as to allow incorporation of already synthesized evidence into reviews. These alternative methods include rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and overviews of systematic reviews, which are being used with increasing frequency by clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers. We encourage clinicians and researchers in nuclear medicine and other imaging sciences to acquire a greater familiarity with these methods and to consider them in clinical decision making, the development of clinical guidelines, and the planning of future research activities.

Male erectile dysfunction following spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To review sexuality in persons with spinal cord injuries (SCIs), and to report the effectiveness of erectile interventions. METHODS: Reports from six databases (1966-2003), selected annual proceedings (1997-2002) and manufacturer's information were screened against eligibility criteria. Included reports were abstracted and data pooled from case-series reports regarding intracavernous injections and sildenafil. RESULTS: From 2127 unique reports evaluated, 49 were included. Male sexual dysfunction was addressed in these reports of several interventions (behavioural therapy, topical agents, intraurethral alprosatadil, intracavernous injections, vacuum tumescence devices, penile implants, sacral stimulators and oral medication). Penile injections resulted in successful erectile function in 90% (95% CI: 83%, 97%) of men. Sildenafil resulted in 79% (95% CI: 68%, 90%) success; the difference in efficacy was not statistically significant. Five case-series reports involving 363 participants with penile implants demonstrated a high satisfaction rate, but a 10% complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: A large body of evidence addressing sexuality in males focuses on erection. Penile injection, sildenafil and vacuum devices generally obviate the need for penile implants to address erectile dysfunction. Interventions may positively affect sexual activity in the short term. Long-term sexual adjustment and holistic approaches beyond erections remain to be studied. Rigorous study design and reporting, using common outcome measures, will facilitate higher quality research. This will positively impact patient care. SPONSORSHIP: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.

Fertility following spinal cord injury: a systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To review systematically fertility of persons with spinal cord injuries (SCI) and their partners. METHODS: Reports from six databases (1966-2003), selected annual proceedings (1997-2002) and manufacturer's information were screened against eligibility criteria. Searches covered female obstetrical issues, and the efficacy of vibration and electroejaculation for males, as well as advanced fertility (AF) treatments for partners of SCI males. Data were pooled from case-series reports on SCI males' ejaculation, and pregnancies and live births for partners of SCI males. RESULTS: In all, 2,127 unique reports were evaluated, of which 66 reports were included. No studies investigated fertility in SCI females. Ejaculation interventions in the last decade resulted in response rates of 95% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 91%, 99%), with 100% response rate reported in several recent publications. A total of 13 studies (1993-2001) yielded pregnancy rates of 51% (95% CI 42%, 60%) in partners of SCI males. Of these, 11 studies (1993-2003) yielded live birth rates of 41% (95% CI 33%, 49%). CONCLUSIONS: Fertility of SCI males is extensively studied. Semen for fertility purposes can generally be obtained using vibration and electroejaculation. AF techniques are increasing pregnancy rates. Research is needed to improve sperm quality. Freezing of sperm is unlikely to significantly improve fertility rates. Fertility of SCI females is addressed only in case reports and opinion articles. The opinion that female fertility is unaffected by SCI should be further investigated using appropriate research methodology.