Point-of-Care Ultrasonography in Patients With Acute Dyspnea: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline by the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Dyspnea is a common and often debilitating symptom with a complex diagnostic work-up. PURPOSE: To evaluate the benefits, harms, and diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) in patients with acute dyspnea. (PROSPERO: CRD42019126419). DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple electronic databases without language limitations (January 2004 to August 2020) and reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 44 prospective cohort-type studies in patients with acute dyspnea evaluated POCUS as a diagnostic tool to determine the underlying cause of dyspnea. Two investigators independently screened the literature for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias and determined certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Point-of-care ultrasonography, when added to a standard diagnostic pathway, led to statistically significantly more correct diagnoses in patients with dyspnea than the standard diagnostic pathway alone. In-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between patients who did or did not receive POCUS in addition to standard diagnostic tests. Finally, POCUS consistently improved the sensitivities of standard diagnostic pathways to detect congestive heart failure, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, pleural effusion, or pneumothorax; specificities increased in most but not all studies. LIMITATIONS: Most studies assessed diagnostic test accuracy, which has limited utility for clinical decision making. Studies rarely reported on the proportion of indeterminate sonography results, and no evidence is available on adverse health outcomes of false-positive or false-negative POCUS results. CONCLUSION: Point-of-care ultrasonography can improve the correctness of diagnosis in patients with acute dyspnea. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.

Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study.

BACKGROUND: Web applications that employ natural language processing technologies to support systematic reviewers during abstract screening have become more common. The goal of our project was to conduct a case study to explore a screening approach that temporarily replaces a human screener with a semi-automated screening tool. METHODS: We evaluated the accuracy of the approach using DistillerAI as a semi-automated screening tool. A published comparative effectiveness review served as the reference standard. Five teams of professional systematic reviewers screened the same 2472 abstracts in parallel. Each team trained DistillerAI with 300 randomly selected abstracts that the team screened dually. For all remaining abstracts, DistillerAI replaced one human screener and provided predictions about the relevance of records. A single reviewer also screened all remaining abstracts. A second human screener resolved conflicts between the single reviewer and DistillerAI. We compared the decisions of the machine-assisted approach, single-reviewer screening, and screening with DistillerAI alone against the reference standard. RESULTS: The combined sensitivity of the machine-assisted screening approach across the five screening teams was 78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66 to 90%), and the combined specificity was 95% (95% CI, 92 to 97%). By comparison, the sensitivity of single-reviewer screening was similar (78%; 95% CI, 66 to 89%); however, the sensitivity of DistillerAI alone was substantially worse (14%; 95% CI, 0 to 31%) than that of the machine-assisted screening approach. Specificities for single-reviewer screening and DistillerAI were 94% (95% CI, 91 to 97%) and 98% (95% CI, 97 to 100%), respectively. Machine-assisted screening and single-reviewer screening had similar areas under the curve (0.87 and 0.86, respectively); by contrast, the area under the curve for DistillerAI alone was just slightly better than chance (0.56). The interrater agreement between human screeners and DistillerAI with a prevalence-adjusted kappa was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.86%). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of DistillerAI is not yet adequate to replace a human screener temporarily during abstract screening for systematic reviews. Rapid reviews, which do not require detecting the totality of the relevant evidence, may find semi-automation tools to have greater utility than traditional systematic reviews.

Melatonin and agomelatine for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly starts in autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD depends on latitude and ranges from 1.5% to 9%. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention in people who have a history of SAD. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving person-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we intended also to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant, light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions mentioned above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies independently. We intended to pool data in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, but included only one study. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after deduplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review and assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review. Only one study, providing data of 225 participants, met our eligibility criteria and compared agomelatine (25 mg/day) with placebo. We rated it as having high risk of attrition bias because nearly half of the participants left the study before completion. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes, because of high risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.The main analysis based on data of 199 participants rendered an indeterminate result with wide confidence intervals (CIs) that may encompass both a relevant reduction as well as a relevant increase of SAD incidence by agomelatine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Also the severity of SAD may be similar in both groups at the end of the study with a mean SIGH-SAD (Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorders) score of 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 9.4) in the agomelatine group and 10.1 (SD 10.6) in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -1.80, 95% CI -4.58 to 0.98; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events may be similar in both groups. In the agomelatine group, 64 out of 112 participants experienced at least one adverse event, while 61 out of 113 did in the placebo group (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.34; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three out of 112 patients experienced serious adverse events in the agomelatine group, compared to 4 out of 113 in the placebo group (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.30; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence).No data on quality of life or interpersonal functioning were reported. We did not identify any studies on melatonin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the uncertain evidence on agomelatine and the absence of studies on melatonin, no conclusion about efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin for prevention of SAD can currently be drawn. The decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should consider patient preferences and reflect on the evidence base of all available treatment options.

Ezetimibe-Statin Combination Therapy.

BACKGROUND: To date, most clinical comparisons of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy versus statin monotherapy have relied entirely on surrogate variables. In this systematic review, we study the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy in comparison to statin monotherapy in terms of the prevention of cardiovascular events in hyperlipidemic patients with atherosclerosis and/or diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This review is based on a systematic literature search (1995 to July 2015) in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cochrane Library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. RESULTS: Nine randomized, controlled trials with data from a total of 19 461 patients were included. Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events than statin monotherapy: 33% of the patients treated with ezetimibe and a statin, and 35% of those treated with a statin alone, had a cardiovascular event within seven years (number needed to treat [NNT]: 50 over 7 years). Combination therapy was also significantly more effective in preventing a composite endpoint consisting of death due to cardiovascular disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, coronary revascularization, and nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [0,89; 0,99]; p = 0.016). Diabetic patients benefited from combination therapy rather than monotherapy with respect to cardiovascular morbidity (HR 0.87 [0.78; 0.94]). On the other hand, the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy did not lessen either cardiovascular or overall mortality. Serious undesired events occurred in 38% of the patients taking ezetimibe and a statin nd in 39% of the patients taking a statin alone (relative risk 1.09 [0.77; 1.55]). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with an acute coronary syndrome, combination therapy with ezetimibe and a statin lowered the risk of cardiovascular events in comparison to statin monotherapy. The risk of dying or suffering an adverse drug effect was similar in the two treatment groups.

Second-generation antidepressants for preventing seasonal affective disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: A search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) included all years to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of randomised controlled trials derived from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (to 26 May 2014). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared an SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications and assigned risk of bias ratings based on the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third party. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi(2) statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I(2) statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity and examined potential sources of heterogeneity using sensitivity analysis or analysis of subgroups. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots. However, given the small number of component studies in our meta-analyses, these tests have low sensitivity to detect publication bias. We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 2895 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 91 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in patients with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; three RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 40% and 50%, NNTBs are 6 (95% CI 5 to 9) and 5 (95% CI 4 to 7), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, four of five patients will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Light therapy for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery (e.g. visors, light boxes) and form of light (e.g. bright white light) vary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: A search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) included all years to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials derived from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention and compared this with the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 91 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included randomised controlled trial (RCT) had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, both forms of preventive light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but in this case also the CI was too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28). The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as SGA, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for patients with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.

Psychological therapies for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on psychological therapies as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychological therapies (in comparison with no treatment, other types of psychological therapy, second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We conducted a grey literature search (e.g. in clinical trial registries) and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we planned to include randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared psychological therapy versus any other type of psychological therapy, placebo, light therapy, SGAs, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare psychological therapy in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors planned to independently extract data and assess risk of bias. We planned to pool data for meta-analysis when participant groups were similar and when studies assessed the same treatments versus the same comparator and provided similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment; however, we included no studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review and assessed 91 articles at full-text review for eligibility. We found no controlled studies on use of psychological therapy to prevent SAD and improve patient-centred outcomes in adults with a history of SAD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available to indicate whether psychological therapy is or is not an effective intervention for prevention of SAD and improvement of patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare different types of psychological therapies and to compare psychological therapies versus placebo, light therapy, SGAs, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes for prevention of new depressive episodes in patients with a history of winter-type SAD.

Melatonin and agomelatine for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD in the United States ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We conducted a grey literature search (e.g. in clinical trial registries) and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant (SGA), light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors planned to independently extract data and assess risk of bias of included studies. We planned to pool data for meta-analysis when participant groups were similar and when studies assessed the same treatments by using the same comparator and presented similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment; however, we identified no studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review and assessed 91 articles at full-text level for eligibility. We identified no controlled studies on use of melatonin and agomelatine to prevent SAD and to improve patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No available methodologically sound evidence indicates that melatonin or agomelatine is or is not an effective intervention for prevention of SAD and improvement of patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. Lack of evidence clearly shows the need for well-conducted, controlled studies on this topic. A well-conducted RCT of melatonin or agomelatine for prevention of SAD would assess the comparative benefits and risks of these interventions against others currently used to treat the disorder.

[Practical experience with overviews of reviews--valuable decision aid or academic exercise?]. / Praxiserfahrungen mit Overviews of Reviews--wertvolle Entscheidungsunterstützung oder wissenschaftliche Fingerübung?

The "overview of reviews" has evolved as a method to aggregate information from systematic reviews. Based on research projects conducted by two Austrian institutions, this article aims to point out methods and perceived strengths and limitations of overviews of reviews and to discuss their application and constraints for different healthcare settings. The six analysed projects differed in their objectives as well as in the corresponding methodology. We identified the following strengths of the overviews of reviews performed: the overview of the evidence base on an issue, the rapid detection of the results of numerous reviews, the demonstration of evidence gaps and potential savings in time and resources. At the same time, the methodology could lead to a loss of information, limited relevance and to uncertainties regarding the robustness of the overall results. However, the heterogeneity of the methods used shows that the development of methods for overviews of reviews is still ongoing. Whether overviews of reviews provide valuable decision support depends on the research question and realistic expectations towards the method.

Sex-specific differences in diabetes prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: In people with prediabetes, lifestyle interventions and glucose-lowering medications are effective in preventing the progression to type 2 diabetes. It is unclear whether differences in treatment effects between men and women need to be taken into consideration when choosing a preventive strategy for an individual person. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and reference lists of pertinent review articles from 1980 to June 2013. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of published and unpublished data to determine differences of treatment effects between men and women. RESULTS: Twelve randomised control trials (RCTs) provided sex-specific information on treatment effects. Compared with usual care, men and women who received lifestyle interventions had a lower rate of progression to type 2 diabetes (RR 0.60 [95% CI 0.35, 1.05] after 1 year; RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.51, 0.79] after 3 years); greater weight reduction (-2.45 kg; [95% CI -3.56, -1.33 kg] after 3 years); and greater reductions of fasting plasma glucose (-0.31 mmol/l [95% CI -0.48, -0.15] after 3 years) and 2 h post-challenge-glucose (-0.68 mmol/l [95% CI -1.03, -0.34] after 3 years). No statistically significant differences in treatment effects between men and women were apparent for any outcomes (p values of all comparisons ≥ 0.09). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our study emphasises the importance of preventive interventions in people with prediabetes and indicates no differences of beneficial preventive effects on the incidence of type 2 diabetes and weight gain between men and women.

[GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations]. / GRADE Leitlinien: 14. Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung: Die Bedeutung und Darstellung von Empfehlungen.

This article describes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to classifying the direction and strength of recommendations. The strength of a recommendation, separated into strong and weak, is defined as the extent to which one can be confident that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects. Alternative terms for a weak recommendation include conditional, discretionary, or qualified. The strength of a recommendation has specific implications for patients, the public, clinicians, and policy makers. Occasionally, guideline developers may choose to make "only-in-research" recommendations. Although panels may choose not to make recommendations, this choice leaves those looking for answers from guidelines without the guidance they are seeking. GRADE therefore encourages panels to, wherever possible, offer recommendations.

[GRADE guidelines 15: going from evidence to recommendation - determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength]. / Grade Leitlinien: 15. Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung - Determinanten, die Richtung und Stärke einer Empfehlung bestimmen.

In the GRADE approach, the strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which we can be confident that the composite desirable effects of a management strategy outweigh the composite undesirable effects. This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation. The GRADE describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest, confidence in the estimates of effect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use. Ultimately, guideline panels must use judgment in integrating these factors to make a strong or weak recommendation for or against an intervention.

[GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 11. Gesamtbeurteilung des Vertrauens in Effektschätzer für einen einzelnen Studienendpunkt und für alle Endpunkte.

GRADE requires guideline developers to make an overall rating of confidence in estimates of effect (quality of evidence-high, moderate, low, or very low) for each important or critical outcome. GRADE suggests, for each outcome, the initial separate consideration of five domains of reasons for rating down the confidence in effect estimates, thereby allowing systematic review authors and guideline developers to arrive at an outcome-specific rating of confidence. Although this rating system represents discrete steps on an ordinal scale, it is helpful to view confidence in estimates as a continuum, and the final rating of confidence may differ from that suggested by separate consideration of each domain. An overall rating of confidence in estimates of effect is only relevant in settings when recommendations are being made. In general, it is based on the critical outcome that provides the lowest confidence.

[GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 9. Heraufstufen der Qualität der Evidenz.

The most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically rigorous observational studies show at least a two-fold reduction or increase in risk, and rating up two levels for at least a five-fold reduction or increase in risk. Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Other considerations include the rapidity of the response, the underlying trajectory of the condition and indirect evidence.

[GRADE guidelines: 10. Considering resource use and rating the quality of economic evidence]. / GRADE-Leitlinien: 10. Den Ressourcenverbrauch berücksichtigen und die Qualität ökonomischer Evidenz bewerten.

In this article we describe how to include considerations about resource utilisation when making recommendations according to the GRADE approach. We focus on challenges with rating the confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) and incorporating resource use into evidence profiles and Summary of Findings (SoF) tables. GRADE recommends that important differences in resource use between alternative management strategies should be included along with other important outcomes in the evidence profile and SoF table. Key steps in considering resources in making recommendations with GRADE are the identification of items of resource use that may differ between alternative management strategies and that are potentially important to decision-makers, finding evidence for the differences in resource use, making judgements regarding confidence in effect estimates using the same criteria used for health outcomes, and valuing the resource use in terms of costs for the specific setting for which recommendations are being made.

Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease diagnosed in women worldwide. Screening with mammography has the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography screening largely depends on the radiographic density of the imaged breasts. In radiographically dense breasts, non-calcified breast cancers are more likely to be missed than in fatty breasts. As a consequence, some cancers are not detected by mammography screening. Supporters of adjunct ultrasonography to the screening regimen for breast cancer argue that it might be a safe and inexpensive approach to reduce the false negative rates of the screening process. Critics, however, are concerned that performing supplemental ultrasonography on women at average risk will also increase the rate of false positive findings and can lead to unnecessary biopsies and treatments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening for women at average risk of breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (via OvidSP) and EMBASE up until February 2012.To detect ongoing or unpublished studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical trial database until June 2012. In addition, we conducted grey literature searches using the following sources: OpenGrey; National Institute of Health RePORTER; Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRPROJ); Hayes, Inc. Health Technology Assessment; The New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Index and Conference Papers Index. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with either individual or cluster randomisation, and prospective, controlled non-randomised studies with a low risk of bias and a sample size of at least 500 participants.In addition to studies eligible for efficacy, we considered any controlled, non-randomised study with a low risk of bias and a study size of at least 500 participants for the assessment of harms.Our population of interest were women between the ages of 40 and 75 years who were at average risk for breast cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. None of the studies met our inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Our review did not detect any controlled studies on the use of adjunct ultrasonography for screening in women at average risk for breast cancer. One ongoing randomised controlled trial was identified (J-START, Japan). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available justifying the routine use of ultrasonography as an adjunct screening tool in women at average risk for breast cancer.

[GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence - inconsistency]. / GRADE Leitlinien: 7. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Inkonsistenz.

This article deals with inconsistency of relative, rather than absolute, treatment effects in binary/dichotomous outcomes. A body of evidence is not rated up in quality if studies yield consistent results, but may be rated down in quality if inconsistent. Criteria for evaluating consistency include similarity of point estimates, extent of overlap of confidence intervals, and statistical criteria including tests of heterogeneity and I(2). To explore heterogeneity, systematic review authors should generate and test a small number of a priori hypotheses related to patients, interventions, outcomes, and methodology. When inconsistency is large and unexplained, rating down quality for inconsistency is appropriate, particularly if some studies suggest substantial benefit, and others no effect or harm (rather than only large versus small effects). Apparent subgroup effects may be spurious. Credibility is increased if subgroup effects are based on a small number of a priori hypotheses with a specified direction; subgroup comparisons come from within rather than between studies; tests of interaction generate low p-values; and have a biological rationale.

[GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence - indirectness]. / GRADE Leitlinien: 8. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Indirektheit.

Direct evidence comes from research that directly compares the interventions in which we are interested when applied to the populations in which we are interested and measures outcomes important to patients. Evidence can be indirect in one of four ways. First, patients may differ from those of interest (the term applicability is often used for this form of indirectness). Second, the intervention tested may differ from the intervention of interest. Decisions regarding indirectness of patients and interventions depend on an understanding of whether biological or social factors are sufficiently different that one might expect substantial differences in the magnitude of effect. Third, outcomes may differ from those of primary interest - for instance, surrogate outcomes that are not themselves important, but measured in the presumption that changes in the surrogate reflect changes in an outcome important to patients. A fourth type of indirectness, which is conceptually different from the first three, occurs when clinicians must choose between interventions that have not been tested in head to head comparisons. Making comparisons between treatments under these circumstances requires specific statistical methods and will be rated down in quality by one or two levels depending on the extent of differences between the patient populations, co-interventions, measurements of the outcome, and the methods of the trials of the candidate interventions against some other comparator.

[GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence: publication bias]. / GRADE Leitlinien: 5. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Publikationsbias.

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials are classified as high quality evidence and observational studies as low quality evidence but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a high risk of publication bias. Even when individual studies included in best-evidence summaries have a low risk of bias, publication bias can result in substantial overestimates of effect. Authors should suspect publication bias when available evidence comes from a number of small studies most of which have been commercially funded. A number of approaches based on examination of the pattern of data are available to help assess publication bias. The most popular of these is the funnel plot; all, however, have substantial limitations. Publication bias is likely frequent, and caution in the face of early results, particularly with small sample size and number of events, is warranted.

[GRADE guidelines: 6. Rating the quality of evidence: imprecision]. / GRADE Leitlinien: 6. Einschätzung der Qualität der Evidenz - Unzureichende Präzision.

GRADE suggests that examination of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) provides the optimal primary approach to decisions regarding imprecision. For practice guidelines, rating down the quality of evidence (i.e., confidence in estimates of effect) is required when clinical action would differ if the upper versus the lower boundary of the CI represented the truth. An exception to this rule occurs when an effect is large, and consideration of CIs alone suggests a robust effect, but the total sample size is not large and the number of events is small. Under these circumstances, one should consider rating down for imprecision. To inform this decision, one can calculate the number of patients required for an adequately powered individual trial (termed the "optimal information size" or OIS). For continuous variables, we suggest a similar process, initially considering the upper and lower limits of the CI, and subsequently calculating an OIS. Systematic reviews require a somewhat different approach. If the 95% CI excludes a relative risk (RR) of 1.0 and the total number of events or patients exceeds the OIS criterion, precision is adequate. If the 95% CI includes appreciable benefit or harm (we suggest a RR of under 0.75 or over 1.25 as a rough guide) rating down for imprecision may be appropriate even if OIS criteria are met.