A scoping review shows that no single existing risk of bias assessment tool considers all sources of bias for cross-sectional studies.

OBJECTIVES: Different tools to assess the potential risk of bias (RoB) for cross-sectional studies have been developed, but it is unclear whether all pertinent bias concepts are addressed. We aimed to identify RoB concepts applicable to cross-sectional research validity and to explore coverage for each in existing appraisal tools. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included records of any study design describing or reporting methods, concepts or tools used to consider RoB in health research reported to be descriptive/prevalence survey or analytic/association (cross-sectional) study designs. Synthesis included quantitative and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Of the 4556 records screened, 90 were selected for inclusion; 67 (74%) described the development of, or validation process for, appraisal tools, 15 (17%) described methodological content or theory relevant to RoB for cross-sectional studies and 8 (9%) records of methodological systematic reviews. Review of methodological reports identified important RoB concepts for both descriptive/prevalence and analytic/association studies. Tools identified (n = 64 unique tools) were either intended to appraise quality or assess RoB in multiple study designs including cross-sectional studies (n = 21; 33%) or cross-sectional designs alone (n = 43; 67%). Several existing tools were modified (n = 17; 27%) for application to cross-sectional studies. The RoB items most frequently addressed in the RoB tools were validity and reliability of the exposure (53%) or outcome (65%) measurement and representativeness of the study population (59%). Most tools did not consider nonresponse or missingness appropriately or at all. CONCLUSION: Assessing cross-sectional studies involve unique RoB considerations. We identified RoB tools designed for broad applicability across various study designs as well as those specifically tailored for cross-sectional studies. However, none of the identified tools comprehensively address all potential biases pertinent to cross-sectional studies. Our findings indicate a need for continued improvement of RoB tools and suggest that the development of context-specific or more precise tools for this study design may be necessary.

Additive toxicity arising from combined use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with renal or endometrial carcinoma: Protocol for a rapid systematic review.

The combined use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ICI/TKI) is an effective treatment strategy for some cancers. A better understanding of the potential additive toxicity for ICI/TKI combinations is needed to inform patient and provider treatment decisions. We aim to evaluate the safety of ICI/TKI combinations for individuals with renal cell or endometrial carcinoma. This rapid systematic review (SR) protocol follows PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search will be designed, peer reviewed and executed by experienced information specialists (Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Embase) to identify published SRs and primary studies published since the most recent SR search. Randomized, quasi- or non-randomized controlled trials and comparative cohort studies are eligible if they compare ICI/TKI combinations to monotherapy or standard of care in participants with renal cell or endometrial carcinoma. The primary outcome is grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse-effects. Studies will be screened, selected, extracted and assessed for risk of bias by a single reviewer and checked completely by a second. Where feasible and appropriate, we will pool studies separately by design and indication using meta-analysis and test robustness of effects using prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Results will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables and figures. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023416388).•This will be a comprehensive systematic review of the additive toxicity arising from the combined use of ICI/TKIs in patients with renal-cell or endometrial carcinoma.•We will consider treatment-related, treatment-emergent adverse events (Grade 3 or higher).•Identified safety profile may be used to inform patient or provider treatment decisions.

Etidronate for the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is an abnormal reduction in bone mass and bone deterioration, leading to increased fracture risk. Etidronate belongs to the bisphosphonate class of drugs which act to inhibit bone resorption by interfering with the activity of osteoclasts - bone cells that break down bone tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2008. For clinical relevance, we investigated etidronate's effects on postmenopausal women stratified by fracture risk (low versus high). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of intermittent/cyclic etidronate in the primary and secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women at lower and higher risk of fracture, respectively. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, two clinical trial registers, the websites of drug approval agencies, and the bibliographies of relevant systematic reviews. We identified eligible trials published between 1966 and February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that assessed the benefits and harms of etidronate in the prevention of fractures for postmenopausal women. Women in the experimental arms must have received at least one year of etidronate, with or without other anti-osteoporotic drugs and concurrent calcium/vitamin D. Eligible comparators were placebo (i.e. no treatment; or calcium, vitamin D, or both) or another anti-osteoporotic drug. Major outcomes were clinical vertebral, non-vertebral, hip, and wrist fractures, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We classified a study as secondary prevention if its population fulfilled one or more of the following hierarchical criteria: a diagnosis of osteoporosis, a history of vertebral fractures, a low bone mineral density T-score (≤ -2.5), or aged 75 years or older. If none of these criteria were met, we considered the study to be primary prevention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The review has three main comparisons: (1) etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo; (2) etidronate 200 mg/day versus placebo; (3) etidronate at any dosage versus another anti-osteoporotic agent. We stratified the analyses for each comparison into primary and secondary prevention studies. For major outcomes in the placebo-controlled studies of etidronate 400 mg/day, we followed our original review by defining a greater than 15% relative change as clinically important. For all outcomes of interest, we extracted outcome measurements at the longest time point in the study. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty studies met the review's eligibility criteria. Of these, 26 studies, with a total of 2770 women, reported data that we could extract and quantitatively synthesize. There were nine primary and 17 secondary prevention studies. We had concerns about at least one risk of bias domain in each study. None of the studies described appropriate methods for allocation concealment, although 27% described adequate methods of random sequence generation. We judged that only 8% of the studies avoided performance bias, and provided adequate descriptions of appropriate blinding methods. One-quarter of studies that reported efficacy outcomes were at high risk of attrition bias, whilst 23% of studies reporting safety outcomes were at high risk in this domain. The 30 included studies compared (1) etidronate 400 mg/day to placebo (13 studies: nine primary and four secondary prevention); (2) etidronate 200 mg/day to placebo (three studies, all secondary prevention); or (3) etidronate (both dosing regimens) to another anti-osteoporotic agent (14 studies: one primary and 13 secondary prevention). We discuss only the etidronate 400 mg/day versus placebo comparison here. For primary prevention, we collected moderate- to very low-certainty evidence from nine studies (one to four years in length) including 740 postmenopausal women at lower risk of fractures. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day probably results in little to no difference in non-vertebral fractures (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 1.61); absolute risk reduction (ARR) 4.8% fewer, 95% CI 8.9% fewer to 6.1% more) and serious adverse events (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54; ARR 1.1% fewer, 95% CI 4.9% fewer to 5.3% more), based on moderate-certainty evidence. Etidronate 400 mg/day may result in little to no difference in clinical vertebral fractures (RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.32 to 28.44; ARR 0.02% more, 95% CI 0% fewer to 0% more) and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.47; ARR 2.3% more, 95% CI 1.1% fewer to 8.4% more), based on low-certainty evidence. We do not know the effect of etidronate on hip fractures because the evidence is very uncertain (RR not estimable based on very low-certainty evidence). Wrist fractures were not reported in the included studies. For secondary prevention, four studies (two to four years in length) including 667 postmenopausal women at higher risk of fractures provided the evidence. Compared to placebo, etidronate 400 mg/day may make little or no difference to non-vertebral fractures (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.58; ARR 0.9% more, 95% CI 3.8% fewer to 8.1% more), based on low-certainty evidence. The evidence is very uncertain about etidronate's effects on hip fractures (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.17 to 5.19; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 1.2% fewer to 6.3% more), wrist fractures (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.13 to 6.04; ARR 0.0% fewer, 95% CI 2.5% fewer to 15.9% more), withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.18; ARR 0.4% more, 95% CI 1.9% fewer to 4.9% more), and serious adverse events (RR not estimable), compared to placebo. Clinical vertebral fractures were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update echoes the key findings of our previous review that etidronate probably makes or may make little to no difference to vertebral and non-vertebral fractures for both primary and secondary prevention.

Risk of bias in cross-sectional studies: Protocol for a scoping review of concepts and tools.

Cross-sectional studies are commonly used to study human health and disease, but are especially susceptible to bias. This scoping review aims to identify and describe available tools to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in cross-sectional studies and to compile the key bias concepts relevant to cross-sectional studies into an item bank. Using the JBI scoping review methodology, the strategy to locate relevant RoB concepts and tools is a combination of database searches, prospective review of PROSPERO registry records; and consultation with knowledge users and content experts. English language records will be included if they describe tools, checklists, or instruments which describe or permit assessment of RoB for cross-sectional studies. Systematic reviews will be included if they consider eligible RoB tools or use RoB tools for RoB of cross-sectional studies. All records will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by one researcher and checked by a second. An analytic framework will be used to structure the extraction of data. Results for the scoping review are pending. Results from this scoping review will be used to inform future selection of RoB tools and to consider whether development of a new RoB tool for cross-sectional studies is needed.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.