An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Graduated Compression Stockings in Addition to Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Surgical Inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical inpatients with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis and additional graduated compression stockings (GCSs) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. BACKGROUND: Surgical inpatients have elevated VTE risk; recent studies cast doubt on whether GCS confers additional protection against VTE, compared with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone. METHODS: The review followed "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guidelines using a registered protocol (CRD42017062655). The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched up to November 2022. Randomized trials reporting VTE rate after surgical procedures, utilizing pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, with or without GCS, were included. The rates of deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and VTE-related mortality were pooled through fixed and random effects. RESULTS: In a head-to-head meta-analysis, the risk of DVT for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.54-1.36) versus for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (2 studies, 70 events, 2653 participants). The risk of DVT in pooled trial arms for GCS and pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.23-1.25) versus pharmacological thromboprophylaxis alone (33 trial arms, 1228 events, 14,108 participants). The risk of pulmonary embolism for GCS and pharmacological prophylaxis versus pharmacological prophylaxis alone was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.0-30.0) (27 trial arms, 32 events, 11,472 participants). There were no between-group differences in VTE-related mortality (27 trial arms, 3 events, 12,982 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from head-to-head meta-analysis and pooled trial arms demonstrates no additional benefit for GCS in preventing VTE and VTE-related mortality. GCS confer a risk of skin complications and an economic burden; current evidence does not support their use for surgical inpatients.

Trends in systematic reviews of kidney transplantation: A 10-year analysis of the evidence base.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) are the highest form of evidence for all types of clinical questions in evidence-based practice. For the first time in 2018, the number of SRs in transplantation outstripped those from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This raises concerns of duplication or increased use of non-RCT evidence. We aimed to analyse the trends, strength and quality of SRs in kidney transplantation over a 10-year period. METHODS: SRs in kidney transplantation were identified from the Transplant Library, without language restriction. All full-text citations were exported to a custom Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database prior to evaluation. Quality of evidence in all included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR-2. RESULTS: We included 454 SRs, of which, only three were scored as 'high quality'. We found that 96.70% of SRs were identified as 'critically low quality', which increased in number over time. We also found that inclusion of non-RCT data increased in the most recent 5 years. Only 14.12% of SRs had made a clear recommendation for practice. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights several concerning statistics that need to be addressed. In the last 10 years, only three SRs in kidney transplantation were 'high-quality'. The weaknesses identified in critical domains, alongside the increased use of non-RCT data and lack of conclusive recommendations undermines the confidence in the results of the SRs and purpose of publication. As these SRs are instrumental to clinical decision-making and patient care in kidney transplantation, we advocate for improved reporting quality among SRs in kidney transplantation.