S-GRAS score for prognostic classification of adrenocortical carcinoma: an international, multicenter ENSAT study.

OBJECTIVE: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) has an aggressive but variable clinical course. Prognostic stratification based on the European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumours stage and Ki67 index is limited. We aimed to demonstrate the prognostic role of a points-based score (S-GRAS) in a large cohort of patients with ACC. DESIGN: This is a multicentre, retrospective study on ACC patients who underwent adrenalectomy. METHODS: The S-GRAS score was calculated as a sum of the following points: tumour stage (1-2 = 0; 3 = 1; 4 = 2), grade (Ki67 index 0-9% = 0; 10-19% = 1; ≥20% = 2 points), resection status (R0 = 0; RX = 1; R1 = 2; R2 = 3), age (<50 years = 0; ≥50 years = 1), symptoms (no = 0; yes = 1), and categorised, generating four groups (0-1, 2-3, 4-5, and 6-9). Endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). The discriminative performance of S-GRAS and its components was tested by Harrell's Concordance index (C-index) and Royston-Sauerbrei's R2D statistic. RESULTS: We included 942 ACC patients. The S-GRAS score showed superior prognostic performance for both PFS and DSS, with best discrimination obtained using the individual scores (0-9) (C-index = 0.73, R2D = 0.30, and C-index = 0.79, R2D = 0.45, respectively, all P < 0.01vs each component). The superiority of S-GRAS score remained when comparing patients treated or not with adjuvant mitotane (n = 481 vs 314). In particular, the risk of recurrence was significantly reduced as a result of adjuvant mitotane only in patients with S-GRAS 4-5. CONCLUSION: The prognostic performance of S-GRAS is superior to tumour stage and Ki67 in operated ACC patients, independently from adjuvant mitotane. S-GRAS score provides a new important guide for personalised management of ACC (i.e. radiological surveillance and adjuvant treatment).

Meta-analysis of test accuracy studies using imputation for partial reporting of multiple thresholds.

INTRODUCTION: For tests reporting continuous results, primary studies usually provide test performance at multiple but often different thresholds. This creates missing data when performing a meta-analysis at each threshold. A standard meta-analysis (no imputation [NI]) ignores such missing data. A single imputation (SI) approach was recently proposed to recover missing threshold results. Here, we propose a new method that performs multiple imputation of the missing threshold results using discrete combinations (MIDC). METHODS: The new MIDC method imputes missing threshold results by randomly selecting from the set of all possible discrete combinations which lie between the results for 2 known bounding thresholds. Imputed and observed results are then synthesised at each threshold. This is repeated multiple times, and the multiple pooled results at each threshold are combined using Rubin's rules to give final estimates. We compared the NI, SI, and MIDC approaches via simulation. RESULTS: Both imputation methods outperform the NI method in simulations. There was generally little difference in the SI and MIDC methods, but the latter was noticeably better in terms of estimating the between-study variances and generally gave better coverage, due to slightly larger standard errors of pooled estimates. Given selective reporting of thresholds, the imputation methods also reduced bias in the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. Simulations demonstrate the imputation methods rely on an equal threshold spacing assumption. A real example is presented. CONCLUSIONS: The SI and, in particular, MIDC methods can be used to examine the impact of missing threshold results in meta-analysis of test accuracy studies.

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.].

Predicting the chance of live birth for women undergoing IVF: a novel pretreatment counselling tool.

STUDY QUESTION: Which pretreatment patient variables have an effect on live birth rates following assisted conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: The predictors in the final multivariate logistic regression model found to be significantly associated with reduced chances of IVF/ICSI success were increasing age (particularly above 36 years), tubal factor infertility, unexplained infertility and Asian or Black ethnicity. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The two most widely recognized prediction models for live birth following IVF were developed on data from 1991 to 2007; pre-dating significant changes in clinical practice. These existing IVF outcome prediction models do not incorporate key pretreatment predictors, such as BMI, ethnicity and ovarian reserve, which are readily available now. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this cohort study a model to predict live birth was derived using data collected from 9915 women who underwent IVF/ICSI treatment at any CARE (Centres for Assisted Reproduction) clinic from 2008 to 2012. Model validation was performed on data collected from 2723 women who underwent treatment in 2013. The primary outcome for the model was live birth, which was defined as any birth event in which at least one baby was born alive and survived for more than 1 month. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data were collected from 12 fertility clinics within the CARE consortium in the UK. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop the model. Discriminatory ability was assessed using the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve, and calibration was assessed using calibration-in-the-large and the calibration slope test. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The predictors in the final model were female age, BMI, ethnicity, antral follicle count (AFC), previous live birth, previous miscarriage, cause and duration of infertility. Upon assessing predictive ability, the AUROC curve for the final model and validation cohort was (0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.63) and (0.62; 95% CI 0.60-0.64) respectively. Calibration-in-the-large showed a systematic over-estimation of the predicted probability of live birth (Intercept (95% CI) = -0.168 (-0.252 to -0.084), P < 0.001). However, the calibration slope test was not significant (slope (95% CI) = 1.129 (0.893-1.365), P = 0.28). Due to the calibration-in-the-large test being significant we recalibrated the final model. The recalibrated model showed a much-improved calibration. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our model is unable to account for factors such as smoking and alcohol that can affect IVF/ICSI outcome and is somewhat restricted to representing the ethnic distribution and outcomes for the UK population only. We were unable to account for socioeconomic status and it may be that by having 75% of the population paying privately for their treatment, the results cannot be generalized to people of all socioeconomic backgrounds. In addition, patients and clinicians should understand this model is designed for use before treatment begins and does not include variables that become available (oocyte, embryo and endometrial) as treatment progresses. Finally, this model is also limited to use prior to first cycle only. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to present a novel, up-to-date model encompassing three readily available prognostic factors; female BMI, ovarian reserve and ethnicity, which have not previously been used in prediction models for IVF outcome. Following geographical validation, the model can be used to build a user-friendly interface to aid decision-making for couples and their clinicians. Thereafter, a feasibility study of its implementation could focus on patient acceptability and quality of decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST: None.

The Percutaneous shunting in Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (PLUTO) study and randomised controlled trial: evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting for lower urinary tract obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Congenital lower urinary tract obstruction (LUTO) is a disease associated with high perinatal mortality and childhood morbidity. Fetal vesicoamniotic shunting (VAS) bypasses the obstruction with the potential to improve outcome. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability of VAS for fetal LUTO. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial incorporating a prospective registry, decision-analytic health economic model and preplanned Bayesian analysis using elicited opinions. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study. SETTING: Fetal medicine departments in the UK, Ireland and the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Pregnant women with a male singleton fetus with LUTO. INTERVENTIONS: In utero percutaneous VAS compared with conservative care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to 28 days. Secondary outcome measures were survival and renal function at 1 year of age, cost of care and cost per additional life-year and per disability-free survival at the end of 1 year. RESULTS: The trial stopped early with 31 women randomised because of difficulties in recruitment. Of those randomised to VAS and conservative management, 3/16 (19%) and 2/15 (13%), respectively, did not receive their allocated intervention. Based on intention-to-treat analysis, survival at 28 days was higher if allocated VAS (50%) than conservative management (27%) [relative risk (RR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 4.96, p = 0.27]. At 12 months survival was 44% in the VAS arm and 20% in the conservative arm (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.69 to 6.94, p = 0.25). Neither difference was statistically significant. Of survivors at 1 year, two in the VAS arm had no evidence of renal impairment and four in the VAS arm and two in the conservative arm required medical management. One baby in the conservative arm had end-stage renal failure at 1 year. VAS was more expensive because of additional surgery and intensive care. VAS cost £15,500 per survivor at 1 year and £43,900 per disability-free year. Elicited expert opinions showed uncertainty in the effect of VAS at 28 days. In a Bayesian analysis combining elicited opinion with the results, uncertainty of the benefit of VAS remained (RR 1.31, 95% credible interval 0.84 to 2.18). The acceptability study identified visualisation of the fetus during ultrasound scanning, perceiving a personal benefit, and altruism as positive influences on recruitment. Fear of the VAS procedure and the perceived severity of LUTO influenced non-participation. The need for more detailed information about the condition and its implications during pregnancy and following delivery was a further important finding of this research. Recruitment was hampered by logistical and regulatory difficulties, a lower incidence of LUTO and lower antenatal diagnosis rate [estimated to be 3.34 (95% CI 2.95 to 3.72) per 10,000 total births and 47%, respectively, in an associated epidemiological study] and high termination of pregnancy rates. In the registry women also demonstrated a clear preference for conservative management. CONCLUSIONS: Survival to 28 days and 1 year appears to be higher with VAS than with conservative management, but it is not possible to prove benefit beyond reasonable doubt. Notably, prognosis in both arms for survival and renal function is poor. VAS was substantially more costly and unlikely to be regarded as cost-effective based on the 1-year data. Parents should be counselled about the risks of pregnancy loss with or without VAS insertion. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence interventional procedures guidance (IPG 202) should be updated to reflect this new evidence. Babies in the PLUTO trial should be followed up long term for the different outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN53328556. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 17, No. 59. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Diagnostic accuracy of spot urinary protein and albumin to creatinine ratios for detection of significant proteinuria or adverse pregnancy outcome in patients with suspected pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of two "spot urine" tests for significant proteinuria or adverse pregnancy outcome in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Searches of electronic databases 1980 to January 2011, reference list checking, hand searching of journals, and contact with experts. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Diagnostic studies, in pregnant women with hypertension, that compared the urinary spot protein to creatinine ratio or albumin to creatinine ratio with urinary protein excretion over 24 hours or adverse pregnancy outcome. Study characteristics, design, and methodological and reporting quality were objectively assessed. DATA EXTRACTION: Study results relating to diagnostic accuracy were extracted and synthesised using multivariate random effects meta-analysis methods. RESULTS: Twenty studies, testing 2978 women (pregnancies), were included. Thirteen studies examining protein to creatinine ratio for the detection of significant proteinuria were included in the multivariate analysis. Threshold values for protein to creatinine ratio ranged between 0.13 and 0.5, with estimates of sensitivity ranging from 0.65 to 0.89 and estimates of specificity from 0.63 to 0.87; the area under the summary receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.69. On average, across all studies, the optimum threshold (that optimises sensitivity and specificity combined) seems to be between 0.30 and 0.35 inclusive. However, no threshold gave a summary estimate above 80% for both sensitivity and specificity, and considerable heterogeneity existed in diagnostic accuracy across studies at most thresholds. No studies looked at protein to creatinine ratio and adverse pregnancy outcome. For albumin to creatinine ratio, meta-analysis was not possible. Results from a single study suggested that the most predictive result, for significant proteinuria, was with the DCA 2000 quantitative analyser (>2 mg/mmol) with a summary sensitivity of 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.94 (0.87 to 0.98). In a single study of adverse pregnancy outcome, results for perinatal death were a sensitivity of 0.82 (0.48 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.59 (0.51 to 0.67). CONCLUSION: The maternal "spot urine" estimate of protein to creatinine ratio shows promising diagnostic value for significant proteinuria in suspected pre-eclampsia. The existing evidence is not, however, sufficient to determine how protein to creatinine ratio should be used in clinical practice, owing to the heterogeneity in test accuracy and prevalence across studies. Insufficient evidence is available on the use of albumin to creatinine ratio in this area. Insufficient evidence exists for either test to predict adverse pregnancy outcome.

Pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart defects in newborn infants: a test accuracy study with evaluation of acceptability and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Screening for congenital heart defects (CHDs) relies on antenatal ultrasound and postnatal clinical examination; however, life-threatening defects often go undetected. OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry as a screening test for CHDs in newborn infants. DESIGN: A test accuracy study determined the accuracy of pulse oximetry. Acceptability of testing to parents was evaluated through a questionnaire, and to staff through focus groups. A decision-analytic model was constructed to assess cost-effectiveness. SETTING: Six UK maternity units. PARTICIPANTS: These were 20,055 asymptomatic newborns at ≥ 35 weeks' gestation, their mothers and health-care staff. INTERVENTIONS: Pulse oximetry was performed prior to discharge from hospital and the results of this index test were compared with a composite reference standard (echocardiography, clinical follow-up and follow-up through interrogation of clinical databases). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of major CHDs - defined as causing death or requiring invasive intervention up to 12 months of age (subdivided into critical CHDs causing death or intervention before 28 days, and serious CHDs causing death or intervention between 1 and 12 months of age); acceptability of testing to parents and staff; and the cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per timely diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty-three of the 20,055 babies screened had a major CHD (24 critical and 29 serious), a prevalence of 2.6 per 1000 live births. Pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 75.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.3% to 90.2%] for critical cases and 49.1% (95% CI 35.1% to 63.2%) for all major CHDs. When 23 cases were excluded, in which a CHD was already suspected following antenatal ultrasound, pulse oximetry had a sensitivity of 58.3% (95% CI 27.7% to 84.8%) for critical cases (12 babies) and 28.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 46.3%) for all major CHDs (35 babies). False-positive (FP) results occurred in 1 in 119 babies (0.84%) without major CHDs (specificity 99.2%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.3%). However, of the 169 FPs, there were six cases of significant but not major CHDs and 40 cases of respiratory or infective illness requiring medical intervention. The prevalence of major CHDs in babies with normal pulse oximetry was 1.4 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.0) per 1000 live births, as 27 babies with major CHDs (6 critical and 21 serious) were missed. Parent and staff participants were predominantly satisfied with screening, perceiving it as an important test to detect ill babies. There was no evidence that mothers given FP results were more anxious after participating than those given true-negative results, although they were less satisfied with the test. White British/Irish mothers were more likely to participate in the study, and were less anxious and more satisfied than those of other ethnicities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of pulse oximetry plus clinical examination compared with examination alone is approximately £24,900 per timely diagnosis in a population in which antenatal screening for CHDs already exists. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse oximetry is a simple, safe, feasible test that is acceptable to parents and staff and adds value to existing screening. It is likely to identify cases of critical CHDs that would otherwise go undetected. It is also likely to be cost-effective given current acceptable thresholds. The detection of other pathologies, such as significant CHDs and respiratory and infective illnesses, is an additional advantage. Other pulse oximetry techniques, such as perfusion index, may enhance detection of aortic obstructive lesions. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology programme.

Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative accuracy of clinic measurements and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as a reference standard for the diagnosis of hypertension. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis with hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models. Methodological quality was appraised, including evidence of validation of blood pressure measurement equipment. DATA SOURCES: Medline (from 1966), Embase (from 1980), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE, Medion, ARIF, and TRIP up to May 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Eligible studies examined diagnosis of hypertension in adults of all ages using home and/or clinic blood pressure measurement compared with those made using ambulatory monitoring that clearly defined thresholds to diagnose hypertension. RESULTS: The 20 eligible studies used various thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension, and only seven studies (clinic) and three studies (home) could be directly compared with ambulatory monitoring. Compared with ambulatory monitoring thresholds of 135/85 mm Hg, clinic measurements over 140/90 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% (95% confidence interval 60.7% to 84.8%) and 74.6% (47.9% to 90.4%), respectively, whereas home measurements over 135/85 mm Hg had mean sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% (78.0% to 91.0%) and 62.4% (48.0% to 75.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Neither clinic nor home measurement had sufficient sensitivity or specificity to be recommended as a single diagnostic test. If ambulatory monitoring is taken as the reference standard, then treatment decisions based on clinic or home blood pressure alone might result in substantial overdiagnosis. Ambulatory monitoring before the start of lifelong drug treatment might lead to more appropriate targeting of treatment, particularly around the diagnostic threshold.

Systematic reviews of clinical decision tools for acute abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES: To review for acute abdominal pain (AAP), the diagnostic accuracies of combining decision tools (DTs) and doctors aided by DTs compared with those of unaided doctors. Also to evaluate the impact of providing doctors with an AAP DT on patient outcomes, clinical decisions and actions, what factors are likely to determine the usage rates and usability of a DT and the associated costs and likely cost-effectiveness of these DTs in routine use in the UK. DESIGN: Electronic databases were searched up to 1 July 2003. REVIEW METHODS: Data from each eligible study were extracted. Potential sources of heterogeneity were extracted for both questions. For the accuracy review, meta-analysis was conducted. Among studies comparing diagnostic accuracies of DTs with unaided doctors, error rate ratios provided estimates of the differences between the false-negative and false-positive rates of the DT and unaided doctors' performance. Pooled error rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for false-negative rates and false-positive rates were computed. Metaregression was used to explore heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies from 27 articles, all based in secondary care, were eligible for the review of DT accuracies, while two were eligible for the review of the accuracy of hospital doctors aided by DTs. Sensitivities and specificities for DTs ranged from 53 to 99% and from 30 to 99%, respectively. Those for unaided doctors ranged from 64 to 93% and from 39 to 91%, respectively. Thirteen studies reported false-positive and false-negative rates for both DTs and unaided doctors, enabling a direct comparison of their performance. In random effects meta-analyses, DTs had significantly lower false-positive rates (error rate ratio 0.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83) than unaided doctors. DTs may have higher false-negative rates than unaided doctors (error rate ratio 1.34, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.93). Significant heterogeneity was present. Two studies compared the diagnostic accuracies of doctors aided by DTs to unaided doctors. In a multiarm cluster randomised controlled trial (n = 5193), the diagnostic accuracy of doctors not given access to DTs was not significantly worse (sensitivity 28.4% and specificity 96.0%) than that of three groups of aided doctors (sensitivities of 42.4-47.9%, and specificities of 95.5-96.5%, respectively). In an uncontrolled before-and-after study (n = 1484), the sensitivities and specificities of aided and unaided doctors were 95.5% and 91.5% (p = 0.24) and 78.1% and 86.4% (p < 0.001), respectively. The metaregression of DTs showed that prospective test-set validation at the site of the tool's development was associated with considerably higher diagnostic accuracy than prospective test-set validation at an independent centre [relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) 8.2; 95% CI 3.1 to 14.7]. It also showed that the earlier in the year the study was performed the higher the performance (RDOR 0.88, 0.83 to 0.92), that when developers evaluated their own DT there was better performance than when independent evaluators carried out the study (RDOR = 3.0, 1.3 to 6.8), and that there was no evidence of association between other quality indicators and DT accuracy. The one eligible study of the impact study review, a four-arm cluster randomised trial (n = 5193), showed that hospital admission rates of patients by doctors not allocated to a DT (42.8%) were significantly higher than those by doctors allocated to three combinations of decision support (34.2-38.5%) (p < 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference between perforation rates (p = 0.19) and negative laparotomy rates in the four trial arms (p = 0.46). Usage rates of DTs by doctors in accident and emergency departments ranged from 10 to 77% in the six studies that reported them. Possible determinants of usability include the reasoning method used, the number of items used and the output format. A deterministic cost-effectiveness comparison demonstrated that a paper checklist is likely to be 100-900 times more cost-effective than a computer-based DT, under stated assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: With their significantly greater specificity and lower false-positive rates than doctors, DTs are potentially useful in confirming a diagnosis of acute appendicitis, but not in ruling it out. The clinical use of well-designed, condition-specific paper or computer-based structured checklists is promising as a way to improve impact on patient outcomes, subject to further research.

Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

OBJECTIVES: To survey the frequency of use of indirect comparisons in systematic reviews and evaluate the methods used in their analysis and interpretation. Also to identify alternative statistical approaches for the analysis of indirect comparisons, to assess the properties of different statistical methods used for performing indirect comparisons and to compare direct and indirect estimates of the same effects within reviews. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. REVIEW METHODS: The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was searched for systematic reviews involving meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported both direct and indirect comparisons, or indirect comparisons alone. A systematic review of MEDLINE and other databases was carried out to identify published methods for analysing indirect comparisons. Study designs were created using data from the International Stroke Trial. Random samples of patients receiving aspirin, heparin or placebo in 16 centres were used to create meta-analyses, with half of the trials comparing aspirin and placebo and half heparin and placebo. Methods for indirect comparisons were used to estimate the contrast between aspirin and heparin. The whole process was repeated 1000 times and the results were compared with direct comparisons and also theoretical results. Further detailed case studies comparing the results from both direct and indirect comparisons of the same effects were undertaken. RESULTS: Of the reviews identified through DARE, 31/327 (9.5%) included indirect comparisons. A further five reviews including indirect comparisons were identified through electronic searching. Few reviews carried out a formal analysis and some based analysis on the naive addition of data from the treatment arms of interest. Few methodological papers were identified. Some valid approaches for aggregate data that could be applied using standard software were found: the adjusted indirect comparison, meta-regression and, for binary data only, multiple logistic regression (fixed effect models only). Simulation studies showed that the naive method is liable to bias and also produces over-precise answers. Several methods provide correct answers if strong but unverifiable assumptions are fulfilled. Four times as many similarly sized trials are needed for the indirect approach to have the same power as directly randomised comparisons. Detailed case studies comparing direct and indirect comparisons of the same effect show considerable statistical discrepancies, but the direction of such discrepancy is unpredictable. CONCLUSIONS: Direct evidence from good-quality RCTs should be used wherever possible. Without this evidence, it may be necessary to look for indirect comparisons from RCTs. However, the results may be susceptible to bias. When making indirect comparisons within a systematic review, an adjusted indirect comparison method should ideally be used employing the random effects model. If both direct and indirect comparisons are possible within a review, it is recommended that these be done separately before considering whether to pool data. There is a need to evaluate methods for the analysis of indirect comparisons for continuous data and for empirical research into how different methods of indirect comparison perform in cases where there is a large treatment effect. Further study is needed into when it is appropriate to look at indirect comparisons and when to combine both direct and indirect comparisons. Research into how evidence from indirect comparisons compares to that from non-randomised studies may also be warranted. Investigations using individual patient data from a meta-analysis of several RCTs using different protocols and an evaluation of the impact of choosing different binary effect measures for the inverse variance method would also be useful.

Amantadine and rimantadine for preventing and treating influenza A in adults.

BACKGROUND: Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but these drugs are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety ("effects") of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2003), MEDLINE (January 1966 to November week 2, 2003), EMBASE (January 1990 to September 2003) and the reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers, researchers and authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control antivirals or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For prevention trials the numbers of participants with clinical influenza (influenza-like-illness or ILI), i.e. confirmed influenza A, and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials included the mean duration of fever and length of hospital stay, and the number of adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Amantadine prevented 25% of ILI cases (95% confidence interval (CI) 13% to 36%), and 61% of influenza A cases (95% CI 35% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prevention were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine causes fewer adverse effects than amantadine.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Three different types of influenza vaccines are currently produced worldwide. None is traditionally targeted to healthy adults. Despite the publication of a large number of clinical trials, there is still substantial uncertainty about the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccines and this has negative impact on the vaccines acceptance and uptake. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of vaccines on influenza in healthy adults. To assess the effectiveness of vaccines in preventing cases of influenza in healthy adults. To estimate the frequency of adverse effects associated with influenza vaccination in healthy adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group trials register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2003); and EMBASE (1990 to December 2003). We wrote to vaccine manufacturers and first or corresponding authors of studies in the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Any randomised or quasi-randomised studies comparing influenza vaccines in humans with placebo, control vaccines or no intervention, or comparing types, doses or schedules of influenza vaccine. Live, attenuated or killed vaccines or fractions thereof administered by any route, irrespective of antigenic configuration were considered. Only studies assessing protection from exposure to naturally occurring influenza in healthy individuals aged 14 to 60 (irrespective of influenza immune status) were considered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty five reports of studies involving 59,566 people were included. The recommended live aerosol vaccines reduced the number of cases of serologically confirmed influenza by 48% (95% confidence interval (CI) 24% to 64%), whilst recommended inactivated parenteral vaccines had a vaccine efficacy of 70% (95% CI 56% to 80%). The yearly recommended vaccines had low effectiveness against clinical influenza cases: 15%(95% CI 8% to 21%) and 25% (95% CI 13% to 35%) respectively. Overall the percentage of participants experiencing clinical influenza decreased by 6%. Use of the vaccine significantly reduced time off work but only by 0.16 days for each influenza episode (95% CI 0.04 to 0.29 days); Analysis of vaccines matching the circulating strain gave higher estimates of efficacy, whilst inclusion of all other vaccines reduced the efficacy. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Influenza vaccines are effective in reducing serologically confirmed cases of influenza. However, they are not as effective in reducing cases of clinical influenza and number of working days lost. Universal immunisation of healthy adults is not supported by the results of this review.

Systematic review and modelling of the investigation of acute and chronic chest pain presenting in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain the value of a range of methods - including clinical features, resting and exercise electrocardiography, and rapid access chest pain clinics (RACPCs) - used in the diagnosis and early management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspected acute myocardial infarction (MI), and exertional angina. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and electronic abstracts of recent cardiological conferences. REVIEW METHODS: Searches identified studies that considered patients with acute chest pain with data on the diagnostic value of clinical features or an electrocardiogram (ECG); patients with chronic chest pain with data on the diagnostic value of resting or exercise ECG or the effect of a RACPC. Likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated for each study, and pooled LRs were generated with 95% confidence intervals. A Monte Carlo simulation was performed evaluating different assessment strategies for suspected ACS, and a discrete event simulation evaluated models for the assessment of suspected exertional angina. RESULTS: For acute chest pain, no clinical features in isolation were useful in ruling in or excluding an ACS, although the most helpful clinical features were pleuritic pain (LR+ 0.19) and pain on palpation (LR+ 0.23). ST elevation was the most effective ECG feature for determining MI (with LR+ 13.1) and a completely normal ECG was reasonably useful at ruling this out (LR+ 0.14). Results from 'black box' studies of clinical interpretation of ECGs found very high specificity, but low sensitivity. In the simulation exercise of management strategies for suspected ACS, the point of care testing with troponins was cost-effective. Pre-hospital thrombolysis on the basis of ambulance telemetry was more effective but more costly than if performed in hospital. In cases of chronic chest pain, resting ECG features were not found to be very useful (presence of Q-waves had LR+ 2.56). For an exercise ECG, ST depression performed only moderately well (LR+ 2.79 for a 1 mm cutoff), although this did improve for a 2 mm cutoff (LR+ 3.85). Other methods of interpreting the exercise ECG did not result in dramatic improvements in these results. Weak evidence was found to suggest that RACPCs may be associated with reduced admission to hospital of patients with non-cardiac pain, better recognition of ACS, earlier specialist assessment of exertional angina and earlier diagnosis of non-cardiac chest pain. In a simulation exercise of models of care for investigation of suspected exertional angina, RACPCs were predicted to result in earlier diagnosis of both confirmed coronary heart disease (CHD) and non-cardiac chest pain than models of care based around open access exercise tests or routine cardiology outpatients, but they were more expensive. The benefits of RACPCs disappeared if waiting times for further investigation (e.g. angiography) were long (6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Where an ACS is suspected, emergency referral is justified. ECG interpretation in acute chest pain can be highly specific for diagnosing MI. Point of care testing with troponins is cost-effective in the triaging of patients with suspected ACS. Resting ECG and exercise ECG are of only limited value in the diagnosis of CHD. The potential advantages of RACPCs are lost if there are long waiting times for further investigation. Recommendations for further research include the following: determining the most appropriate model of care to ensure accurate triaging of patients with suspected ACS; establishing the cost-effectiveness of pre-hospital thrombolysis in rural areas; determining the relative cost-effectiveness of rapid access chest pain clinics compared with other innovative models of care; investigating how rapid access chest pain clinics should be managed; and establishing the long-term outcome of patients discharged from RACPCs.

Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies.

OBJECTIVES: To consider methods and related evidence for evaluating bias in non-randomised intervention studies. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews and methodological papers were identified from a search of electronic databases; handsearches of key medical journals and contact with experts working in the field. New empirical studies were conducted using data from two large randomised clinical trials. METHODS: Three systematic reviews and new empirical investigations were conducted. The reviews considered, in regard to non-randomised studies, (1) the existing evidence of bias, (2) the content of quality assessment tools, (3) the ways that study quality has been assessed and addressed. (4) The empirical investigations were conducted generating non-randomised studies from two large, multicentre randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and selectively resampling trial participants according to allocated treatment, centre and period. RESULTS: In the systematic reviews, eight studies compared results of randomised and non-randomised studies across multiple interventions using meta-epidemiological techniques. A total of 194 tools were identified that could be or had been used to assess non-randomised studies. Sixty tools covered at least five of six pre-specified internal validity domains. Fourteen tools covered three of four core items of particular importance for non-randomised studies. Six tools were thought suitable for use in systematic reviews. Of 511 systematic reviews that included non-randomised studies, only 169 (33%) assessed study quality. Sixty-nine reviews investigated the impact of quality on study results in a quantitative manner. The new empirical studies estimated the bias associated with non-random allocation and found that the bias could lead to consistent over- or underestimations of treatment effects, also the bias increased variation in results for both historical and concurrent controls, owing to haphazard differences in case-mix between groups. The biases were large enough to lead studies falsely to conclude significant findings of benefit or harm. Four strategies for case-mix adjustment were evaluated: none adequately adjusted for bias in historically and concurrently controlled studies. Logistic regression on average increased bias. Propensity score methods performed better, but were not satisfactory in most situations. Detailed investigation revealed that adequate adjustment can only be achieved in the unrealistic situation when selection depends on a single factor. CONCLUSIONS: Results of non-randomised studies sometimes, but not always, differ from results of randomised studies of the same intervention. Non-randomised studies may still give seriously misleading results when treated and control groups appear similar in key prognostic factors. Standard methods of case-mix adjustment do not guarantee removal of bias. Residual confounding may be high even when good prognostic data are available, and in some situations adjusted results may appear more biased than unadjusted results. Although many quality assessment tools exist and have been used for appraising non-randomised studies, most omit key quality domains. Healthcare policies based upon non-randomised studies or systematic reviews of non-randomised studies may need re-evaluation if the uncertainty in the true evidence base was not fully appreciated when policies were made. The inability of case-mix adjustment methods to compensate for selection bias and our inability to identify non-randomised studies that are free of selection bias indicate that non-randomised studies should only be undertaken when RCTs are infeasible or unethical. Recommendations for further research include: applying the resampling methodology in other clinical areas to ascertain whether the biases described are typical; developing or refining existing quality assessment tools for non-randomised studies; investigating how quality assessments of non-randomised studies can be incorporated into reviews and the implications of individual quality features for interpretation of a review's results; examination of the reasons for the apparent failure of case-mix adjustment methods; and further evaluation of the role of the propensity score.

Amantadine and rimantadine for preventing and treating influenza A in adults.

BACKGROUND: Amantadine hydrochloride and rimantadine hydrochloride have antiviral properties, but they are not widely used due to a lack of knowledge of their potential value and concerns about possible adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess the effects and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in healthy adults. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists of articles. We also contacted manufacturers, researchers and authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised studies comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with placebo, control antivirals or no intervention, or comparing doses or schedules of amantadine and/or rimantadine in healthy adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For prevention trials the numbers of participants with clinically defined influenza, with serologically confirmed clinical influenza A and adverse effects were analysed. Analysis for treatment trials was of the mean duration of fever and adverse effects. MAIN RESULTS: Amantadine prevented 23% of clinical influenza cases (95% confidence interval 11% to 34%), and 63% of serologically confirmed clinical influenza A cases (95% confidence interval 42% to 76%). Amantadine reduced duration of fever by one day (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 1.3). Rimantadine demonstrated comparable effectiveness, but there were fewer trials and the results for prevention were not statistically significant. Both amantadine and rimantadine induced significant gastrointestinal adverse effects. Adverse effects of the central nervous system and study withdrawals were significantly more common with amantadine than rimantadine. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Amantadine and rimantadine have comparable effectiveness in the prevention and treatment of influenza A in healthy adults, although rimantadine induces fewer adverse effects than amantadine. [This abstract has been prepared centrally.]

A systematic review of the evidence for rapid access chest pain clinics.

To determine the impact of rapid access chest pain clinics (RACPC) on patient management, a systematic search (1966-2000) was performed of electronic databases, recent conference abstracts, citations of all identified studies, and by contact with other researchers. Studies of any design were included. Assessment of eligibility, methodological quality of studies and data abstraction was conducted independently by two reviewers. Outcome measures were sought in terms of admission rate of patients without acute coronary syndrome detection rate of acute coronary syndrome unrecognised by the GP, timing of specialist assessment of patients with stable angina and speed and accuracy of detection of those with non-cardiac chest pain. Nine relevant studies were found, but all had methodological flaws when considered as evaluative studies. All clinics described reviewed patients within 24 hours of referral. Only three studies made comparisons with control groups, none of which were randomised, and a further three provided follow-up data only. Limited data were found for all four outcome measures, indicating possible benefits of RACPCs. However, all findings could be explained by potential biases in the original studies. In conclusion, the evidence base for the introduction of rapid access chest pain clinics is poor. The introduction of these clinics should include a randomised prospective evaluation of their worth.