Assessment of the quality and content of clinical practice guidelines for vitamin D and for immigrants using the AGREE II instrument: global systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, more immigrants experience vitamin D (vitD) deficiency than non-immigrants. Recommendations in current clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) concerning vitD are inadequate to address vitD deficiency among immigrants, and there are concerns regarding the quality of guidance in these CPGs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify and evaluate the quality of published CPGs addressing vitD and immigrants' health using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREE II) tool and clarify the recommendations pertaining to vitD and immigrant populations in these CPGs. METHODS: We performed a systematic search to identify the most recent CPGs across various databases (Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Embase and Turning Research Into Practice), guideline repositories and grey literature. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and data abstraction and evaluated the quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II tool. RESULTS: We identified 25 relevant CPGs; 21 focused on vitD and 4 covered immigrants' health. Around one-quarter of the included CPGs were high quality (≥60% in at least four of the six domains, including 'rigour of development'). The highest mean scores among the six AGREE II domains were for 'clarity of presentation' and 'scope and purpose'. About 4.8% (1/21) of the CPGs on vitD had immigrant-related recommendations. VitD recommendations were emphasised in one out of the four immigrant health CPGs (25%). CPGs covering immigrants' health and vitD were inadequately systematically appraised. Moreover, recommendations regarding vitD were insufficient to address the growing epidemic of vitD deficiency among immigrant populations. CONCLUSION: The insufficient recommendations for vitD fail to address the rising vitD deficiency among immigrants, highlighting a critical gap in healthcare provisions. Urgent national and international efforts are needed to develop comprehensive CPGs, bridging research, policy and practice disparities. Future guidelines must prioritise routine vitD screening, supplementation protocols for vulnerable immigrant groups, and culturally appropriate interventions to improve health outcomes for immigrants globally. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021240562.

A Multicentre Prospective Cohort Study to Identify High-Risk Transient Ischemic Attack/Minor Stroke Patients Benefiting from Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to derive a clinical decision rule to identify transient ischemic attack (TIA)/minor stroke patients most likely to benefit from echocardiography. METHODS: This multicentre prospective cohort study enrolled adults diagnosed with TIA/minor stroke in the emergency department who underwent a echocardiogram within 90 days, from 13 Canadian academic emergency departments from October 2006 to May 2017. Our outcome was clinically significant echocardiogram findings. RESULTS: In 7,149 eligible patients, a clinically significant finding was found in 556 (7.8%). There were a further 2,421 (33.9%) with a potentially significant finding. History of heart failure (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.9) or coronary artery disease (OR 2.7) were the factors most strongly associated with clinically significant echocardiogram findings, while young age, male sex, valvular heart disease and infarct (any age) on neuroimaging were modestly associated (OR between 1.3 and 1.9). The model combining these predictors into a score (range 0 to 15), had a C-statistic of 0.67 (95%CI 0.65-0.70). A cut point of 6 points or more classified 6.6% of cases as high likelihood, defined as >15% for clinically significant echocardiogram findings. CONCLUSION: Echocardiography is a very useful test in the investigations of TIA/minor stroke patients. We identified high risk clinical features, combined to create a clinical decision rule, to identify which TIA/minor stroke patients are likely to have clinically significant echocardiogram findings requiring an immediate change in management. These patients should have echocardiography prioritized while others may continue to have echocardiography conducted in a less urgent fashion.

Advancing composite outcome measures: Insights on weighting components from OMERACT 2023.

OBJECTIVE: The OMERACT Composite Working Group hosted a workshop at OMERACT 2023 to explore the complexities of weighting components in the development of composite outcomes. This study presents the methodology and findings of this workshop, exploring the complexities of weighting the individual components of composite outcome measures. METHODS: The workshop featured a multifaceted program, beginning with a plenary session that introduced the concept of composite outcomes, shared a patient's journey with rheumatic disease through a narrative, illustrated a composite outcome for Osteoarthritis Flares, and outlined the five domains selected for this composite outcome. A breakout exercise engaged participants in ranking and assigning weights to these domains, followed by group discussions to reach a consensus on weights. The workshop concluded with another plenary session that discussed various weighting approaches, including discrete choice and conjoint analysis from the ANCA-Associated Vasculitis working group, and outlined future directions for research on composite outcome methods. RESULTS: The breakout exercise revealed the challenges in assigning relative importance to different domains, highlighting the variability in participant perspectives. Consensus discussions highlighted the diversity in approaches to weighting, the need for appropriate methods to determine domain weights and the impact of such weights on the interpretation of composite scores. CONCLUSION: The OMERACT 2023 workshop underscored the significance of a systematic approach to weighting components in composite outcome development. It highlighted the complexity of achieving consensus on the importance of domains and the role of incorporating the perspectives of patient research partners in this process. Future research directions include refining weighting methodologies, moving composites through the OMERACT Filter and enhancing understanding of their implications for clinical trials. The findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on optimizing composite outcome measures in rheumatology and beyond, advocating for a balanced integration of scientific rigour and patient-centeredness in their development.

Derivation of a clinical prediction score for the diagnosis of clinically significant symptomatic carotid artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: Emergent vascular imaging identifies a subset of patients requiring immediate specialized care (i.e. carotid stenosis > 50%, dissection or free-floating thrombus). However, most TIA patients do not have these findings, so it is inefficient to image all TIA patients in crowded emergency departments (ED). Our objectives were to derive and internally validate a clinical prediction score for clinically significant carotid artery disease in TIA patients. METHODS: This was a planned secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study from 14 Canadian EDs. Among 11555 consecutive adult ED patients with TIA/minor stroke symptoms over 12 years, 9882 had vascular imaging and were included in the analysis. Our main outcome was clinically significant carotid artery disease, defined as extracranial internal carotid stenosis ≥ 50%, dissection, or thrombus in the internal carotid artery, with contralateral symptoms. RESULTS: Of 9882 patients, 888 (9.0%) had clinically significant carotid artery disease. Logistic regression was used to derive a 13-variable reduced model. We simplified the model into a score (Symcard [Symptomatic carotid artery disease] Score), with suggested cut-points for high, medium, and low-risk stratification. A substantial portion (38%) of patients were classified as low-risk, 33.8% as medium risk, and 28.2% as high risk. At the low-risk cut-point, sensitivity was 92.9%, specificity 41.1%, and diagnostic yield 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS: This simple score can predict carotid artery disease in TIA patients using readily available information. It identifies low-risk patients who can defer vascular imaging to an outpatient or specialty clinic setting. Medium-risk patients may undergo imaging immediately or with slight delay, depending on local resources. High-risk patients should undergo urgent vascular imaging.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: L'imagerie vasculaire émergente permet d'identifier un sous-ensemble de patients nécessitant des soins spécialisés immédiats (c.-à-d. sténose carotidienne >50 %, dissection ou thrombus flottant). Cependant, la plupart des patients atteints de RTI ne présentent pas ces résultats, il est donc inefficace d'effectuer une imagerie de tous les patients atteints de RTI dans les services d'urgence (ER) surpeuplés. Nos objectifs étaient de calculer et de valider en interne un score de prédiction clinique pour la maladie carotide cliniquement significative chez les patients atteints d'une AIT MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une analyse secondaire planifiée d'une étude de cohorte prospective menée auprès de 14 DE canadiens. Parmi les 11555 patients adultes consécutifs atteints d'un EI présentant des symptômes d'AIT/AVC mineur au cours des 12 dernières années, 9882 ont reçu une imagerie vasculaire et ont été inclus dans l'analyse. Notre principal critère de jugement était la maladie carotide cliniquement significative, définie comme une sténose extracrânienne de la carotide interne à 50 %, une dissection ou un thrombus dans l'artère carotide interne, avec des symptômes contralatéraux. RéSULTATS: Sur 9882 patients, 888 (9,0 %) présentaient une maladie de l'artère carotide cliniquement significative. La régression logistique a été utilisée pour obtenir un modèle réduit à 13 variables. Nous avons simplifié le modèle en un score (Symcard [Symptomatic carotid artery disease] Score), avec des points de coupure suggérés pour la stratification à risque élevé, moyen et faible. Une proportion importante (38,0 %) des patients ont été classés à faible risque, 33,8 % à risque moyen et 28,2 % à risque élevé. Au seuil de faible risque, la sensibilité était de 92,9 %, la spécificité de 41,1 % et le rendement diagnostique de 1,7 %. CONCLUSIONS: Ce score simple permet de prédire la maladie de l'artère carotide chez les patients atteints d'AIT en utilisant des informations facilement disponibles. Il identifie les patients à faible risque qui peuvent reporter l'imagerie vasculaire à un établissement de consultation externe ou de spécialité. Les patients à risque moyen peuvent subir une imagerie immédiatement ou avec un léger délai, selon les ressources locales. Les patients à haut risque doivent subir une imagerie vasculaire urgente.

Benefit of isolated surgical valve repair or replacement for functional tricuspid regurgitation and long-term outcomes stratified by the TRI-SCORE.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is associated with increased mortality rates, but benefit of its correction and ideal timing are not clearly determined. This study aimed to identify patient subsets who might benefit from surgery. METHODS: In TRIGISTRY, an international cohort study of consecutive patients with severe isolated functional TR (33 centers, 10 countries), survival rates up to 10 years were compared between patients who underwent isolated tricuspid valve (TV) surgery (repair or replacement) and those conservatively managed, overall and according to TRI-SCORE category (low: ≤3, intermediate: 4-5, high: ≥6). RESULTS: 1,217 were managed conservatively, and 551 underwent isolated TV surgery (200 repairs, 351 replacements). TRI-SCORE distribution was 33% low, 32% intermediate, and 35% high. At 10 years, survival rates were similar between surgical and conservative management (41% vs. 36%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.08, P=0.57). Surgery improved survival compared to conservative management in the low TRI-SCORE category (72% vs. 44%; HR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.37, P<0.0001), but not in the intermediate (36% vs. 37%, HR 1.17; 95%CI 0.98-1.40, P=0.09) or high categories (20% vs. 24%; HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.91-1.25, P=0.45). Both repair and replacement improved survival in the low TRI-SCORE category (84% and 61% vs. 44%; HR 0.11; 95% CI 0.06-0.19, P<0.0001, and HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.47-0.90, P=0.009). Repair showed benefit in the intermediate category (59% vs. 37%; HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.35-0.68, P<0.0001) while replacement was possibly harmful (25% vs. 37%; HR 1.43; 95% CI 1.18-1.72, P=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Higher survival rates were observed with repair than replacement and benefit of intervention declined as TRI-SCORE increased with no benefit of any type of surgery in the high TRI-SCORE category. These results emphasize the importance of timely intervention and patient selection to achieve the best outcomes and the need for randomized controlled trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRIGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05825898.

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.

Effects of guaranteed basic income interventions on poverty-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs. Objectives: The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes. Search Methods: Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance. Data Collection and Analysis: We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta-analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty-related outcomes were classified into categories and sub-categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results). Main Results: Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross-sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty-related outcomes, including one pre-defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.49, and SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta-analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well-being, self-rated overall physical health, self-rated life satisfaction, and self-rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance. Authors' Conclusions: The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty-related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.

Antithrombotic therapy for durable left ventricular assist devices: protocol for a living systematic review with indirect comparison/network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as a successful treatment option for patients with end-stage heart failure. Compared with the best medical therapy, LVADs improve survival and enhance functional capacity and quality of life. However, two major complications compromise this patient population's outcomes: thrombosis and bleeding. Despite technological innovations and better hemocompatibility, these devices alter the rheology, triggering the coagulation cascade and, therefore, require antithrombotic therapy. Anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapies represent the current standard of care. Still, inconsistency in the literature exists, especially whether antiplatelet therapy is required, whether direct oral anticoagulants can replace vitamin K antagonists and even whether phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors with their antithrombotic effects could be added to the regimen of anticoagulation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a living systematic review with network meta-analysis and indirect comparison between current antithrombotic therapies, which have and have not been directly compared within clinical trials and observational studies. We will systematically search the following electronic sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE). We will exclusively examine studies published in English from 2016 to the present. Studies conducted before 2016 will be omitted since our primary focus is evaluating continuous flow devices. Two independent reviewers will assess the articles by title, abstract and full text; any disagreement will be resolved through discussion, and a third reviewer will be involved if necessary. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. We will then conduct a pairwise meta-analysis; if the assumption of transitivity is satisfied, we will proceed with network meta-analysis using Bayesian methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required as no primary data are collected. This systematic review and network meta-analysis will delineate the risks of stroke, thromboembolic events, pump thrombosis, gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality in patients equipped with LVADs who are subjected to various antithrombotic regimens. The findings will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed publication and presented at conference meetings. This will enhance clinical practice and guide future research on anticoagulation strategies within this distinct patient cohort. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023465288.

Prognostic Implications of Residual Tricuspid Regurgitation Grading After Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair.

BACKGROUND: The safety profile of transcatheter tricuspid valve (TTV) repair techniques is well established, but residual tricuspid regurgitation (TR) remains a concern. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess the impact of residual TR severity post-TTV repair on survival. METHODS: We evaluated the survival rate at 2 years of 613 patients with severe isolated functional TR who underwent TTV repair in TRIGISTRY according to the severity of residual TR at discharge using a 3-grade (mild, moderate, and severe) or 4-grade scheme (mild, mild to moderate, moderate to severe, and severe). RESULTS: Residual TR was none/mild in 33%, moderate in 52%, and severe in 15%. The 2-year adjusted survival rates significantly differed between the 3 groups (85%, 70%, and 44%, respectively; restricted mean survival time [RMST]: P = 0.0001). When the 319 patients with moderate residual TR were subdivided into mild to moderate (n = 201, 33%) and moderate to severe (n = 118, 19%), the adjusted survival rate was also significantly different between groups (85%, 80%, 55%, and 44%, respectively; RMST: P = 0.001). Survival was significantly lower in patients with moderate to severe residual TR compared to patients with mild to moderate residual TR (P = 0.006). No difference in survival rates was observed between patients with no/mild and mild to moderate residual TR (P = 0.67) or between patients with moderate to severe and severe residual TR (P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: The moderate residual TR group was heterogeneous and encompassed patients with markedly different clinical outcomes. Refining TR grade classification with a more granular 4-grade scheme improved outcome prediction. Our results highlight the importance of achieving a mild to moderate or lower residual TR grade during TTV repair, which could define a successful intervention.

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.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

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.

High-power short-duration versus low-power long-duration ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: A substudy of the AWARE randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary vein isolations (PVI) are being performed using a high-power, short-duration (HPSD) strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of an HPSD versus low-power, long-duration (LPLD) approach to PVI in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Patients were grouped according to a HPSD (≥40 W) or LPLD (≤35 W) strategy. The primary endpoint was the 1-year recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia lasting ≥30 s, detected using three 14-day ambulatory continuous ECG monitoring. Procedural and safety endpoints were also evaluated. The primary analysis were regression models incorporating propensity scores yielding adjusted relative risk (RRa ) and mean difference (MDa ) estimates. RESULTS: Of the 398 patients included in the AWARE Trial, 173 (43%) underwent HPSD and 225 (57%) LPLD ablation. The distribution of power was 50 W in 75%, 45 W in 20%, and 40 W in 5% in the HPSD group, and 35 W with 25 W on the posterior wall in the LPLD group. The primary outcome was not statistically significant at 30.1% versus 22.2% in HPSD and LPLD groups with RRa 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.55-1.10; p = .165). The secondary outcome of repeat catheter ablation was not statistically significant at 6.9% and 9.8% (RRa 1.59 [95% CI 0.77-3.30]; p = .208) respectively, nor was the incidence of any ECG documented AF during the blanking period: 1.7% versus 8.0% (RRa 3.95 [95% CI 1.00-15.61; p = .049) in the HPSD versus LPLD group respectively. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in the HPSD group (MDa 97.5 min [95% CI 84.8-110.4)]; p < .0001) with no difference in adjudicated serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An HPSD strategy was associated with significantly shorter procedural times with similar efficacy in terms of clinical arrhythmia recurrence. Importantly, there was no signal for increased harm with a HPSD strategy.

Objects drawn from haptic perception and vision-based spatial abilities.

Haptic perception is used in the anatomy laboratory with the handling of three-dimensional (3D) prosections, dissections, and synthetic models of anatomical structures. Vision-based spatial ability has been found to correlate with performance on tests of 3D anatomy knowledge in previous studies. The objective was to explore whether haptic-based spatial ability was correlated with vision-based spatial ability. Vision-based spatial ability was measured in a study group of 49 medical graduates with three separate tests: a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Tests in two (MRT A) and three (MRT C) dimensions and a Surface Development Test (SDT). Haptic-based spatial ability was measured using 18 different objects constructed from 10 cubes glued together. Participants were asked to draw these objects from blind haptic perception, and drawings were scored by two independent judges. The maximum score was 24 for each of MRT A and MRT C, 60 for SDT, and 18 for the drawings. The drawing score based on haptic perception [median = 17 (lower quartile = 16, upper quartile = 18)] correlated with MRT A [14 (9, 17)], MRT C [9 (7, 12)] and SDT [44 (36, 52)] scores with a Spearman's rank correlation coefficient of 0.395 (p = 0.0049), 0.507 (p = 0.0002) and 0.606 (p < 0.0001), respectively. Spatial abilities assessed by vision-based tests were correlated with a drawing score based on haptic perception of objects. Future research should investigate the contribution of haptic-based and vision-based spatial abilities on learning 3D anatomy from physical models.

Do barrier dressings reduce cardiac implantable device infection: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (BARRIER-PROTECT).

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures can be associated with serious complications, including infection with significant mortality and morbidity, necessitating removal of the device and prolonged hospitalization. One potential pathophysiological mechanism is pocket contamination at the time of device implantation. Therefore, steps taken to prevent contamination at this stage can potentially reduce CIED infections.The barrier dressing, an adhesive material applied to the skin, has the potential to reduce the colonization of the surgical site with host flora that can predispose to infection. There are a limited number of randomized prospective studies on barrier dressing use during various surgeries, but it has never been systematically studied in CIED implantation. Objectives: Do Barrier Dressings Reduce Cardiac Implantable Device Infection? (BARRIER-PROTECT trial; NCT04591366) is a single-centre, prospective, double-armed, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the use of an intra-operative adhesive barrier dressing to reduce the risk of end-of-procedure pocket swab positivity. We hypothesize that adhesive draping during implant procedures will reduce the risk of contamination from the skin flora. Also, we aim to investigate if the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity can be used as a potential surrogate marker of CIED infection. Methods and Design: Patients undergoing a second or later procedure on the same device pocket (pulse generator change, lead/pocket revision or upgrade) will be enrolled. Eligible and consenting patients will be equally randomized to the use of barrier dressing or not using an automated web-based system. Patients, but not the operator, will be blinded to the arm. The person performing the pocket swabs will also be blinded. The primary endpoint is the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. The main secondary endpoint is the CIED infection rate. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using a barrier adhesive draping on reducing the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. In this study, we are exploring a low-cost intervention that may significantly reduce CIED infection. Also, having a valid surrogate marker for CIED infection at the time of implant will facilitate design of future clinical trials.

The Canadian Study of Arterial Inflammation in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Vascular Events, Evaluation of Colchicine Effectiveness (CADENCE): protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is a key mediator in the development and progression of the atherosclerotic disease process as well as its resultant complications, like myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and cardiovascular (CV) death, and is emerging as a novel treatment target. Trials involving anti-inflammatory medications have demonstrated outcome benefit in patients with known CV disease. In this regard, colchicine appears to hold great promise. However, there are potential drawbacks to colchicine use, as some studies have identified an increased risk of infection, and a non-significant trend for increased all-cause mortality. Thus, a more thorough understanding of the underlying mechanism of action of colchicine is needed to enable a better patient selection for this novel CV therapy. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the Canadian Study of Arterial Inflammation in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Vascular Events, Evaluation of Colchicine Effectiveness (CADENCE) trial is to assess the effect of colchicine on vascular inflammation in the carotid arteries and ascending aorta measured with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or pre-diabetes who have experienced a recent vascular event (acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke). Secondary objectives include determining colchicine's effect on inflammatory biomarkers (high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6)). Additionally, we will assess if baseline inflammation imaging or biomarkers are associated with a treatment response to colchicine determined by imaging. Exploratory objectives will look at: (1) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in patients with coronary events compared with patients with cerebral events; (2) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in different vascular beds; (3) the relationship of FDG-PET imaging markers with serum biomarkers and (4) assessment of quality-of-life changes. METHODS AND DESIGN: CADENCE is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to determine the effect of colchicine on arterial inflammation as assessed with imaging and circulatory biomarkers, specifically carotid arteries and aortic FDG uptake as well as hs-CRP and IL-6 among others. Patients with T2DM or pre-diabetes who have recently experienced a CV event (within 30-120 days after an ACS (ie, ST-elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI)) or TIA/stroke with documented large vessel atherosclerotic disease will be randomised to treatment with either colchicine 0.6 mg oral daily or placebo. Participants will undergo baseline clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan of the ascending aorta and left and right carotid arteries. Patients will undergo treatment for 6 months and have repeat clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan at the conclusion of the study. The primary outcome will be the change in the maximum target to background ratio (TBRmax) in the ascending aorta (or carotid arteries) from baseline to follow-up on FDG PET/CT imaging. DISCUSSION: Colchicine is an exciting potential new therapy for CV risk reduction. However, its use is associated with side effects and greater understanding of its underlying mechanism of action is needed. Importantly, the current study will determine whether its anti-inflammatory action is an indirect systemic effect, or a more local plaque action that decreases inflammation. The results will also help identify patients who will benefit most from such therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04181996.

Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon.

BACKGROUND: Raynaud's phenomenon is a vasodilatory phenomenon characterised by digital pallor, cyanosis, and pain of the extremities. Primary Raynaud's phenomenon has no underlying disease associated with it, while secondary Raynaud's phenomenon is associated with connective tissue disorders such as systemic sclerosis. Systemic sclerosis causes fibrosis and commonly affects the skin and internal organs such as the gastrointestinal tract, lungs, kidney, and heart. Phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i) are a class of drugs that increases blood flow to the extremities and may be beneficial in the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of PDE5i compared to placebo for the treatment of Raynaud's phenomenon. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and clinical trial registries up to June 2022. We did not apply any language restrictions. We searched the bibliographies of retrieved articles and contacted key experts in the field for additional and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PDE5i to placebo in people with primary and secondary Raynaud's phenomenon. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: This review included nine RCTs which ranged in duration from four to eight weeks and included a total of 411 participants. The majority had Raynaud's phenomenon secondary to systemic sclerosis. Tadalafil was assessed in four studies, sildenafil in three studies, vardenafil in one study, and a new PDE5 inhibitor known as "PF-00489791" in one study. Three studies were parallel design and six studies were cross-over. The frequency of attacks per week was 24 with placebo and PDE5i reduced the frequency of attacks by an average of three attacks per week (mean difference (MD) -3.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.15 to -1.00; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). The duration of attacks per day was 55 minutes with placebo and PDE5i reduced the duration of attacks by an average of five minutes (MD -5.31, 95% CI -8.90 to -1.71; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence from one study with eight participants showed severity of Raynaud's attacks (assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating less severity) was 20% lower with a PDE5i (3.7 with placebo compared to 1.6 with treatment; MD -2.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 1.4; very low-certainty evidence). Pain and patient global assessment were assessed on a 10 cm visual analogue scale with lower scores indicating improvement. Low-certainty evidence showed that the use of PDE5i may result in little to no difference compared to placebo in reducing the average pain of Raynaud's attacks (3 to 2.9; MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.57; 4 studies). Global scores were 36% lower with the use of a PDE5i compared to placebo (9.2 to 5.6; MD -3.59, 95% CI -4.45 to -2.73; 1 study, 24 participants; low-certainty evidence). The rate of withdrawals during treatment with PDE5i ranged from 4% to 20% compared with 2% in the placebo group in five studies. Four studies reported no withdrawals due to adverse events. Seven studies reported no serious adverse events. The rate of serious adverse events reported in two studies ranged from 2% during treatment to 4% with placebo. The majority of the studies were judged as low or unclear risk of bias for selection, performance, and detection bias. Almost half were judged at high risk of attrition bias and unclear risk for selective reporting bias. We downgraded frequency of attacks, duration of attacks, pain intensity, and patient global assessment for small sample sizes and concerns about inconsistency and graded each as low certainty of evidence. We downgraded severity of attacks to very low certainty due to serious concerns about imprecision and publication bias. We downgraded withdrawals due to adverse events and serious adverse events to moderate certainty of evidence due to a low number of reported events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low-certainty evidence, PDE5i may reduce the frequency of attacks of Raynaud's phenomenon by a small amount per week, result in a small reduction in the duration of attack, improve patients' global assessment of their disease, and result in little to no difference in pain. PDE5i probably result in little or no difference in serious adverse events but slightly increase the likelihood of withdrawing from treatment due to an adverse event.

Cardiac PET Myocardial Blood Flow Quantification Assessment of Early Cardiac Allograft Vasculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Positron emission tomography (PET) has demonstrated utility for diagnostic and prognostic assessment of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) but has not been evaluated in the first year after transplant. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate CAV at 1 year by PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification. METHODS: Adults at 2 institutions enrolled between January 2018 and March 2021 underwent prospective 3-month (baseline) and 12-month (follow-up) post-transplant PET, endomyocardial biopsy, and intravascular ultrasound examination. Epicardial CAV was assessed by intravascular ultrasound percent intimal volume (PIV) and microvascular CAV by endomyocardial biopsy. RESULTS: A total of 136 PET studies from 74 patients were analyzed. At 12 months, median PIV increased 5.6% (95% CI: 3.6%-7.1%) with no change in microvascular CAV incidence (baseline: 31% vs follow-up: 38%; P = 0.406) and persistent microvascular disease in 13% of patients. Median capillary density increased 30 capillaries/mm2 (95% CI: -6 to 79 capillaries/mm2). PET myocardial flow reserve (2.5 ± 0.7 vs 2.9 ± 0.8; P = 0.001) and stress MBF (2.7 ± 0.6 vs 2.9 ± 0.6; P = 0.008) increased, and coronary vascular resistance (CVR) (49 ± 13 vs 47 ± 11; P = 0.214) was unchanged. At 12 months, PET and PIV had modest correlation (stress MBF: r = -0.35; CVR: r = 0.33), with lower stress MBF and higher CVR across increasing PIV tertiles (all P < 0.05). Receiver-operating characteristic curves for CAV defined by upper-tertile PIV showed areas under the curve of 0.74 for stress MBF and 0.73 for CVR. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-year post-transplant PET MBF is associated with epicardial CAV, supporting potential use for early noninvasive CAV assessment. (Early Post Transplant Cardiac Allograft Vasculopahty [ECAV]; NCT03217786).

Arterial Age and Early Vascular Aging, But Not Chronological Age, Are Associated With Faster Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Growth.

Background Aneurysm size is an imperfect risk assessment tool for those with thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA). Assessing arterial age may help TAA risk stratification, as it better reflects aortic health. We sought to evaluate arterial age as a predictor of faster TAA growth, independently of chronological age. Methods and Results We examined 137 patients with TAA. Arterial age was estimated according to validated equations, using patients' blood pressure and carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity. Aneurysm growth was determined prospectively from available imaging studies. Multivariable linear regression assessed the association of chronological age and arterial age with TAA growth, and multivariable logistic regression assessed associations of chronological and arterial age with the presence of accelerated aneurysm growth (defined as growth>median in the sample). Mean±SD chronological and arterial ages were 62.2±11.3 and 54.2±24.5 years, respectively. Mean baseline TAA size and follow-up time were 45.9±4.0 mm and 4.5±1.9 years, respectively. Median (interquartile range) TAA growth was 0.31 (0.14-0.52) mm/year. Older arterial age (ß±SE for 1 year: 0.004±0.001, P<0.0001) was independently associated with faster TAA growth, while chronological age was not (P=0.083). In logistic regression, each 5-year increase in arterial age was associated with a 23% increase in the odds of accelerated TAA growth (95% CI, 1.085-1.394; P=0.001). Conclusions Arterial age is independently associated with accelerated aneurysm expansion, while chronological age is not. Our results highlight that a noninvasive and inexpensive assessment of arterial age can potentially be useful for TAA risk stratification and disease monitoring as compared with the current clinical standard (chronological age).