Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Corticosteroids for Urticaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Short courses of adjunctive systemic corticosteroids are commonly used to treat acute urticaria and chronic urticaria flares (both with or without mast cell-mediated angioedema), but their benefits and harms are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treating acute urticaria or chronic urticaria flares with versus without systemic corticosteroids. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, and CBM databases from inception to July 8, 2023 for randomized controlled trials of treating urticaria with versus without systemic corticosteroids. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane 2.0 tool. We did random effects meta-analyses of urticaria activity, itch severity and adverse events. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 12 randomized trials enrolling 944 patients. For patients with low or moderate probability (17.5% to 64%) to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improve urticaria activity by a 14% to 15% absolute difference (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, 95%CI 1.43-3.31; Number needed to treat [NNT] 7; Moderate certainty). Among patients with a high chance (95.8%) for urticaria to improve with antihistamines alone, add-on systemic corticosteroids likely improved urticaria activity by a 2.2% absolute difference (NNT, 45; Moderate certainty). Corticosteroids may improve itch severity (OR, 2.44; 95%CI 0.87-6.83; Risk difference, 9%; NNT, 11; Low certainty). Systemic corticosteroids also likely increase adverse events (OR, 2.76; 95%CI 1.00-7.62; Risk difference, 15%; number needed to harm [NNH], 9; Moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Systemic corticosteroids for acute urticaria or chronic urticaria exacerbations likely improve urticaria, depending on antihistamine-responsiveness, but also likely increase adverse effects in approximately 15% more.

Reporting of health equity considerations in vaccine trials for COVID-19: a methodological review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: An emerging body of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 vaccines has served as the evidence base for public health decision-making. While it is recommended that RCTs report results by health equity stratifiers to reduce bias in health care and gaps in research, it is unknown whether this was done in COVID-19 vaccine trials. To critically examine the use of health equity stratifiers in COVID-19 vaccine trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a methodological review of published COVID-19 vaccine trials available in the COVID-19 living Network Meta-Analysis systematic review database through February 8, 2023. Based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework, we examined the following health equity stratifiers: place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, age, disability, features of relationships, and temporary situations. We assessed each study in duplicate according to three criteria for comprehensive health-equity reporting: 1) describing participants, 2) reporting equity-relevant results, and 3) discussing equity-relevant implications of trial findings. RESULTS: We reviewed 144 trial manuscripts. The most frequently used PROGRESS-Plus stratifiers to describe participants were age (100%), place of residence (100%), gender/sex (99%), and race/ethnicity (64%). Age was most often used to disaggregate or adjust results (67%), followed by gender or sex (35%). Discussions of equity-relevant implications often indicated limited generalizability of results concerning age (40% of studies). Half (47%) of the studies considered at least one health equity stratifier for all three criteria. No trials included stratifiers related to religion, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or features of relationships. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccine trials provided a limited description of health equity stratifiers as defined by PROGRESS-Plus and infrequently disaggregated results or discussed the study implications as they related to health equity. Considering the health disparities exacerbated during the pandemic, increased uptake of PROGRESS-Plus in RCTs would support a more nuanced understanding of health disparities and better inform actions to improve health equity.

Proposed diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of hypophosphatasia in children and adolescents: results from the HPP International Working Group.

Hypophosphatasia (HPP) is a rare inborn error of metabolism that presents variably in both age of onset and severity. HPP is caused by pathogenic variants in the ALPL gene, resulting in low activity of tissue nonspecific alkaline phosphatase (TNSALP). Patients with HPP tend have a similar pattern of elevation of natural substrates that can be used to aid in diagnosis. No formal diagnostic guidelines currently exist for the diagnosis of this condition in children, adolescents, or adults. The International HPP Working Group is a comprised of a multidisciplinary team of experts from Europe and North America who have expertise in the diagnosis and management of patients with HPP. This group reviewed 93 papers through a Medline, Medline In-Process, and Embase search for the terms "HPP" and "hypophosphatasia" between 2005 and 2020 and that explicitly address either the diagnosis of HPP in children, clinical manifestations of HPP in children, or both. Two reviewers independently evaluated each full-text publication for eligibility and studies were included if they were narrative reviews or case series/reports that concerned diagnosis of pediatric HPP or included clinical aspects of patients diagnosed with HPP. This review focused on 15 initial clinical manifestations that were selected by a group of clinical experts.The highest agreement in included literature was for pathogenic or likely pathogenic ALPL variant, elevation of natural substrates, and early loss of primary teeth. The highest prevalence was similar, including these same three parameters and including decreased bone mineral density. Additional parameters had less agreement and were less prevalent. These were organized into three major and six minor criteria, with diagnosis of HPP being made when two major or one major and two minor criteria are present.

The challenge of hypophosphatasia diagnosis in adults: results from the HPP International Working Group Literature Surveillance.

Hypophosphatasia (HPP) is an inborn error of metabolism caused by reduced or absent activity of the tissue non-specific alkaline phosphatase (TNSALP) enzyme, resulting from pathogenic variants in the ALPL gene. Clinical presentation of HPP is highly variable, including lethal and severe forms in neonates and infants, a benign perinatal form, mild forms manifesting in adulthood, and odonto-HPP. Diagnosis of HPP remains a challenge in adults, as signs and symptoms may be mild and non-specific. Disease presentation varies widely; there are no universal signs or symptoms, and the disease often remains underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, particularly by clinicians who are not familiar with this rare disorder. The absence of diagnosis or a delayed diagnosis may prevent optimal management for patients with this condition. Formal guidelines for the diagnosis of adults with HPP do not exist, complicating efforts for consistent diagnosis. To address this issue, the HPP International Working Group selected 119 papers that explicitly address the diagnosis of HPP in adults through a Medline, Medline In-Process, and Embase search for the terms "hypophosphatasia" and "HPP," and evaluated the pooled prevalence of 17 diagnostic characteristics, initially selected by a group of HPP clinical experts, in eligible studies and in patients included in these studies. Six diagnostic findings showed a pooled prevalence value over 50% and were considered for inclusion as major diagnostic criteria. Based on these results and according to discussion and consideration among members of the Working Group, we finally defined four major diagnostic criteria and five minor diagnostic criteria for HPP in adults. Authors suggested the integrated use of the identified major and minor diagnostic criteria, which either includes two major criteria, or one major criterion and two minor criteria, for the diagnosis of HPP in adults.

Hypophosphatasia diagnosis: current state of the art and proposed diagnostic criteria for children and adults.

BACKGROUND: This manuscript provides a summary of the current evidence to support the criteria for diagnosing a child or adult with hypophosphatasia (HPP). The diagnosis of HPP is made on the basis of integrating clinical features, laboratory profile, radiographic features of the condition, and DNA analysis identifying the presence of a pathogenic variant of the tissue nonspecific alkaline phosphatase gene (ALPL). Often, the diagnosis of HPP is significantly delayed in both adults and children, and updated diagnostic criteria are required to keep pace with our evolving understanding regarding the relationship between ALPL genotype and associated HPP clinical features. METHODS: An International Working Group (IWG) on HPP was formed, comprised of a multidisciplinary team of experts from Europe and North America with expertise in the diagnosis and management of patients with HPP. Methodologists (Romina Brignardello-Petersen and Gordon Guyatt) and their team supported the IWG and conducted systematic reviews following the GRADE methodology, and this provided the basis for the recommendations. RESULTS: The IWG completed systematic reviews of the literature, including case reports and expert opinion papers describing the phenotype of patients with HPP. The published data are largely retrospective and include a relatively small number of patients with this rare condition. It is anticipated that further knowledge will lead to improvement in the quality of genotype-phenotype reporting in this condition. CONCLUSION: Following consensus meetings, agreement was reached regarding the major and minor criteria that can assist in establishing a clinical diagnosis of HPP in adults and children.

Compelling evidence from meta-epidemiological studies demonstrates overestimation of effects in randomized trials that fail to optimize randomization and blind patients and outcome assessors.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a systematic survey of meta-epidemiological studies examining the influence of potential risk of bias elements on effect estimates in randomized trials. We included only meta-epidemiological studies that either preserved the clustering of trials within meta-analyses (compared effect estimates between trials with and without the potential risk of bias element within each meta-analysis, then combined across meta-analyses; between-trial comparisons), or preserved the clustering of substudies within trials (compared effect estimates between substudies with and without the element, then combined across trials; within-trial comparisons). Separately for studies based on between- and within-trial comparisons, we extracted ratios of odds ratios (RORs) from each study and combined them using a random-effects model. We made overall inferences and assessed certainty of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, development, and Evaluation and Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. RESULTS: Forty-one meta-epidemiological studies (34 of between-, 7 of within-trial comparisons) proved eligible. Inadequate random sequence generation (ROR 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97) and allocation concealment (ROR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97) probably lead to effect overestimation (moderate certainty). Lack of patients blinding probably overestimates effects for patient-reported outcomes (ROR 0.36, 95% CI 0.28-0.48; moderate certainty). Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in effect overestimation for subjective outcomes (ROR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51-0.93; high certainty). The impact of patients or outcome assessors blinding on other outcomes, and the impact of blinding of health-care providers, data collectors, or data analysts, remain uncertain. Trials stopped early for benefit probably overestimate effects (moderate certainty). Trials with imbalanced cointerventions may overestimate effects, while trials with missing outcome data may underestimate effects (low certainty). Influence of baseline imbalance, compliance, selective reporting, and intention-to-treat analysis remain uncertain. CONCLUSION: Failure to ensure random sequence generation or adequate allocation concealment probably results in modest overestimates of effects. Lack of patients blinding probably leads to substantial overestimates of effects for patient-reported outcomes. Lack of blinding of outcome assessors results in substantial effect overestimation for subjective outcomes. For other elements, though evidence for consistent systematic overestimate of effect remains limited, failure to implement these safeguards may still introduce important bias.

Conduct and reporting of multivariate network meta-analyses: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Combining multivariate and network meta-analysis methods simultaneously in a multivariate network meta-analysis (MVNMA) provides the methodological framework to analyze the largest amount of evidence relevant to decision-makers (i.e., from indirect evidence and correlated outcomes). The objectives of this scoping review were to summarize the characteristics of MVNMAs published in the health sciences literature and map the methodological guidance available for MVNMA. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to 28 August 2023, along with citations of included studies, for quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and articles addressing MVNMA methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible studies. Collected data included bibliographic, methodological, and analytical characteristics of included studies. We reported results as total numbers, frequencies, and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables that were not normally distributed. RESULTS: After screening 1,075 titles and abstracts, and 112 full texts, we included 38 unique studies, of which, 10 were quantitative evidence syntheses that applied MVNMA and 28 were articles addressing MVNMA methods. Among the 10 MVNMAs, the first was published in 2013, four used studies identified from already published systematic reviews, and eight addressed pharmacological interventions, which were the most common interventions. They evaluated interventions for metastatic melanoma, colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, oral hygiene, disruptive behavior disorders, rheumatoid arthritis, narcolepsy, type 2 diabetes, and overactive bladder syndrome. Five MVNMAs analyzed two outcomes simultaneously, and four MVNMAs analyzed three outcomes simultaneously. Among the articles addressing MVNMA methods, the first was published in 2007 and the majority provided methodological frameworks for conducting MVNMAs (26/28, 93%). One study proposed criteria to standardize reporting of MVNMAs and two proposed items relevant to the quality assessment of MVNMAs. Study authors used data from 18 different illnesses to provide illustrative examples within their methodological guidance. CONCLUSIONS: The application of MVNMA in the health sciences literature is uncommon. Many methodological frameworks are published; however, standardization and specific criteria to guide reporting and quality assessment are lacking. This overview of the current landscape may help inform future conduct of MVNMAs and research on MVNMA methods.

How do network meta-analyses address intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence: a systematic survey.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) NMA approach addressed intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence. DESIGN: Systematic survey. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from September 2014 to October 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials with aggregate data NMAs that used the GRADE NMA approach for assessing certainty of evidence. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We documented how reviewers described methods for addressing intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence, how often they rated down for intransitivity and their explanations for rating down. RESULTS: Of the 268 eligible systematic reviews, 44.8% (120/268) mentioned intransitivity when describing methods for assessing the certainty of evidence. Of these, 28.3% (34/120) considered effect modifiers and from this subset, 67.6% (23/34) specified the effect modifiers; however, no systematic review noted how they chose the effect modifiers. 15.0% (18/120) mentioned looking for differences between the direct comparisons that inform the indirect estimate. No review specified a threshold for difference in effect modifiers between the direct comparisons that would lead to rating down for intransitivity. Reviewers noted rating down indirect evidence for intransitivity in 33.1% of systematic reviews, and noted intransitivity for network estimates in 23.0% of reviews. Authors provided an explanation for rating down for intransitivity in 59.6% (31/52) of the cases in which they rated down. Of the 31 in which they provided an explanation, 74.2% (23/31) noted they detected differences in effect modifiers and 67.7% (21/31) specified in what effect modifiers they detected differences. CONCLUSIONS: A third of systematic reviews with NMAs using the GRADE approach rated down for intransitivity. Limitations in reporting of methods to address intransitivity proved considerable. Whether the problem is that reviewers neglected to address rating down for transitivity at all, or whether they did consider but not report, is not clear. At minimum systematic reviews with NMAs need to improve their reporting practices regarding intransitivity; it may well be that they need to improve their practice in transitivity assessment. How to best address intransitivity may remain unclear for many reviewers thus additional GRADE guidance providing practical instructions for addressing intransitivity may be desirable.

How To Read a Network Meta-analysis.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) expands upon traditional meta-analysis by integrating three or more interventions. This allows comparing interventions using evidence from trials that have compared pairs of interventions directly, and indirect evidence through common comparators. We provide an overview of NMA concepts and considerations when interpreting results from a systematic review with a NMA and applying them to clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Network meta-analysis is a statistical tool that allows researchers to compare multiple treatments for a medical condition at once, even when treatments have not been compared to each other in research studies. This mini-review explains how to read a network meta-analysis and apply its results in patient care.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition with multiple systemic treatments and uncertainty regarding their comparative impact on AD outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD systemic treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and GREAT databases from inception to November 29, 2022, for randomized trials addressing systemic treatments and phototherapy for AD. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/e5sna). RESULTS: The 149 included trials (28,686 patients with moderate-to-severe AD) evaluated 75 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, high-dose upadacitinib was among the most effective for 5 of 6 patient-important outcomes; high-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib were among the most effective for 2 outcomes. These Janus kinase inhibitors were among the most harmful in increasing adverse events. With high-certainty evidence, dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab were of intermediate effectiveness and among the safest, modestly increasing conjunctivitis. Low-dose baricitinib was among the least effective. Efficacy and safety of azathioprine, oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, mycophenolate, phototherapy, and many novel agents are less certain. CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with moderate-to-severe AD, high-certainty evidence demonstrates that high-dose upadacitinib is among the most effective in addressing multiple patient-important outcomes, but also is among the most harmful. High-dose abrocitinib and low-dose upadacitinib are effective, but also among the most harmful. Dupilumab, lebrikizumab, and tralokinumab are of intermediate effectiveness and have favorable safety.

GRADE concept 6: a novel application of external indirect evidence into GRADE ratings of evidence certainty in network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We describe how consideration of external evidence may play an important role in judging certainty in the process of establishing the certainty of the evidence. Our example is a network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing treatment for Ebola virus disease, which informed a World Health Organization guideline. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Through Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) project group iterative online, in-person and email discussions, we developed this GRADE concept and obtained approval from the GRADE working group. Using the null as a threshold, we rated our certainty for network estimates in mortality, including consideration of evidence external to the NMA (i.e., did not meet eligibility criteria) and formal logical construction. RESULTS: Based on the existing GRADE guidance, we rated the network estimate for one indirect comparison as low certainty. The formal logical construction that lead us reevaluate the certainty of the evidence is as follows: if A is superior to B, and B is not inferior to C, then A must be superior to C. After considering the logic and the external indirect evidence, we concluded at least moderate certainty for the comparison. CONCLUSION: Systematic review authors and guideline developers should apply the fundamental logical construction for indirect comparisons and consider compelling external evidence in NMA certainty ratings.

Equity issues rarely addressed in the development of COVID-19 formal recommendations and good practice statements: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To identify COVID-19 actionable statements (e.g., recommendations) focused on specific disadvantaged populations in the living map of COVID-19 recommendations (eCOVIDRecMap) and describe how health equity was assessed in the development of the formal recommendations. METHODS: We employed the place of residence, race or ethnicity or culture, occupation, gender or sex, religion, education, socio-economic status, and social capital-Plus framework to identify statements focused on specific disadvantaged populations. We assessed health equity considerations in the evidence to decision frameworks (EtD) of formal recommendations for certainty of evidence and impact on health equity criteria according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations criteria. RESULTS: We identified 16% (124/758) formal recommendations and 24% (186/819) good practice statements (GPS) that were focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Formal recommendations (40%, 50/124) and GPS (25%, 47/186) most frequently focused on children. Seventy-six percent (94/124) of the recommendations were accompanied with EtDs. Over half (55%, 52/94) of those considered indirectness of the evidence for disadvantaged populations. Considerations in impact on health equity criterion most frequently involved implementation of the recommendation for disadvantaged populations (17%, 16/94). CONCLUSION: Equity issues were rarely explicitly considered in the development COVID-19 formal recommendations focused on specific disadvantaged populations. Guidance is needed to support the consideration of health equity in guideline development during health emergencies.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data. RESULTS: We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations. CONCLUSION: The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Corticosteroids for managing acute pain subsequent to surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are used to manage pain after surgical tooth extractions. The authors assessed the effect of corticosteroids on acute postoperative pain in patients undergoing surgical tooth extractions of mandibular third molars. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors searched the Epistemonikos database, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the US clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception until April 2023. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, then full texts of trials were identified as potentially eligible. After duplicate data abstraction, the authors conducted random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using Version 2 of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and certainty of the evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: Forty randomized controlled trials proved eligible. The evidence suggested that corticosteroids compared with a placebo provided a trivial reduction in pain intensity measured 6 hours (mean difference, 8.79 points lower; 95% CI, 14.8 to 2.77 points lower; low certainty) and 24 hours after surgical tooth extraction (mean difference, 8.89 points lower; 95% CI, 10.71 to 7.06 points lower; very low certainty). The authors found no important difference between corticosteroids and a placebo with regard to incidence of postoperative infection (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -1% to 1%; low certainty) and alveolar osteitis (risk difference, 0%; 95% CI, -3% to 4%; very low certainty). PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Low and very low certainty evidence suggests that there is a trivial difference regarding postoperative pain intensity and adverse effects of corticosteroids administered orally, submucosally, or intramuscularly compared with a placebo in patients undergoing third-molar extractions.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys.

OBJECTIVE: Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus. RESULTS: The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey. CONCLUSION: The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation concept article 5: addressing intransitivity in a network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes considerations for addressing intransitivity when assessing the certainty of the evidence from network meta-analysis (NMA) using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Intransitivity is induced by effect modification, that is, when the magnitude of the effect between an intervention and outcome differs depending on the level of another factor. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To develop this GRADE concept paper, the lead authors conducted iterative discussions, computer simulations, and presentations to the GRADE project group and at GRADE working group meetings. The GRADE Working Group formally approved the article in July 2022. RESULTS: NMA authors can have a higher or a lower threshold to rate down the certainty of the evidence due to intransitivity, which depends on the extent of their concerns regarding the trustworthiness of indirect comparisons, and their view of the relative problems with rating down excessively or insufficiently. NMA authors should consider three main factors when addressing intransitivity: the credibility of effect modification, the strength of the effect modification, and the distribution of effect modifiers across the direct comparisons. To avoid double counting limitations of the evidence, authors should consider the relationship between intransitivity and other GRADE domains. CONCLUSION: NMA authors face theoretic and pragmatic challenges and in most situations need to assess intransitivity without the availability of empirical data. Thus, explicitness regarding perspective is crucial.

Effect of low dose denosumab on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis after a transition from 60 mg dose: a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Denosumab is an effective antiresorptive molecule and reduces the risk of fracture in postmenopausal osteoporosis. Cessation of denosumab therapy however is associated with rapid declines in bone mineral density (BMD), rises in bone remodeling, and an increased risk of fracture. We evaluated the effect of low dose denosumab (30 mg every 6 months) on the prevention of bone loss following a switch from standard dose (60 mg of denosumab every 6 months) in a prospective observational study. METHODS: We recruited 114 women 50-90 years of age with postmenopausal osteoporosis at a moderate fracture risk without prior fragility fractures, who had been on denosumab 60 mg every 6 month. These women switched to low dose denosumab 30 mg every 6 months. Mean percentage change in lumbar spine (LS), femoral neck (FN), total hip (TH) and 1/3 distal radius (1/3RAD) BMD at 12 and 24 months were evaluated. Predictors for change in BMD were explored. Subgroup analysis for patients on denosumab 60 mg every 6 months for <3 years and for ≥3 years before switching to low dose denosumab 30 mg was evaluated. RESULTS: At 12 months following a switch from 60 mg to 30 mg of denosumab every 6 months we observed an increase in LS BMD mean percentage change (+2.03%, 95% CI 1.18-2.88, p < 0.001). BMD was stable at the hip and radial sites. Age was found to be a predictor of the mean percentage change in LS BMD for the overall sample. At 24 months, there was a further increase in LS BMD mean percentage change (+3.44%, 95% CI 1.74-5.12, p < 0.001), with stable BMD at other skeletal sites. The 12 month mean BMD percentage change at the LS (p = 0.015), FN (p < 0.001), TH (p < 0.001), and 1/3 RAD (p < 0.001) were found to be predictors of the 24 month mean BMD percentage change. No clinical fractures were reported during 24 months of follow up. CONCLUSION: We observed stable BMD following a switch from denosumab 60 mg every 6 months to 30 mg every 6 months in this prospective observational study conducted in postmenopausal women at a moderate fracture risk.