Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT versus PET/CT for advanced ovarian cancer staging: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Accurate staging of ovarian cancer is critical to guide optimal management pathways. North American guidelines recommend contrast-enhanced CT as the primary work-up for staging ovarian cancer. This meta-analysis aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT alone to PET/CT for detecting abdominal metastases in patients with a new or suspected diagnosis of ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and the gray literature from inception to October 2022 was performed. Studies with a minimum of 5 patients evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT and/or PET/CT for detecting stage 3 ovarian cancer as defined by a surgical/histopathological reference standard ± clinical follow-up were included. Study, clinical, imaging, and accuracy data for eligible studies were independently acquired by two reviewers. Primary meta-analysis was performed in studies reporting accuracy on a per-patient basis using a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. Risk of bias was evaluated using QUADAS-2. RESULTS: From 3701 citations, 15 studies (918 patients with mean age ranging from 51 to 65 years) were included in the systematic review. Twelve studies evaluated contrast-enhanced CT (6 using a per-patient assessment and 6 using a per-region assessment) and 11 studies evaluated PET/CT (7 using a per-patient assessment and 4 using a per-region assessment). All but one reporting study used consensus reading. Respective sensitivity and specificity values on a per-patient basis were 82% (67-91%, 95% CI) and 72% (59-82%) for contrast-enhanced CT and 87% (75-94%) and 90% (82-95%) for PET/CT. There was no significant difference in sensitivities between modalities (p = 0.29), but PET/CT was significantly more specific than CT (p < 0.01). Presumed variability could not be assessed in any single category due to limited studies using per-patient assessment. Studies were almost entirely low risk for bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced CT demonstrates non-inferior sensitivity compared to PET/CT, although PET/CT may still serve as an alternative and/or supplement to CT alone prior to and/or in lieu of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with ovarian cancer. Future revisions to existing guidelines should consider these results to further refine the individualized pretherapeutic diagnostic pathway.

Meta-analysis: Risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Studies exploring the association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and pancreatic cancer have reported inconsistent results. AIMS: To provide a comprehensive overview of the risk of pancreatic cancer development in patients with IBD. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus and ProQuest from inception to 31 October 2023. We included population-based cohort studies examining the risk of incident pancreatic cancer in adult patients with IBD compared to the non-IBD population. We also retrieved Mendelian randomisation (MR) studies investigating the relationship of IBD with pancreatic cancer risk. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and provided pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We included 13 studies. Among 11 cohort studies, the risk of developing pancreatic cancer increased by 79% in patients with IBD (RR = 1.79 [95% CI: 1.16-2.75]; I2 = 95.7%). Patients either with Crohn's disease (RR = 1.42 [95% CI: 1.24-1.63]) or ulcerative colitis (RR = 1.50 [95% CI: 1.17-1.92]) had increased risk (p for interaction = 0.72). The annual incidence of pancreatic cancer potentially attributable to IBD increased by 55 cases (95% CI: 17-103) per million. Two MR studies demonstrated that genetic liability to IBD was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest a moderate increase in the risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with IBD, which may be further heightened by genetic predisposition to IBD. The increased risk of pancreatic cancer is probably similar in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis.

Integrating large language models in systematic reviews: a framework and case study using ROBINS-I for risk of bias assessment.

Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate and expedite systematic reviews, although the approach to integrate LLMs in the review process is unclear. This study evaluates GPT-4 agreement with human reviewers in assessing the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and proposes a framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews. The case study demonstrated that raw per cent agreement was the highest for the ROBINS-I domain of 'Classification of Intervention'. Kendall agreement coefficient was highest for the domains of 'Participant Selection', 'Missing Data' and 'Measurement of Outcomes', suggesting moderate agreement in these domains. Raw agreement about the overall risk of bias across domains was 61% (Kendall coefficient=0.35). The proposed framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews consists of four domains: rationale for LLM use, protocol (task definition, model selection, prompt engineering, data entry methods, human role and success metrics), execution (iterative revisions to the protocol) and reporting. We identify five basic task types relevant to systematic reviews: selection, extraction, judgement, analysis and narration. Considering the agreement level with a human reviewer in the case study, pairing artificial intelligence with an independent human reviewer remains required.

Comparative Efficacy of Advanced Therapies for Achieving Endoscopic Outcomes in Crohn's Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of advanced therapies for achieving endoscopic outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severely active Crohn's disease. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to August 2, 2023 to identify phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults (≥18 years) with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease treated with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists, etrolizumab, vedolizumab, anti-interleukin (IL)12/23p40, anti-IL23p19, or Janus kinase-1 (JAK1) inhibitors, compared with placebo/active comparator, for induction and/or maintenance of remission and reported endoscopic outcomes. Primary outcome was endoscopic response after induction therapy, and endoscopic remission after maintenance therapy. We performed a random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach, and estimated relative risk (RRs), 95% confidence interval (CI) values, and P score for ranking agents. We used GRADE to ascertain certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 20 RCTs (19 placebo-controlled and 1 head-to-head trial; 5592 patients) were included out of which 12 RCTs reported endoscopic outcomes for the induction phase, 5 reported for the maintenance phase, and 3 reported for both induction and maintenance phases. JAK1 inhibitors (RR, 3·49 [95% CI, 1·48-8·26]) and anti-IL23p19 (RR, 2·30 [95% CI, 1·02-5·18]) agents were more efficacious than etrolizumab (moderate certainty of evidence), and JAK1 inhibitors (RR, 2·34 [95% CI, 1·14-4·80]) were more efficacious than anti-IL12/23p40 agents for inducing endoscopic response (moderate certainty of evidence). JAK1 inhibitors and anti-IL23p19 ranked highest for induction of endoscopic response. There was paucity of RCTs of TNF antagonists reporting endoscopic outcomes with induction therapy. On network meta-analysis of 6 RCTs, all agents except vedolizumab (RR, 1.89 [95% CI, 0.61-5.92]) were effective in maintaining endoscopic remission compared with placebo. TNF antagonists, IL12/23p40, and JAK1 inhibitors were ranked highest. CONCLUSIONS: On network meta-analysis, JAK1 inhibitors and anti-IL23p19 agents may be the most effective among non-TNF-targeting advanced therapies for inducing endoscopic response. Future head-to-head trials will further inform positioning of different therapies for the management of Crohn's disease.

Prognostic Biomarkers in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. METHODS: We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. RESULTS: A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8-35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3-59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96-629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0-6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Causally interpretable meta-analysis: Clearly defined causal effects and two case studies.

Meta-analysis is commonly used to combine results from multiple clinical trials, but traditional meta-analysis methods do not refer explicitly to a population of individuals to whom the results apply and it is not clear how to use their results to assess a treatment's effect for a population of interest. We describe recently-introduced causally interpretable meta-analysis methods and apply their treatment effect estimators to two individual-participant data sets. These estimators transport estimated treatment effects from studies in the meta-analysis to a specified target population using the individuals' potentially effect-modifying covariates. We consider different regression and weighting methods within this approach and compare the results to traditional aggregated-data meta-analysis methods. In our applications, certain versions of the causally interpretable methods performed somewhat better than the traditional methods, but the latter generally did well. The causally interpretable methods offer the most promise when covariates modify treatment effects and our results suggest that traditional methods work well when there is little effect heterogeneity. The causally interpretable approach gives meta-analysis an appealing theoretical framework by relating an estimator directly to a specific population and lays a solid foundation for future developments.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: The Association Between Serum Ustekinumab Trough Concentrations and Treatment Response in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing therapy and monitoring response are integral aspects of inflammatory bowel disease treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether serum ustekinumab trough concentrations during maintenance therapy were associated with ustekinumab treatment response in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. METHODS: A systematic review was performed to March 21, 2022, to identify studies using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library. We included studies that reported the association between serum ustekinumab trough concentrations with clinical or endoscopic remission. Outcome measures were combined across studies using the random-effects model with an odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes of endoscopic and clinical remission. RESULTS: We identified 14 observational studies that were included in the analysis for clinical remission (919 patients, 63% with Crohn's disease) or endoscopic remission (290 patients, all with Crohn's disease). Median ustekinumab trough concentrations were higher amongst individuals achieving clinical remission compared with those not achieving remission (mean difference, 1.6 ug/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-3.01 ug/mL). Furthermore, individuals with median serum trough concentration in the fourth quartile were significantly more likely to achieve clinical (OR, 3.61; 95% CI, 2.11-6.20) but not endoscopic remission (OR, 4.67; 95% CI, 0.86-25.19) compared with those with first quartile median trough concentrations. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this meta-analysis primarily relating to patients with Crohn's disease on maintenance ustekinumab treatment, it appears that there is an association between higher ustekinumab trough concentration and clinical outcomes. Prospective studies are required to determine whether proactive dose adjustments of ustekinumab therapy provides additional clinical benefit.

This meta-analysis of 14 observational studies found an association between better clinical outcomes and higher trough ustekinumab levels for maintenance treatment in inflammatory bowel disease.

How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

Comparative Speed of Early Symptomatic Remission With Advanced Therapies for Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Rapidity of symptom resolution informs treatment choice in patients with moderate-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing early symptomatic remission with approved therapies. METHODS: Through a systematic literature review to December 31, 2022, we identified randomized trials in adult outpatients with moderate-severe UC treated with approved therapies (tumor necrosis factor α antagonists, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, janus kinase inhibitors, or ozanimod), compared with each other or placebo, reporting rates of symptomatic remission (based on partial Mayo score, with resolution of rectal bleeding and near-normalization of stool frequency) at weeks 2, 4, and/or 6. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach and estimated relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval values. RESULTS: On network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was more effective than all agents in achieving symptomatic remission at weeks 2 (range of RR, 2.85-6.27), 4 (range of RR, 1.78-2.37), and 6 (range of RR, 1.84-2.79). Tumor necrosis factor α antagonists and filgotinib, but not ustekinumab and vedolizumab, were more effective than ozanimod in achieving symptomatic remission at week 2, but not at weeks 4 and 6. With approximately 10% placebo-treated patients achieving symptomatic remission at 2 weeks, we estimated 68%, 22%, 23.7%, 23.9%, 22.2%, 18.4%, 15.7%, and 10.9% of upadacitinib-, filgotinib-, infliximab-, adalimumab-, golimumab-, ustekinumab-, vedolizumab-, and ozanimod-treated patients would achieve early symptomatic remission, ustekinumab and vedolizumab achieving rapid remission only in biologic-naïve patients. DISCUSSION: In a systematic review and network meta-analysis, upadacitinib was most effective in achieving early symptomatic remission, whereas ozanimod was relatively slower acting.

First-line Systemic Treatment Options for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Importance: The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective: To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results: This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance: The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

Different meta-analysis methods can change judgements about imprecision of effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: To empirically evaluate five commonly used meta-analysis methods and their impact on imprecision judgements about effect estimates. The two fixed-effect model methods were the inverse variance method based on normal distribution and the Mantel-Haenszel method. The three random-effects model methods were the DerSimonian and Laird, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman and the profile likelihood approaches. DESIGN: Meta-epidemiological study. SETTING: Meta-analyses published between 2007 and 2019 in the 10 general medical journals with the highest impact factors that evaluated a medication or device for chronic medical conditions and included at least 5 randomised trials. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Discordance in the judgements of imprecision of effect estimates based on two definitions: when either boundary of 95% CI of the OR changed by more than 15% or changed in relation to the null. RESULTS: We analysed 88 meta-analyses including 1114 trials with an average of 12.60 trials per meta-analysis and average I2 of 26% (range: 0%-96%). The profile likelihood failed to converge in three meta-analyses (3%). Discordance in imprecision judgements based on the two definitions, respectively, occurred between the fixed normal distribution and fixed Mantel-Haenszel method (8% and 2%), between the DerSimonian and Laird and Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman methods (19% and 10%), between the DerSimonian and Laird and profile likelihood methods (9% and 5%), and between the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman and profile likelihood methods (5% and 13%). Discordance was greater when fewer studies and greater heterogeneity was present. CONCLUSION: Empirical evaluation of studies of chronic medical conditions showed that conclusions about the precision of the estimates of the efficacy of a drug or device frequently changed when different pooling methods were used, particularly when the number of studies within a meta-analysis was small and statistical heterogeneity was substantial. Sensitivity analyses using more than one method may need to be considered in these two scenarios.

Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Clinical Outcomes After Heart Failure Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic, March to October 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and 30-day all-cause readmission and mortality between patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted at 16 hospitals across 3 geographically dispersed US states. The study included 6769 adults (mean age, 74 years; 56% [5033 of 8989] men) with cumulative 8989 HF hospitalizations: 2341 hospitalizations during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 through October 30, 2020) and 6648 in the pre-COVID-19 (October 1, 2018, through February 28, 2020) comparator group. We used Poisson regression, Kaplan-Meier estimates, multivariable logistic, and Cox regression analysis to determine whether prespecified study outcomes varied by time frames. RESULTS: The adjusted 30-day readmission rate decreased from 13.1% (872 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 10.0% (234 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk reduction, 23%; hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.89). Conversely, all-cause mortality increased from 9.7% (645 of 6648) in the pre-COVID-19 period to 11.3% (264 of 2341) in the COVID-19 pandemic period (relative risk increase, 16%; number of admissions needed for one additional death, 62.5; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.39). Despite significant differences in rates of index hospitalization, readmission, and mortality across the study time frames, the disease severity, HF subtypes, and treatment patterns remained unchanged (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this large tristate multicenter cohort study of HF hospitalizations suggest lower rates of index hospitalizations and 30-day readmissions but higher incidence of 30-day mortality with broadly similar use of HF medication, surgical interventions, and devices during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the pre-COVID-19 time frame.

A qualitative evidence synthesis of patient perspectives on migraine treatment features and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify migraine treatment features preferred by patients and treatment outcomes most valued by patients. BACKGROUND: The values and preferences of people living with migraine are critical for both the choice of acute therapy and management approach of migraine. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis. Two reviewers independently selected studies, appraised methodological quality, and undertook a framework synthesis. We developed summary of findings tables following the approach of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research to assess confidence in the findings. RESULTS: Of 1691 candidate references, we included 19 studies (21 publications) involving 459 patients. The studies mostly recruited White women from North America (11 studies) and Europe (8 studies). We identified eight themes encompassing features preferred by patients in a migraine treatment process. Themes described a treatment process that included shared decision-making, a tailored approach, trust in health-care professionals, sharing of knowledge and diversity of treatment options, a holistic approach that does not just address the headache, ease of communication especially for complex treatments, a non-undermining approach, and reciprocity with mutual respect between patient and provider. In terms of the treatment itself, seven themes emerged including patients' preferences for nonpharmacologic treatment, high effectiveness, rapidity of action, long-lasting effect, lower cost and more accessibility, self-management/self-delivery option that increases autonomy, and a mixed preference for abortive versus prophylactic treatments. The treatment outcomes that have high value to patients included maintaining or improving function; avoiding side effects, potential for addiction to medications, and pain reoccurrence; and avoiding non-headache symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sounds. CONCLUSION: Patient values and preferences were individually constructed, varied widely, and could be at odds with conventional medical perspectives and evidence of treatment effects. Considering the availability of numerous treatments for acute migraine, it is necessary that decision-making incorporates patient values and preferences identified in qualitative research. The findings of this qualitative synthesis can be used to facilitate an individually tailored approach, strengthen the patient-health-care system relationship, and guide choices and decisions in the context of a clinical encounter or a clinical practice guideline.

A Bayesian model for combining standardized mean differences and odds ratios in the same meta-analysis.

In meta-analysis practice, researchers frequently face studies that report the same outcome differently, such as a continuous variable (e.g., scores for rating depression) or a binary variable (e.g., counts of patients with depression dichotomized by certain latent and unreported depression scores). For combining these two types of studies in the same analysis, a simple conversion method has been widely used to handle standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). This conventional method uses a linear function connecting the SMD and log OR; it assumes logistic distributions for (latent) continuous measures. However, the normality assumption is more commonly used for continuous measures, and the conventional method may be inaccurate when effect sizes are large or cutoff values for dichotomizing binary events are extreme (leading to rare events). This article proposes a Bayesian hierarchical model to synthesize SMDs and ORs without using the conventional conversion method. This model assumes exact likelihoods for continuous and binary outcome measures, which account for full uncertainties in the synthesized results. We performed simulation studies to compare the performance of the conventional and Bayesian methods in various settings. The Bayesian method generally produced less biased results with smaller mean squared errors and higher coverage probabilities than the conventional method in most cases. Nevertheless, this superior performance depended on the normality assumption for continuous measures; the Bayesian method could lead to nonignorable biases for non-normal data. In addition, we used two case studies to illustrate the proposed Bayesian method in real-world settings.

Thresholds for interpreting the fragility index derived from sample of randomised controlled trials in cardiology: a meta-epidemiologic study.

The fragility index (FI) was proposed as a simplified way to communicate robustness of statistically significant results and their susceptibility to a change of a handful number of events. While this index is intuitive, it is not anchored by a cut-off or a guide for interpretation. We identified cardiovascular trials published in six high impact journals from 2007 to 2021 (500 or more participants and a dichotomous statistically significant primary outcome). We estimated area under curve (AUC) to determine FI value that best predicts whether the treatment effect was precise, defined as adequately powered for a plausible relative risk reduction (RRR) of 25% or 30% or having a CI that is sufficiently narrow to exclude a risk reduction that is too small (close to the null, <0.05). The median FI of 201 included cardiovascular trials was 13 (range 1-172). FI exceeded the number of patients lost to follow-up in 46/201 (22.89%) trials. FI values of 19 and 22 predicted that trials would be precise (powered for RRR of 30% and 25%; respectively, combined with CI that excluded risk reduction <0.05). AUC for meeting these precision criteria was 0.90 (0.86-0.94). In conclusion, FI values that range 19-22 may meet various definitions of precision and can be used as a rule of thumb to suggest that a treatment effect is likely precise and less susceptible to random error. The number of patients lost to follow-up should be presented alongside FI to better illustrate fragility.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Hypercalcemia of Malignancy in Adults.

CONTEXT: Hypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low. CONCLUSION: The evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients' values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations.

Disparities in the Inclusion of Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups and Older Adults in Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Prostate cancer (PCa) is marked by disparities in clinical outcomes by race, ethnicity, and age. Equitable enrollment in clinical trials is fundamental to promoting health equity. Objective: To evaluate disparities in the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority groups and older adults across PCa clinical trials. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify primary trial reports from each database's inception through February 2021. Global incidence in age subgroups and US population-based incidence in racial and ethnic subgroups were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 21 incidence databases respectively. Study Selection: All phase 2/3 randomized PCa clinical trials were eligible for age disparity analyses. Trials recruiting exclusively from the US were eligible for primary racial and ethnic disparity analyses. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment incidence ratios (EIRs), trial proportions (TPs) of participants 65 years or older or members of a racial and ethnic subgroup divided by global incidence in the corresponding age group, or US population-based incidence in the corresponding racial and ethnic subgroup, were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between trial characteristics and EIRs and trends in EIRs during the past 3 decades. Results: Of 9552 participants among trials reporting race, 954 (10.8%) were African American/Black, 80 (1.5%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8518 (78.5) were White. Of 65 US trials, 45 (69.2%) reported race and only 9 (13.8%) reported data on all 5 US racial categories. Of 286 global trials, 75 (26.2%) reported the enrollment proportion of older adults. Outcomes by race and age were reported in 2 (3.1%) and 41 (15.0%) trials, respectively. Black (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) and Hispanic (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) patients were significantly underrepresented in US trials. There was no disparity in older adult representation (TP, 21 143 [71.1%]; EIR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05). The representation of Black patients was lower in larger trials (meta-regression coefficient, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02; P = .002). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that Black and Hispanic men are underrepresented in trials compared with their share of PCa incidence. The representation of Black patients has consistently remained low during the past 2 decades.

A Systematic Review Supporting the Endocrine Society Guidelines: Management of Diabetes and High Risk of Hypoglycemia.

CONTEXT: Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia. METHODS: We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.