Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 973
Filtrar
1.
BMJ ; 367: l6373, 2019 Dec 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31801749

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To determine associations between important pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to 4 February 2019. Primary, unpublished data from the United Kingdom National Cardiac Arrest Audit database. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: English language studies that investigated pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. DATA EXTRACTION: PROGRESS (prognosis research strategy group) recommendations and the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist were followed. Risk of bias was assessed by using the QUIPS tool (quality in prognosis studies). The primary analysis pooled associations only if they were adjusted for relevant confounders. The GRADE approach (grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation) was used to rate certainty in the evidence. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 23 cohort studies. Of the pre-arrest factors, male sex (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 0.95, moderate certainty), age 60 or older (0.50, 0.40 to 0.62, low certainty), active malignancy (0.57, 0.45 to 0.71, high certainty), and history of chronic kidney disease (0.56, 0.40 to 0.78, high certainty) were associated with reduced odds of survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Of the intra-arrest factors, witnessed arrest (2.71, 2.17 to 3.38, high certainty), monitored arrest (2.23, 1.41 to 3.52, high certainty), arrest during daytime hours (1.41, 1.20 to 1.66, high certainty), and initial shockable rhythm (5.28, 3.78 to 7.39, high certainty) were associated with increased odds of survival. Intubation during arrest (0.54, 0.42 to 0.70, moderate certainty) and duration of resuscitation of at least 15 minutes (0.12, 0.07 to 0.19, high certainty) were associated with reduced odds of survival. CONCLUSION: Moderate to high certainty evidence was found for associations of pre-arrest and intra-arrest prognostic factors with survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018104795.

2.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2019 Nov 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31711912

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Clear communication of systematic review findings will help readers and decision makers. We built on previous work to develop an approach that improves the clarity of statements to convey findings and that draws on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted workshops including 80 attendants and a survey of 110 producers and users of systematic reviews. We calculated acceptability of statements and revised the wording of those that were unacceptable to ≥40% of participants. RESULTS: Most participants agreed statements should be based on size of effect and certainty of evidence. Statements for low, moderate and high certainty evidence were acceptable to >60%. Key guidance, for example, includes statements for high, moderate and low certainty for a large effect on intervention x as: x results in a large reduction…; x likely results in a large reduction…; x may result in a large reduction…, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Producers and users of systematic reviews found statements to communicate findings combining size and certainty of an effect acceptable. This article provides GRADE guidance and a wording template to formulate statements in systematic reviews and other decision tools.

3.
Can J Cardiol ; 2019 Jul 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31735429

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that cardiologists and family doctors have limited accuracy in predicting patient prognosis. Predictive models with satisfactory accuracy for estimating mortality in patients with heart failure (HF) exist; physicians, however, seldom use these models. We evaluated the relative accuracy of physician versus model prediction to estimate 1-year survival in ambulatory patients with HF. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre cross-sectional study involving 150 consecutive ambulatory patients with HF >18 years of age with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%. Each patient's cardiologist and family doctor provided their predicted 1-year survival, and predicted survival scores were calculated using 3 models: HF Meta-Score, Seattle Heart Failure Model (SHFM), and Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic HF (MAGGIC) score. We compared accuracy between physician and model predictions using intraclass correlation (ICC). RESULTS: Median predicted survival by HF cardiologists was lower (median 80%, interquartile range [IQR]: 61%-90%) than that predicted by family physicians (median 90%, IQR 70%-99%, P = 0.08). One-year median survival calculated by the HF Meta-Score (94.6%), SHFM (95.4%), and MAGGIC (88.9%,) proved as high or higher than physician estimates. Agreement among HF cardiologists (ICC 0.28-0.41) and family physicians (ICC 0.43-0.47) when compared with 1-year model-predicted survival scores proved limited, whereas the 3 models agreed well (ICC > 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: HF cardiologists underestimated survival in comparison with family physicians, whereas both physician estimates were lower than calculated model estimates. Our results provide additional evidence of potential inaccuracy of physician survival predictions in ambulatory patients with HF. These results should be validated in longitudinal studies collecting actual survival.

4.
5.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(43): e17647, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31651885

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for the management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Previous meta-analyses of efficacy and harms have combined treatment effects across all opioids; however, specific opioids, pharmacokinetic properties (ie, long acting vs short acting), or the type of formulation (ie, immediate vs extended release) may be a source of heterogeneity for pooled effects. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials evaluating opioids for CNCP. We will acquire eligible studies through systematic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Eligible studies will have randomly allocated adult CNCP patients to an oral or transdermal opioid versus another type of opioid (or formulation) or placebo, and follow patients for ≥ 4 weeks. We will collect outcome data for pain intensity, physical function, nausea, vomiting, and constipation. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, abstract data from eligible trials and assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool. We will assess coherence of our networks through both a global test, and by comparing direct and indirect evidence for each comparison with node-splitting. RESULTS: Using a frequentist approach, we will conduct random effects multiple treatment meta-analysis to establish treatment effects of individual opioids for each outcome. The certainty of evidence for pooled treatment effects will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We will categorize interventions from most to least effective based on the effect estimates obtained from NMAs and their associated certainty of evidence, as follows: superior to both placebo and alternatives; superior to placebo, but inferior to alternatives; and no better than placebo. CONCLUSION: This NMA will determine the relative effectiveness and adverse effects of individual opioids among patients with CNCP. Our results will help inform the appropriateness of assuming similar beneficial and adverse effects of varying opioid formulations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered with Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, an international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration no.: CRD42018110331), available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=110331.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Preparações de Ação Retardada , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa
6.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 117: 46-51, 2019 Oct 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31589954

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary studies and systematic reviews of prognostic factors commonly analyze and report relative measures of association between the factor(s) and outcome(s) of interest. For decision making, however, guideline panelists, systematic reviewers, and health care professionals at the point of care will ultimately need the absolute risk of the outcome(s) in those with and without the prognostic factor(s) of interest. The objective of the study was to develop a framework for calculating the absolute risk of the outcome(s) in those with and without the prognostic factor(s) of interest. METHODS: We developed a mathematical approach to calculate the absolute risk of events from the relative measure of association, the total number of events and patients at risk, and the prevalence of the prognostic factor, all of which are usually reported in cohort studies assessing prognostic factors. We demonstrate how simpler approximations lead to biased estimates of absolute risk and thus the need for these formulas. We explain our logical framework using the simplest case, in which the measure of association is a relative risk, and provide extensions of the formula to odds ratios and hazard ratios. The same formulas can be applied to reports providing only the relative measure of association (e.g., case-control studies) by using external evidence regarding prevalence of the prognostic factor and overall risk of events. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed formulas facilitate accurate calculation of measures of absolute risk in those with and without prognostic factors of interest for studies reporting the total number of events and patients at risk, the prevalence of the prognostic factor and a relative risk, odds ratio, or hazard ratio.

7.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 98(39): e17064, 2019 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31574805

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews have explored the efficacy of treatments on symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a chronic and often disabling condition. Previous network meta-analysis (NMA) had limitations such as focusing on pharmacological or psychotherapies. Our review is aims to explore the relative effectiveness of both pharmacological and psychotherapies and we will establish the differential efficacy of interventions for PTSD in consideration of both symptom reduction and functional recovery. METHODS: We will conduct a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment interventions for PTSD. We will systematically search Medline, PILOT, Embase, CINHAL, AMED, Psychinfo, Health Star, DARE and CENTRAL to identify trials that: (1) enroll adult patients with PTSD, and (2) randomize them to alternative interventions or an intervention and a placebo/sham arm. Independent reviewers will screen trials for eligibility, assess risk of bias using a modified Cochrane instrument, and extract data. Our outcomes of interest include PTSD symptom reduction, quality of life, functional recovery, social and occupational impairment, return to work and all-cause drop outs. RESULTS: We will conduct frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis to assess relative effects of competing interventions. We will use a priori hypotheses to explore heterogeneity between studies, and assess the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. CONCLUSION: This network meta-analysis will determine the comparative effectiveness of therapeutic options for PTSD on both symptom reduction and functional recovery. Our results will be helpful to clinicians and patients with PTSD, by providing a high-quality evidence synthesis to guide shared-care decision making.


Assuntos
Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/terapia , Protocolos Clínicos , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Avaliação da Deficiência , Humanos , Meta-Análise em Rede , Psicoterapia , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Retorno ao Trabalho , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/tratamento farmacológico
8.
BMJ ; 367: l5383, 2019 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31578177

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To estimate benefits and harms of different colorectal cancer screening strategies, stratified by (baseline) 15-year colorectal cancer risk. DESIGN: Microsimulation modelling study using MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis-Colon (MISCAN-Colon). SETTING: A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) defined the time frame and screening interventions, including selection of outcome measures. POPULATION: Norwegian men and women aged 50-79 years with varying 15-year colorectal cancer risk (1-7%). COMPARISONS: Four screening strategies were compared with no screening: biennial or annual faecal immunochemical test (FIT) or single sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy at 100% adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Colorectal cancer mortality and incidence, burdens, and harms over 15 years of follow-up. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Over 15 years of follow-up, screening individuals aged 50-79 at 3% risk of colorectal cancer with annual FIT or single colonoscopy reduced colorectal cancer mortality by 6 per 1000 individuals. Single sigmoidoscopy and biennial FIT reduced it by 5 per 1000 individuals. Colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and annual FIT reduced colorectal cancer incidence by 10, 8, and 4 per 1000 individuals, respectively. The estimated incidence reduction for biennial FIT was 1 per 1000 individuals. Serious harms were estimated to be between 3 per 1000 (biennial FIT) and 5 per 1000 individuals (colonoscopy); harms increased with older age. The absolute benefits of screening increased with increasing colorectal cancer risk, while harms were less affected by baseline risk. Results were sensitive to the setting defined by the guideline panel. Because of uncertainty associated with modelling assumptions, we applied a GRADE rating of low certainty evidence to all estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 15 year period, all screening strategies may reduce colorectal cancer mortality to a similar extent. Colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy may also reduce colorectal cancer incidence, while FIT shows a smaller incidence reduction. Harms are rare and of similar magnitude for all screening strategies.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Modelos Estatísticos , Idoso , Colonoscopia/efeitos adversos , Colonoscopia/normas , Colonoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Colorretais/epidemiologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Programas de Rastreamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Noruega/epidemiologia , Sangue Oculto , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados (Cuidados de Saúde)/estatística & dados numéricos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Sigmoidoscopia/efeitos adversos , Sigmoidoscopia/normas , Sigmoidoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Análise de Sobrevida
9.
BMJ ; 367: l5515, 2019 Oct 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31578196

RESUMO

CLINICAL QUESTION: Recent 15-year updates of sigmoidoscopy screening trials provide new evidence on the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening. Prompted by the new evidence, we asked: "Does colorectal cancer screening make an important difference to health outcomes in individuals initiating screening at age 50 to 79? And which screening option is best?" CURRENT PRACTICE: Numerous guidelines recommend screening, but vary on recommended test, age and screening frequency. This guideline looks at the evidence and makes recommendations on screening for four screening options: faecal immunochemical test (FIT) every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations apply to adults aged 50-79 years with no prior screening, no symptoms of colorectal cancer, and a life expectancy of at least 15 years. For individuals with an estimated 15-year colorectal cancer risk below 3%, we suggest no screening (weak recommendation). For individuals with an estimated 15-year risk above 3%, we suggest screening with one of the four screening options: FIT every year, FIT every two years, a single sigmoidoscopy, or a single colonoscopy (weak recommendation). With our guidance we publish the linked research, a graphic of the absolute harms and benefits, a clear description of how we reached our value judgments, and linked decision aids. HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED: A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, content experts and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. A linked systematic review of colorectal cancer screening trials and microsimulation modelling were performed to inform the panel of 15-year screening benefits and harms. The panel also reviewed each screening option's practical issues and burdens. Based on their own experience, the panel estimated the magnitude of benefit typical members of the population would value to opt for screening and used the benefit thresholds to inform their recommendations. THE EVIDENCE: Overall there was substantial uncertainty (low certainty evidence) regarding the 15-year benefits, burdens and harms of screening. Best estimates suggested that all four screening options resulted in similar colorectal cancer mortality reductions. FIT every two years may have little or no effect on cancer incidence over 15 years, while FIT every year, sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy may reduce cancer incidence, although for FIT the incidence reduction is small compared with sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy. Screening related serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events are rare. The magnitude of the benefits is dependent on the individual risk, while harms and burdens are less strongly associated with cancer risk. UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION: Based on benefits, harms, and burdens of screening, the panel inferred that most informed individuals with a 15-year risk of colorectal cancer of 3% or higher are likely to choose screening, and most individuals with a risk of below 3% are likely to decline screening. Given varying values and preferences, optimal care will require shared decision making.


Assuntos
Colonoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Sangue Oculto , Sigmoidoscopia/estatística & dados numéricos , Idoso , Colonoscopia/normas , Neoplasias Colorretais/epidemiologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Programas de Rastreamento/estatística & dados numéricos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados (Cuidados de Saúde)/estatística & dados numéricos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Sigmoidoscopia/normas , Fatores de Tempo
10.
PLoS Med ; 16(10): e1002935, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31613898

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People's Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0-2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process. CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.

11.
Ann Intern Med ; 2019 10 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569236

RESUMO

Background: Few randomized trials have evaluated the effect of reducing red meat intake on clinically important outcomes. Purpose: To summarize the effect of lower versus higher red meat intake on the incidence of cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes in adults. Data Sources: EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest from inception to July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception to April 2019, without language restrictions. Study Selection: Randomized trials (published in any language) comparing diets lower in red meat with diets higher in red meat that differed by a gradient of at least 1 serving per week for 6 months or more. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Data Synthesis: Of 12 eligible trials, a single trial enrolling 48 835 women provided the most credible, though still low-certainty, evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.03], cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.91 to 1.06]), and cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.99 [CI, 0.94 to 1.05]). That trial also provided low- to very-low-certainty evidence that diets lower in red meat may have little or no effect on total cancer mortality (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.89 to 1.01]) and the incidence of cancer, including colorectal cancer (HR, 1.04 [CI, 0.90 to 1.20]) and breast cancer (HR, 0.97 [0.90 to 1.04]). Limitations: There were few trials, most addressing only surrogate outcomes, with heterogeneous comparators and small gradients in red meat consumption between lower versus higher intake groups. Conclusion: Low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence. Primary Funding Source: None (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

12.
Ann Intern Med ; 2019 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569213

RESUMO

Background: Dietary guidelines generally recommend limiting intake of red and processed meat. However, the quality of evidence implicating red and processed meat in adverse health outcomes remains unclear. Purpose: To evaluate the association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, quality of life, and satisfaction with diet among adults. Data Sources: EMBASE (Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), CINAHL (EBSCO), and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019, without language restrictions, as well as bibliographies of relevant articles. Study Selection: Cohort studies with at least 1000 participants that reported an association between unprocessed red or processed meat intake and outcomes of interest. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One investigator assessed certainty of evidence, and the senior investigator confirmed the assessments. Data Synthesis: Of 61 articles reporting on 55 cohorts with more than 4 million participants, none addressed quality of life or satisfaction with diet. Low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in unprocessed red meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small reduction in risk for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and type 2 diabetes. Likewise, low-certainty evidence was found that a reduction in processed meat intake of 3 servings per week is associated with a very small decrease in risk for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, MI, and type 2 diabetes. Limitation: Inadequate adjustment for known confounders, residual confounding due to observational design, and recall bias associated with dietary measurement. Conclusion: The magnitude of association between red and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality and adverse cardiometabolic outcomes is very small, and the evidence is of low certainty. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

13.
Ann Intern Med ; 2019 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569214

RESUMO

Background: Cancer incidence has continuously increased over the past few centuries and represents a major health burden worldwide. Purpose: To evaluate the possible causal relationship between intake of red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Data Sources: Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ProQuest from inception until July 2018 and MEDLINE from inception until April 2019 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Cohort studies that included more than 1000 adults and reported the association between consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat and cancer mortality and incidence. Data Extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias; 1 reviewer evaluated the certainty of evidence, which was confirmed or revised by the senior reviewer. Data Synthesis: Of 118 articles (56 cohorts) with more than 6 million participants, 73 articles were eligible for the dose-response meta-analyses, 30 addressed cancer mortality, and 80 reported cancer incidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that an intake reduction of 3 servings of unprocessed meat per week was associated with a very small reduction in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime. Evidence of low to very low certainty suggested that each intake reduction of 3 servings of processed meat per week was associated with very small decreases in overall cancer mortality over a lifetime; prostate cancer mortality; and incidence of esophageal, colorectal, and breast cancer. Limitation: Limited causal inferences due to residual confounding in observational studies, risk of bias due to limitations in diet assessment and adjustment for confounders, recall bias in dietary assessment, and insufficient data for planned subgroup analyses. Conclusion: The possible absolute effects of red and processed meat consumption on cancer mortality and incidence are very small, and the certainty of evidence is low to very low. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

14.
Ann Intern Med ; 2019 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569217

RESUMO

Background: Studying dietary patterns may provide insights into the potential effects of red and processed meat on health outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of dietary patterns, including different amounts of red or processed meat, on all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, and cancer incidence and mortality. Data Sources: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to April 2019 with no restrictions on year or language. Study Selection: Teams of 2 reviewers independently screened search results and included prospective cohort studies with 1000 or more participants that reported on the association between dietary patterns and health outcomes. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Data Synthesis: Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400 000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300 000 patients. Limitation: Observational studies are prone to residual confounding, and these studies provide low- or very-low-certainty evidence according to the GRADE criteria. Conclusion: Low- or very-low-certainty evidence suggests that dietary patterns with less red and processed meat intake may result in very small reductions in adverse cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42017074074).

15.
Ann Intern Med ; 2019 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569219

RESUMO

Background: A person's meat consumption is often determined by their values and preferences. Purpose: To identify and evaluate evidence addressing health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences Abstracts, International System for Agricultural Science and Technology, and Food Science and Technology Abstracts were searched from inception to July 2018 without language restrictions. Study Selection: Pairs of reviewers independently screened search results and included quantitative and qualitative studies reporting adults' health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data Synthesis: Data were synthesized into narrative form, and summaries were tabulated and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Of 19 172 initial citations, 41 quantitative studies (38 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 5 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) and 13 qualitative studies (10 addressed reasons for meat consumption and 4 addressed willingness to reduce meat consumption) were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen studies reported that omnivores enjoy eating meat, 18 reported that these persons consider meat an essential component of a healthy diet, and 7 reported that they believe they lack the skills needed to prepare satisfactory meals without meat. Omnivores are generally unwilling to change their meat consumption. The certainty of evidence was low for both "reasons for meat consumption" and "willingness to reduce meat consumption in the face of undesirable health effects." Limitation: Limited generalizability of findings to lower-income countries, low-certainty evidence for willingness to reduce meat consumption, and limited applicability to specific types of meat (red and processed meat). Conclusion: Low-certainty evidence suggests that omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects. Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO: CRD42018088854).

16.
Ann Intern Med ; 2019 Oct 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31569235

RESUMO

Description: Dietary guideline recommendations require consideration of the certainty in the evidence, the magnitude of potential benefits and harms, and explicit consideration of people's values and preferences. A set of recommendations on red meat and processed meat consumption was developed on the basis of 5 de novo systematic reviews that considered all of these issues. Methods: The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption. Recommendations: The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Primary Funding Source: None. (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017074074; PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018088854).

17.
18.
Sleep Med Rev ; 48: 101215, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31630016

RESUMO

Growing evidence indicates that insomnia may be associated with mortality. However, these findings have been inconsistent. We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify prospective cohort studies that assessed the association between insomnia disorder/individual insomnia symptoms and the risk of mortality among adults aged ≥18 yrs. We addressed this association using summary hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using random-effects meta-analysis, and the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence. Twenty-nine cohorts including 1,598,628 individuals (55.3% men; mean age 63.7 yrs old) with a median follow-up duration of 10.5 yrs proved eligible. Difficulty falling asleep (DFA) and non-restorative sleep (NRS) were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (DFA: HR = 1.13, 95%CI 1.03 to 1.23, p = 0.009, moderate certainty; NRS: HR = 1.23, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.42, p = 0.003, high certainty) and cardiovascular disease mortality (DFA: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.43; p = 0.04, moderate certainty; NRS: HR = 1.48, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.06, p = 0.02, moderate certainty). Convincing associations between DFA and all-cause mortality were restricted to the mid to older-aged population (moderate credibility). Insomnia disorder, difficulty maintaining sleep, and early morning awakening proved to be unassociated with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality. No insomnia symptoms proved to be associated with cancer-related mortality.

19.
BMJ Open ; 9(9): e030407, 2019 Sep 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31492786

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Timely liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation is important to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated complications. Once a patient is deemed ready to tolerate a mode of partial ventilator assist, clinicians can use one of multiple ventilatory modes. Despite multiple trials, controversy regarding the optimal ventilator mode to facilitate liberation remains. Herein, we report the protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing modes of ventilation to facilitate the liberation of a patient from invasive mechanical ventilation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library from inception to April 2019 for randomised trials that report on critically ill adults who have undergone invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours and have received any mode of assisted invasive mechanical ventilation compared with an alternative mode of assisted ventilation. Outcomes of interest will include: mortality, weaning success, weaning duration, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of stay in the acute care setting and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen in two stages, first titles and abstracts, and then full texts, to identify eligible studies. Independently and in duplicate, two investigators will extract all data, and assess risk of bias in all eligible studies using the Modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Reviewers will resolve disagreement by discussion and consultation with a third reviewer as necessary. Using a frequentist framework, we will perform random-effect network meta-analysis, including all ventilator modes in the same model. We will calculate direct and indirect estimates of treatment effect using a node-splitting procedure and report effect estimates using OR and 95% CI. We will assess certainty in effect estimates using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approval is not necessary. The results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019137786.

20.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol ; 14(11): 1642-1650, 2019 Nov 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31540931

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With expansion of the pool of kidney grafts, through the use of higher-risk donors, and increased attention to donor management strategies, the 1-year graft survival rate is subject to change. It is, therefore, useful to elucidate 1-year graft survival rates by dissecting the characteristics of the low-risk and high-risk kidney transplant cases. The objective of our study was to evaluate factors purported to influence the risk of 1-year graft loss in kidney transplant recipients. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We searched bibliographic databases from 2000 to 2017 and included observational studies that measured the association between donor, recipient, the transplant operation, or early postoperative complications, and 1-year death-censored graft loss. RESULTS: We identified 35 eligible primary studies, with 20 risk factors amenable to meta-analysis. Six factors were associated with graft loss, with moderate to high degree of certainty: donor age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11 per 10-year increase; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.04 to 1.18), extended criteria donors (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.28 to 1.42), deceased donors (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.82), number of HLA mismatches (HR, 1.08 per one mismatch increase; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.09), recipient age (HR, 1.17 per 10-year increase; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.25), and delayed graft function (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.46 to 2.47) as risk factors for 1-year graft loss. Pooled analyses also excluded, with a high degree of certainty, any associations of cold ischemia time, recipient race, pretransplant body mass index, diabetes, and hypertension with 1-year graft loss. CONCLUSIONS: Recipient age, donor age, standard versus extended criteria donor, living versus deceased donor, HLA mismatch, and delayed graft function all predicted 1-year graft survival. The effect of each risk factor is small.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA