Methodological and users' surveys on the use of the LILACS database in Cochrane reviews identified desirable improvements to the database.

BACKGROUND: Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) is the main reference database in the region; however, the way in which this resource is used in Cochrane systematic reviews has not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To assess the search methods of Cochrane reviews that used LILACS as a source of information and explore the Cochrane community's perceptions about this resource. METHODS: We identified all Cochrane reviews of interventions published during 2019, which included LILACS as a source of information, and analysed their search methods and also ran a survey through the Cochrane Community. RESULTS: We found 133 Cochrane reviews that reported the full search strategies, identifying heterogeneity in search details. The respondents to our survey highlighted many areas for improvement in the use of LILACS, including the usability of the search platform for this purpose. DISCUSSION: The use and reporting of LILACS in Cochrane reviews demonstrate inconsistencies, as evidenced by the analysis of search reports from systematic reviews and surveys conducted among members of the Cochrane community. CONCLUSION: With better guidance on how LILACS database is structured, information specialists working on Cochrane reviews should be able to make more effective use of this unique resource.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes related to COVID-19 and pregnancy: An overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and pregnancy has rapidly increased since December 2019, making it difficult to make rigorous evidence-based decisions. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence on prognosis of COVID-19 in pregnant women. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used the Living OVerview of Evidence (L·OVE) platform for COVID-19, which continually retrieves studies from 46 data sources (including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, other electronic databases, clinical trials registries, and preprint repositories, among other sources relevant to COVID-19), mapping them into PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) questions. The search covered the period from the inception date of each database to 13 September 2020. We included systematic reviews assessing outcomes of pregnant women with COVID-19 and/or their newborns. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, assessed full texts to select the studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias of each included systematic review. We measured the overlap of primary studies included among the selected systematic reviews by building a matrix of evidence, calculating the corrected covered area, and assessing the level of overlap for every pair of systematic reviews. RESULTS: Our search yielded 1132 references. 52 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria and were included in this overview. Only one review had a low risk of bias, three had an unclear risk of bias, and 48 had a high risk of bias. Most of the included reviews were highly overlapped among each other. In the included reviews, rates of maternal death varied from 0% to 11.1%, admission to intensive care from 2.1% to 28.5%, preterm deliveries before 37 weeks from 14.3% to 61.2%, and cesarean delivery from 48.3% to 100%. Regarding neonatal outcomes, neonatal death varied from 0% to 11.7% and the estimated infection status of the newborn varied between 0% and 11.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Only one of 52 systematic reviews had a low risk of bias. Results were heterogeneous and the overlap of primary studies was frequently very high between pairs of systematic reviews. High-quality evidence syntheses of comparative studies are needed to guide future clinical decisions.

Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor in diabetic macular oedema: scoping review of clinical practice guidelines recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic macular oedema (DME) is a worldwide major cause of low vision and blindness. Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) constitutes an effective treatment. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are synthesis documents that seek to improve patient care. OBJECTIVES: To identify CPGs that make anti-VEGF recommendations for DME and to assess their reporting quality and their considerations when making recommendations. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: CPGs published between December 2009 and December 2019 that make explicit anti-VEGF recommendations in DME. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Sensitive search strategy in Embase, Google Scholar and hand-searching on 165 websites. METHODS: We extracted information from each CPG with a previously piloted sheet. Two independent authors applied theAppraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation tool (AGREE-II) assessment for each CPG. RESULTS: The 21 included CPGs recommend anti-VEGF for DME, but there is a wide variation among the clinical aspects included, such as location of DME, visual acuity required, therapeutical alternatives or discontinuation. Most have a poor quality of reporting based on the AGREE-II tool assessment, especially those developed by ophthalmological societies, those that have an exclusive content about DME, and those where most of their authors disclose conflict of interest (COI) with pharmaceutical industry or where their authors did not report COIs. Pharmaceutical-sponsored CPGs did not use systematic reviews (SRs) to support their recommendations. Very few recommendations consider patient values and preferences, equity, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the CPGs that made recommendations of anti-VEGF for DME have poor quality of reporting, do not use SRs and do not consider patients' values and preferences.

Preoperative education in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines promote preoperative education for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. However, the evidence sustaining these recommendations comes mainly from studies for hip and knee replacement surgery. Little is known about patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. We aimed to map and characterize all the available evidence on preoperative education for patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. METHODS: This study complies with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched eight databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We performed cross-citations and revised the references of included studies. We included studies addressing preoperative education in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery. We did not exclude studies because of the way of delivering education, the agent that provided it, or the content of the preoperative education addressed in the study. Two independent authors screened the articles and extracted the data. The aggregated data are presented in descriptive tables. RESULTS: Of 1596 retrieved records, only 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Four addressed preoperative education on patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery and the remaining 11 addressed a broader population, including patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery but did not provide separate data of them. Two studies reported that preoperative education decreases the length of stay of these patients, another reported that education increased the knowledge of the participants, and the other leaflets were well received by patients. CONCLUSION: This scoping review demonstrates that evidence on preoperative education in foot and ankle surgery is scarce. The available evidence supports the implementation of preoperative education in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery for now. The best method of education and the real impact of this education remain to be determined.

A methodological review finds mismatch between overall and pairwise overlap analysis in a sample of overviews.

OBJECTIVES: Overlap of primary studies is a key methodological challenge for overviews. There are limited reports of methods used to address overlap, and there is no detailed assessment of the corrected covered area (CCA) of a representative sample of overviews. To describe the approaches used to address overlap, and to estimate the overall and pairwise CCA. METHODS: We searched PubMed for overviews published in 2018. Two authors conducted the screening process. We described the strategy used for assessing overlap, and calculated overall and pairwise CCA for each overview. RESULTS: We analyzed a random sample of 30 out of 89 eligible articles. Eleven did not address the overlap. Of the remainder, most frequent strategies were visual assessment and discussion of overlap as a limitation. Median overall CCA among the included overviews was 6.7%. The pairwise analysis showed that 52.8% of SR pairs had slight overlap, while 28.3% had very high overlap. CONCLUSION: Reported strategies for addressing overlap vary considerably among overview authors. The pairwise approach for assessing the CCA revealed highly overlapped pairs of SRs in overviews with overall slight overlap and vice versa. We encourage authors to complement the overall CCA assessment with a pairwise approach.

Key concepts for searching evidence: an introduction for healthcare professionals. / Conceptos clave para la búsqueda de evidencia: una introducción para profesionales de la salud.

The currently abundant bibliography on healthcare can make the search process an exhausting and frustrating experience. For this reason, it is essential to learn the basic concepts of research question formulation, information sources, and search strategies to make this process more efficient and user-friendly. The search strategy is an iterative process that allows the incorporation of tools and terms in the strategy design to optimize evidence retrieval. Each strategy varies according to the questions, the language used, the source of information accessed, and the available tools. This article is part of a methodological series of narrative reviews on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This narrative review describes the essential elements for developing a literature search strategy and identifying the relevant evidence concerning a clinical question through familiar and accessible sources (such as Google and Google Scholar), as well as search interfaces and technical-scientific databases focused on biomedical knowledge (PubMed and The Cochrane Library).

La abundante bibliografía disponible actualmente sobre una determinada temática puede hacer que el proceso de búsqueda se vuelva una experiencia extenuante y frustrante. Por esta razón, resulta necesario tener presente los conceptos básicos sobre formulación de preguntas, fuentes de información y estrategias de búsqueda a fin de hacer más eficaz y amigable a este proceso. La generación de una estrategia de búsqueda es un proceso iterativo que permite incorporar herramientas y términos en el diseño de esta para optimizar la recuperación de evidencia. Cada estrategia variará según la pregunta formulada, el lenguaje utilizado, la fuente de información a la cual se accede y las herramientas utilizadas que se encuentren disponibles en dichas fuentes. Este artículo es parte de una serie metodológica de revisiones narrativas sobre aspectos relacionados con bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es detallar y brindar múltiples herramientas para la búsqueda aplicada al ámbito clínico, analizando paso a paso su formulación y aplicación tanto en fuentes comunes y accesibles (como Google y Google Académico), como en interfaces de búsqueda y bases de datos centradas en conocimiento biomédico de carácter técnico-científico (PubMed y The Cochrane Library).

Introduction to network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis. / Introducción a los metanálisis en red para la síntesis de evidencia.

This article belongs to a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The goal is to present basics concepts concerning the systematics reviews of multiple treatments comparisons with network meta-analysis. For clinical ques-tions with several therapeutic alternatives to be compared, the central question is how to classify or rank their effectiveness (benefit and harm) to choose the best option. The network meta-analysis aims to answer questions related to the effectiveness and safety of comparing multiple treatments by the simultaneous analysis of results raised from direct and indirect comparisons. The network geometry is the general graphical representation of the network meta-analysis and allows to understand and assess the strength of comparisons. The network meta-analysis should check several assumptions to be valid, especially the transitivity assumption, which allows assuming that there are no systematic differences among the included comparisons, except their compared interventions. Thus, it is possible to know the relative therapeutic effectiveness of each pair of interventions included in the network meta-analysis and their ranking in terms of categorization. It has been proposed to use a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach considering the distinctive features of network meta-analysis to assess the certainty of the evidence for each comparison and the ranking of interventions.

Este artículo forma parte de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar conceptos básicos respecto de las revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones múltiples con metanálisis en red. Para las preguntas clínicas en las que hay muchas alternativas terapéuticas que compiten (o se comparan) entre sí. La pregunta central es cómo clasificar u ordenar jerárquicamente su efecto (beneficio y/o daño) para escoger la mejor opción. Los metanálisis en red buscan responder a preguntas relacionadas con la efectividad o seguridad de múltiples tratamientos comparados entre sí, mediante el análisis simultáneo de resultados surgidos tanto de comparaciones directas como de comparaciones indirectas. La geometría de la red (network geometry) es la representación gráfica general de los metanálisis en red y permite comprender e incluso evaluar la fuerza de las comparaciones. Para que un metanálisis de comparaciones múltiples sea válido debe cumplir una serie de supuestos, destacándose el supuesto de transitividad que permite asumir que no hay diferencias sistemáticas entre las comparaciones disponibles, a excepción de las intervenciones comparadas. Así, es posible conocer la efectividad terapéutica relativa entre cualquier par de intervenciones del metanálisis en red y el orden de las intervenciones en términos de su categorización. Se ha propuesto utilizar el modelo Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) modificado en cuanto a las particularidades de los metanálisis en red para valorar la certeza de la evidencia, tanto para cada comparación como para la jerarquización de intervenciones.

Registered trials address questions already answered with high-certainty evidence: A sample of current redundant research.

OBJECTIVE: To identify clinical trials registered later than 2015, that study the effect of an intervention on a primary outcome whose "Certainty of Evidence" (CoE) has already been rated "high" in a Cochrane SR. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched the Cochrane Library for all SRs from 2015. We analyzed SRs of interventions and excluded withdrawn reviews or those with no Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We retrieved the GRADE CoE ratings of each SR's primary outcomes in the SoF tables and identified those rated "high." We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials to identify records of clinical studies that tackled those outcomes and were registered after the date of publication of the respective 2015 SR. RESULTS: We selected 602 SRs. Eighty-one contained a "high" CoE rating on at least one primary outcome, totaling 152 primary outcomes rated "high." We found 39 clinical trials registered for primary outcomes with evidence already rated as "high" in a 2015 Cochrane SR. CONCLUSION: This study shows the existence of clinical trials registered to study primary outcomes whose CoE has already been rated "high" in a Cochrane SR.

Rapid reviews: definitions and uses. / Revisiones rápidas: definiciones y usos.

This article is the first in a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to present rapid reviews, compare them with systematic reviews, and mention how they can be used. Rapid reviews use a methodology like systematic reviews, but through shortcuts applied, they can attain answers in less than six months and with fewer resources. Decision-makers use them in both America and Europe. There is no consensus on which shortcuts have the least impact on the reliability of conclusions, so rapid reviews are heterogeneous. Users of rapid reviews should identify these shortcuts in the methodology and be cautious when interpreting the conclusions, although they generally reach answers concordant with those obtained through a formal systematic review. The principal value of rapid reviews is to respond to health decision-makers needs when the context demands answers in limited time frames.

Este artículo es el primero de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar las revisiones rápidas, compararlas con las revisiones sistemáticas y mencionar su uso actual. Las revisiones rápidas utilizan una metodología similar a las revisiones sistemáticas, pero mediante atajos utilizados en su desarrollo; permiten alcanzar respuestas en menos de seis meses y con menos recursos, por lo que son utilizadas por tomadores de decisiones tanto en América como Europa. No existe consenso sobre cuáles atajos tienen menor impacto en la confiabilidad de las conclusiones, por lo que las revisiones rápidas son heterogéneas entre sí. Los consumidores deben identificar estos atajos en la metodología y ser precavidos en la interpretación de las conclusiones, aunque generalmente alcanzan respuestas concordantes con las obtenidas mediante una revisión sistemática tradicional. Su principal atractivo es ajustarse a las necesidades de los tomadores de decisiones en salud, cuando el contexto exige respuestas en plazos de tiempo acotados.

What you need to know about scoping reviews. / Lo que tienes que saber sobre las revisiones panorámicas.

The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews systematic reviews are the best known, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.

La cantidad creciente de evidencia ha provocado a su vez un aumento en el número de revisiones de la literatura. Existen distintos tipos de revisiones donde las más conocidas son las revisiones sistemáticas, y cada tipo de revisión posee objetivos distintos. La revisión panorámica (o scoping review) es un modelo reciente que busca dar respuestas a preguntas amplias, a la vez que intenta identificar y exponer la evidencia disponible para una pregunta en particular, a través de un método riguroso y reproducible. En las últimas dos décadas se ha discutido cuál es el método más apropiado para realizarlas, siendo la extensión de Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses para Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) la guía de reporte más recientemente incorporada. Este artículo es el quinto de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. Esta revisión tiene como objetivo describir qué son las revisiones panorámicas, identificar sus objetivos, diferenciarlas de otros tipos de revisiones de literatura, y dar algunas consideraciones sobre cómo estas se pueden llevar a cabo.

Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges. / La revisión sistemática viva: nuevos aportes y desafíos.

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic reviews rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.

Este artículo es el segundo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es describir la pertinencia, las consideraciones y los desafíos de las revisiones sistemáticas vivas. La revisión sistemática viva es una propuesta de actualización continua, que conserva el rigor y la calidad metodológica de una revisión sistemática. El modelo vivo es adecuado cuando la revisión busca responder una pregunta prioritaria para la toma de decisiones en salud, la certeza de la evidencia para esa pregunta es baja y es muy probable que surja nueva evidencia al respecto. Para que una revisión sistemática viva sea exitosa debe considerar varios aspectos, por ejemplo: que la búsqueda sea continua y automatizada, que existan criterios de actualización de la revisión, que se evalúe cómo se llevará a cabo la actualización del metanálisis y cómo será el proceso editorial, y que la publicación se amigable, entre otras. Al ser una propuesta relativamente nueva deberá enfrentar múltiples cambios que permitan su mejor funcionamiento, por lo que debemos estar atentos a estos cambios venideros.

Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review. / Macrólidos para el tratamiento de COVID-19: Una revisión sistemática viva.

OBJECTIVE: This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: A living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases. METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.

OBJETIVO: Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DISEÑO: Revisión sistemática viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42020181032 Protocol preprint DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/rvp59.

Embolización de la arteria renal: serie de casos y revisión de la literatura / Renal artery embolization: case series and literature review

Resumen Introducción: La embolización de arteria renal (EAR) es un procedimiento percutáneo que ocluye la arteria renal, con la consecuente isquemia del territorio vascular. Sus indicaciones más comunes son la hematuria y el manejo paliativo en cáncer renal metastásico. A pesar del desarrollo técnico y de la experiencia progresiva, los estudios incluyen un número reducido de pacientes y en nuestro país se revisan casos aislados. Objetivo: Describir la experiencia en el Servicio de Salud Valparaíso San Antonio y revisar la literatura existente. Materiales y Método: Realizamos un estudio descriptivo de los pacientes sometidos a EAR por anemia severa secundaria a hematuria, durante los años 2012 a 2020. Posteriormente, realizamos una revisión de la literatura en PubMed, hasta abril de 2020. Resultados: Incluimos 9 pacientes, 6 (66,7%) hombres y 3 (33,3%) mujeres. La mediana de edad fue de 69 años (RIC = 18). La principal causa de la hematuria fue cáncer renal avanzado (7 pacientes). No hubo complicaciones, y se logró éxito clínico en todos los pacientes. Nuestra búsqueda de literatura arrojó 571 referencias y 24 cumplieron con nuestros criterios de elegibilidad. La edad de los pacientes y las causas subyacentes de hematuria fueron variadas. La menor tasa de éxito clínico fue de 65%, sin embargo, 15 estudios (62,5%) reportaron un éxito igual o mayor al 90%. Seis estudios reportaron más de un 10% de pacientes con alguna complicación. Conclusión: Nuestros resultados y la evidencia revisada muestran que la EAR parece ser segura y eficaz en el manejo de anemia severa secundaria a hematuria.

Introduction: Renal artery embolization (RAE) is a percutaneous procedure that occludes the renal artery, with consequent ischemia of the vascular territory. The most common indications include hematuria and palliation for metastatic renal cancer. Despite technical development and progressive experience, studies include a small number of patients and few cases have been published in our country. Aim: To share our experience at Valparaíso-San Antonio Health Service and to review the existing literature. Materials and Method: We performed a retrospective descriptive review of medical records of patients with severe anemia due to hematuria managed with RAE, between 2012 and 2020. Subsequently, we conducted a literature search in PubMed, from inception until April 2020. Results: We included 9 patients. There were 6 (66.7%) males and 3 (33.3%) females with a median age of 69 years (IQR = 18). Main cause of hematuria was advanced kidney cancer (7 patients). There were no complications and clinical success was achieved in all patients. Our literature search yielded 571 references, 24 met our eligibility criteria. The age of patients and the underlying causes of hematuria were varied. The lowest clinical success rate was 65%, however, 15 studies (62.5%) reported a success equal to or greater than 90%. Six studies reported more than 10% of patients with complications. Conclusión: Our results and the studies reviewed show that RAE appears to be safe and effective in the management of patients with severe anemia due to hematuria.

Revisiones rápidas: definiciones y usos / Rapid reviews: definitions and uses

Este artículo es el primero de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar las revisiones rápidas, compararlas con las revisiones sistemáticas y mencionar su uso actual. Las revisiones rápidas utilizan una metodología similar a las revisiones sistemáticas, pero mediante atajos utilizados en su desarrollo; permiten alcanzar respuestas en menos de seis meses y con menos recursos, por lo que son utilizadas por tomadores de decisiones tanto en América como Europa. No existe consenso sobre cuáles atajos tienen menor impacto en la confiabilidad de las conclusiones, por lo que las revisiones rápidas son heterogéneas entre sí. Los consumidores deben identificar estos atajos en la metodología y ser precavidos en la interpretación de las conclusiones, aunque generalmente alcanzan respuestas concordantes con las obtenidas mediante una revisión sistemática tradicional. Su principal atractivo es ajustarse a las necesidades de los tomadores de decisiones en salud, cuando el contexto exige respuestas en plazos de tiempo acotados.

This article is the first in a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to present rapid reviews, compare them with systematic reviews, and mention how they can be used. Rapid reviews use a methodology like systematic reviews, but through shortcuts applied, they can attain answers in less than six months and with fewer resources. Decision-makers use them in both America and Europe. There is no consensus on which shortcuts have the least impact on the reliability of conclusions, so rapid reviews are heterogeneous. Users of rapid reviews should identify these shortcuts in the methodology and be cautious when interpreting the conclusions, although they generally reach answers concordant with those obtained through a formal systematic review. The principal value of rapid reviews is to respond to health decision-makers' needs when the context demands answers in limited time frames.

Introducción a los metanálisis en red para la síntesis de evidencia / Introduction to network meta-analysis for evidence synthesis

Este artículo forma parte de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar conceptos básicos respecto de las revisiones sistemáticas de intervenciones múltiples con metanálisis en red. Para las preguntas clínicas en las que hay muchas alternativas terapéuticas que compiten (o se comparan) entre sí. La pregunta central es cómo clasificar u ordenar jerárquicamente su efecto (beneficio y/o daño) para escoger la mejor opción. Los metanálisis en red buscan responder a preguntas relacionadas con la efectividad o seguridad de múltiples tratamientos comparados entre sí, mediante el análisis simultáneo de resultados surgidos tanto de comparaciones directas como de comparaciones indirectas. La geometría de la red (network geometry) es la representación gráfica general de los metanálisis en red y permite comprender e incluso evaluar la fuerza de las comparaciones. Para que un metanálisis de comparaciones múltiples sea válido debe cumplir una serie de supuestos, destacándose el supuesto de transitividad que permite asumir que no hay diferencias sistemáticas entre las comparaciones disponibles, a excepción de las intervenciones comparadas. Así, es posible conocer la efectividad terapéutica relativa entre cualquier par de intervenciones del metanálisis en red y el orden de las intervenciones en términos de su categorización. Se ha propuesto utilizar el modelo Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) modificado en cuanto a las particularidades de los metanálisis en red para valorar la certeza de la evidencia, tanto para cada comparación como para la jerarquización de intervenciones.

This article belongs to a collaborative methodological series of narrative reviews about biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. The goal is to present basics concepts concerning the systematics reviews of multiple treatments comparisons with network meta-analysis. For clinical ques-tions with several therapeutic alternatives to be compared, the central question is how to classify or rank their effectiveness (benefit and harm) to choose the best option. The network meta-analysis aims to answer questions related to the effectiveness and safety of comparing multiple treatments by the simultaneous analysis of results raised from direct and indirect comparisons. The network geometry is the general graphical representation of the network meta-analysis and allows to understand and assess the strength of comparisons. The network meta-analysis should check several assumptions to be valid, especially the transitivity assumption, which allows assuming that there are no systematic differences among the included comparisons, except their compared interventions. Thus, it is possible to know the relative therapeutic effectiveness of each pair of interventions included in the network meta-analysis and their ranking in terms of categorization. It has been proposed to use a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach considering the distinctive features of network meta-analysis to assess the certainty of the evidence for each comparison and the ranking of interventions.

Sobrevida a 5 años de pacientes sometidos a gastrectomía por adenocarcinoma gástrico en el Hospital Naval Almirante Nef entre 2010-2015 / 5-year survival of patients undergoing gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma at Hospital Naval Almirante Nef between 2010-2015

Resumen Introducción: El cáncer gástrico es de los tumores malignos más comunes en el mundo y es de alta prevalencia en Chile. La tasa de mortalidad anual es de 26/100.000 habitantes para hombres y 12/100.000 para mujeres. La cirugía es el tratamiento con mayor probabilidad de curación, prolonga la sobrevida global y libre de enfermedad. La sobrevida global a 5 años reportada a nivel mundial es cercana al 30%. No contamos con datos en la región de Valparaíso sobre la sobrevida en pacientes con cáncer gástrico. Objetivo: Caracterizar a los pacientes operados por adenocarcinoma y estimar su sobrevida a 5 años. Materiales y Método: Realizamos un estudio retrospectivo a partir de la revisión de fichas clínicas de pacientes sometidos a gastrectomía por adenocarcinoma gástrico. La variable principal analizada fue la sobrevida a 5 años. Resultados: Se incluyeron 69 pacientes, el promedio de sobrevida fue de 31,7 (DE 25,3) meses y la sobrevida fue de 46% a 5 años. Encontramos diferencia al comparar grados de compromiso ganglionar según TNM (p = 0,0001). Según estadio se obtuvo un valor P cercano a la significancia estadística (p = 0,083). Otras variables sugieren diferencia en sobrevida sin lograr significancia estadística. Discusión: Presentamos resultados similares a estudios nacionales, posicionándonos con mejores resultados que países de occidente, pero aún muy por debajo de la sobrevida reportada en Japón (> 70%). Conclusión: Logramos caracterizar acabadamente a los pacientes operados por adenocarcinoma, su sobrevida a 5 años, además de apoyar la asociación entre distintos grados de compromiso ganglionar.

Introduction: Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. It is highly prevalent in Chile, with a mortality rate of 26/100,000 inhabitants for men and 12/100,000 for women. Surgical resection remains the treatment of choice, it aims to improve the quality of life and prolong overall survival and disease-free survival. The 5-year survival rate reported worldwide is close to 30%. We do not have data on survival rates in Valparaíso for patients with gastric cancer. Aim: To characterize patients with gastric adenocarcinoma that underwent gastric resection and determine their survival rate at 5 years post gastrectomy. Materials and Method: We performed a retrospective descriptive review of medical records of patients who underwent gastrectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma. The main variable analyzed was the 5-year survival rate. Results: 69 patients were included; the average survival was 31.7 (SD 25.3) months and the survival rate at 5 years was 46%. A difference was found when comparing degrees of lymph node involvement according to TNM (p = 0.0001). Depending on the stage, we obtained a P value close to being statistically significant (p = 0.083). Other variables suggested differences in survival rates without achieving statistical significance. Discussion: We obtained similar results to national studies. We obtained better survival rates than western countries, however our results are still lower than those from Japan (> 70%). Conclusions: We were able to finely characterize patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent gastrectomy, their 5-year survival rate, and also to support association between different degrees of lymph node involvement and survival rates.

La revisión sistemática viva: nuevos aportes y desafíos / Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges

Este artículo es el segundo de una serie metodológica colaborativa de revisiones narrativas sobre temáticas de bioestadística y epidemiología clínica. El objetivo de este trabajo es describir la pertinencia, las consideraciones y los desafíos de las revisiones sistemáticas vivas. La revisión sistemática viva es una propuesta de actualización continua, que conserva el rigor y la calidad metodológica de una revisión sistemática. El modelo vivo es adecuado cuando la revisión busca responder una pregunta prioritaria para la toma de decisiones en salud, la certeza de la evidencia para esa pregunta es baja y es muy probable que surja nueva evidencia al respecto. Para que una revisión sistemática viva sea exitosa debe considerar varios aspectos, por ejemplo: que la búsqueda sea continua y automatizada, que existan criterios de actualización de la revisión, que se evalúe cómo se llevará a cabo la actualización del metanálisis y cómo será el proceso editorial, y que la publicación se amigable, entre otras. Al ser una propuesta relativamente nueva deberá enfrentar múltiples cambios que permitan su mejor funcionamiento, por lo que debemos estar atentos a estos cambios venideros.

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews' relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic review's rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.

Macrólidos para el tratamiento de COVID-19: una revisión sistemática viva / Macrolides for the treatment of COVID-19: a living, systematic review

OBJETIVO Proporcionar un resumen oportuno, riguroso y continuamente actualizado de la evidencia disponible sobre el papel de los macrólidos para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. DIDEÑO Revisión Sistemática Viva. BASE DE DATOS: La búsqueda de evidencia se realizó en el repositorio centralizado L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) COVID-19; una plataforma que mapea las preguntas PICO para identificar la evidencia en la base de datos Epistemonikos. En respuesta a la emergencia de COVID-19, L·OVE se adaptó para ampliar el rango de evidencia que cubre y hoy se mantiene a través de búsquedas regulares en 39 bases de datos. MÉTODOS: Se incluyeron estudios experimentales que evaluaban el efecto de los macrólidos, como monoterapia o en combinación con otros fármacos, versus placebo o ningún tratamiento en pacientes con sospecha o confirmación de COVID-19. Se buscó identificar experimentos clínicos aleatorizados que evaluaran macrólidos en infecciones causadas por otros coronavirus, como MERS-CoV y SARS-CoV. Dos revisores examinaron de forma independiente la elegibilidad de cada estudio, extrajeron los datos y evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo. Se evaluó el efecto de los macrólidos sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas; necesidad de ventilación mecánica invasiva; oxigenación por membrana extracorpórea, duración de la estancia hospitalaria, insuficiencia respiratoria, eventos adversos graves, tiempo hasta la negatividad de la RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2. La certeza de la evidencia para cada desenlace se evaluó siguiendo la aproximación GRADE. Esta revisión se mantendrá viva y disponible abiertamente durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Se someterán actualizaciones de su publicación cada vez que cambien las conclusiones o cuando haya actualizaciones sustanciales. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un experimento clínico aleatorio que evaluó el uso de azitromicina en combinación con hidroxicloroquina en comparación con el uso de hidroxicloroquina sola, en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID 19. Las estimaciones para todos los resultados evaluados resultaron en un poder estadístico insuficiente para llegar a conclusiones válidas. La calidad de la evidencia para los resultados principales fue baja a muy baja. CONCLUSIONES: El uso de macrólidos en el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID 19 no ha mostrado efectos beneficiosos en comparación con el tratamiento estándar. La evidencia para todos los desenlaces no es concluyente. Se necesitan estudios sobre un mayor número de pacientes con COVID 19, para determinar los efectos del uso de macrólidos sobre los desenlaces relacionados con la enfermedad.

OBJECTIVE This living, systematic review aims to provide a timely, rigorous, and continuously updated summary of the evidence available on the role of macrolides for treating patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: a living, systematic review. DATABASE: We conducted searches in the centralized repository L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence). L·OVE is a platform that maps PICO questions to evidence from the Epistemonikos database. In response to the COVID-19 emergency, L·OVE was adapted to expand the range of evidence it covers and customized to group all COVID-19 evidence in one place. Today it is maintained through regular searches in 39 databases.METHODS: We included randomized trials evaluating the effect of macrolides ­ as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs ­ versus placebo or no treatment in patients with COVID-19. Randomized trials evaluating macrolides in infections caused by other coronaviruses, such as MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, and non-randomized studies in COVID-19 were searched in case we found no direct evidence from randomized trials. Two reviewers independently screened each study for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Measures included all-cause mortality; the need for invasive mechanical ventilation; extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, length of hospital stay, respiratory failure, serious adverse events, time to SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negativity. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. A living, web-based version of this review will be openly available during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will resubmit it every time the conclusions change or whenever there are substantial updates. RESULTS: The search in the L·OVE platform retrieved 424 references. We considered 260 as potentially eligible and were reviewed in full texts. We included one randomized clinical trial that evaluated the use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine compared to hydroxychloroquine alone in hospitalized patients with COVID 19. The estimates for all outcomes evaluated resulted in insufficient power to draw conclusions. The quality of the evidence for the main outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Macrolides in the management of patients with COVID 19 showed no beneficial effects compared to standard of care. The evidence for all outcomes is inconclusive. Larger trials are needed to determine the effects of macrolides on pulmonary and other outcomes in COVID-19 patients.