Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of the Procedure-specific Risks of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General Abdominal, Colorectal, Upper Gastrointestinal, and Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To provide procedure-specific estimates of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding after abdominal surgery. BACKGROUND: The use of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis represents a trade-off that depends on VTE and bleeding risks that vary between procedures; their magnitude remains uncertain. METHODS: We identified observational studies reporting procedure-specific risks of symptomatic VTE or major bleeding after abdominal surgery, adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up, and estimated cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery, stratified by VTE risk groups, and rated evidence certainty. RESULTS: After eligibility screening, 285 studies (8,048,635 patients) reporting on 40 general abdominal, 36 colorectal, 15 upper gastrointestinal, and 24 hepatopancreatobiliary surgery procedures proved eligible. Evidence certainty proved generally moderate or low for VTE and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk of VTE varied substantially among procedures: in general abdominal surgery from a median of <0.1% in laparoscopic cholecystectomy to a median of 3.7% in open small bowel resection, in colorectal from 0.3% in minimally invasive sigmoid colectomy to 10.0% in emergency open total proctocolectomy, and in upper gastrointestinal/hepatopancreatobiliary from 0.2% in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy to 6.8% in open distal pancreatectomy for cancer. CONCLUSIONS: VTE thromboprophylaxis provides net benefit through VTE reduction with a small increase in bleeding in some procedures (eg, open colectomy and open pancreaticoduodenectomy), whereas the opposite is true in others (eg, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and elective groin hernia repairs). In many procedures, thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding VTE and bleeding.

Mesenchymal stem cells for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central to September 2023 for trials that (1) enrolled patients with chronic pain associated with knee OA, and (2) randomized them to MSC therapy vs. placebo or usual care. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 16 trials (807 participants). At 3-6 months, MSC therapy probably results in little to no difference in pain relief (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.74 cm on a 10 cm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -1.16 to -0.33; minimally important difference [MID] 1.5 cm) or physical functioning (WMD 2.23 points on 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical functioning subscale, 95%CI -0.97 to 5.43; MID 10-points; both moderate certainty). At 12 months, injection of MSCs probably results in little to no difference in pain (WMD -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95%CI -1.69 to 0.24; moderate certainty) and may improve physical functioning (WMD 19.36 points on 100-point SF-36 PF subscale, 95%CI -0.19 to 38.9; low certainty). MSC therapy may increase risk of any adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 2.67, 95%CI 1.19 to 5.99; low certainty) and pain and swelling of the knee joint (RR 1.58, 95%CI 1.04 to 2.38; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular injection of MSCs for chronic knee pain associated with OA probably provides little to no improvement in pain or physical function.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic cancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk of symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in the absence of thromboprophylaxis, following gynecologic cancer surgery. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for observational studies. We also reviewed reference lists of eligible studies and review articles. We performed separate searches for randomized trials addressing effects of thromboprophylaxis and conducted a web-based survey on thromboprophylaxis practice. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational studies enrolling ≥50 adult patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery procedures reporting absolute incidence for at least 1 of the following were included: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding requiring reintervention (including reexploration and angioembolization), bleeding leading to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin <70 g/L. METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated risk of bias of eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors. The GRADE approach was applied to rate evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 188 studies (398,167 patients) reporting on 37 gynecologic cancer surgery procedures. The evidence certainty was generally low to very low. Median symptomatic venous thromboembolism risk (in the absence of prophylaxis) was <1% in 13 of 37 (35%) procedures, 1% to 2% in 11 of 37 (30%), and >2.0% in 13 of 37 (35%). The risks of venous thromboembolism varied from 0.1% in low venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing cervical conization to 33.5% in high venous thromboembolism risk patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. Estimates of bleeding requiring reintervention varied from <0.1% to 1.3%. Median risks of bleeding requiring reintervention were <1% in 22 of 29 (76%) and 1% to 2% in 7 of 29 (24%) procedures. CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism reduction with thromboprophylaxis likely outweighs the increase in bleeding requiring reintervention in many gynecologic cancer procedures (eg, open surgery for ovarian cancer and pelvic exenteration). In some procedures (eg, laparoscopic total hysterectomy without lymphadenectomy), thromboembolism and bleeding risks are similar, and decisions depend on individual risk prediction and values and preferences regarding venous thromboembolism and bleeding.

Risk of thrombosis and bleeding in gynecologic noncancer surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to provide procedure-specific estimates of the risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism and major bleeding in noncancer gynecologic surgeries. DATA SOURCES: We conducted comprehensive searches on Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Furthermore, we performed separate searches for randomized trials that addressed the effects of thromboprophylaxis. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies were observational studies that enrolled ≥50 adult patients who underwent noncancer gynecologic surgery procedures and that reported the absolute incidence of at least 1 of the following: symptomatic pulmonary embolism, symptomatic deep vein thrombosis, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, bleeding that required reintervention (including re-exploration and angioembolization), bleeding that led to transfusion, or postoperative hemoglobin level <70 g/L. METHODS: A teams of 2 reviewers independently assessed eligibility, performed data extraction, and evaluated the risk of bias of the eligible articles. We adjusted the reported estimates for thromboprophylaxis and length of follow-up and used the median value from studies to determine the cumulative incidence at 4 weeks postsurgery stratified by patient venous thromboembolism risk factors and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to rate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 131 studies (1,741,519 patients) that reported venous thromboembolism risk estimates for 50 gynecologic noncancer procedures and bleeding requiring reintervention estimates for 35 procedures. The evidence certainty was generally moderate or low for venous thromboembolism and low or very low for bleeding requiring reintervention. The risk for symptomatic venous thromboembolism varied from a median of <0.1% for several procedures (eg, transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 1.5% for others (eg, minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy, 1.2%-4.6% across patient venous thromboembolism risk groups). Venous thromboembolism risk was <0.5% for 30 (60%) of the procedures; 0.5% to 1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures; and >1.0% for 10 (20%) procedures. The risk for bleeding the require reintervention varied from <0.1% (transvaginal oocyte retrieval) to 4.0% (open myomectomy). The bleeding requiring reintervention risk was <0.5% in 17 (49%) procedures, 0.5% to 1.0% for 12 (34%) procedures, and >1.0% in 6 (17%) procedures. CONCLUSION: The risk for venous thromboembolism in gynecologic noncancer surgery varied between procedures and patients. Venous thromboembolism risks exceeded the bleeding risks only among selected patients and procedures. Although most of the evidence is of low certainty, the results nevertheless provide a compelling rationale for restricting pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis to a minority of patients who undergo gynecologic noncancer procedures.

Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects. RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07). INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc).

The Effectiveness of Virtual and Augmented Reality in Surgical Pain Management: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Satisfactory management of postoperative pain remains challenging. Nonpharmacological modalities such as virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) offer potential benefits and are becoming increasingly popular. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and safety of VR/AR interventions on postoperative pain and recovery. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to July 27, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published in English, evaluating the use of VR/AR interventions for surgical pain relief. Study selection and data extraction were performed by pairs of reviewers independently and in duplicate, and potential risk of bias was determined using the Risk of Bias-version 2 (RoB 2) tool. Our outcomes included pain relief, reduction of anxiety, satisfaction, and adverse effects. Due to substantial heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis without meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: We included 35 trials among 2257 citations, categorized as surgery (n = 12), minor procedures (n = 15), and postoperative physiotherapy (n = 8). Surgical group included various surgeries, with 11 using immersive VR predominantly in the postoperative period, and most reporting no differences in pain, but potential for reduced anxiety and sedation requirements. In the minor procedures group, most studies reported decreased pain and anxiety during the procedural performance. Two studies reported increased heart rate, while 2 others reported better hemodynamic stability. Home-based AR physiotherapy achieved (n = 6) similar pain and functional outcomes after knee replacement, with 1 large study (n = 306) reporting reduction of mean costs by $2745 for provision of 12 weeks physiotherapy. There were some concerns around potential bias for most studies, as the nature of interventions make it challenging to blind assessors and participants. No important adverse effects were noted using VR/AR technology. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs indicates that the use of immersive VR during minor procedures may reduce procedural pain, decrease anxiety, and improve satisfaction. However, small studies, inconsistent effect, and variation in the application of interventions are important limitations. Evidence to support the application of AR/VR for major surgeries is limited and needs to be further investigated. Use of home-based physiotherapy with AR likely has economic advantages, and facilitates virtual care for appropriate patients who can access and use the technology safely.

Predictors for success and failure in international medical graduates: a systematic review of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: International Medical Graduates (IMG) are an essential part of the international physician workforce, and exploring the predictors of success and failure for IMGs could help inform international and national physician labour workforce selection and planning. The objective of this study was to explore predictors for success for selection of IMGs into high stakes postgraduate training positions and practice and not necessarily for informing IMGs. METHODS: We searched 11 databases, including Medline, Embase and LILACS, from inception to February 2022 for studies that explored the predictors of success and failure in IMGs. We reported baseline probability, effect size in relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and absolute probability change for success and failure across six groups of outcomes, including success in qualifying exams, or certificate exams, successful matching into residency, retention in practice, disciplinary actions, and outcomes of IMG clinical practice. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (375,549 participants) reported the association of 93 predictors of success and failure for IMGs. Female sex, English fluency, graduation recency, higher scores in USMLE step 2 and participation in a skill assessment program were associated with success in qualifying exams. Female sex, English fluency, previous internship and results of qualifying exams were associated with success in certification exams. Retention to work in Canada was associated with several factors, including male sex, graduating within the past five years, and completing residency over fellowships. In the UK, IMGs and candidates who attempted PLAB part 1, ≥ 4 times vs. first attempters, and candidates who attempted PLAB part 2, ≥ 3 times vs. first attempters were more likely to be censured in future practice. Patients treated by IMGs had significantly lower mortalities than those treated by US graduates, and patients of IMGs had lower mortalities [OR: 0.82 (95% CI: 0.62, 0.99)] than patients of US citizens who trained abroad. CONCLUSIONS: This study informed factors associated with the success and failure of IMGs and is the first systematic review on this topic, which can inform IMG selection and future studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021252678.

Allergen immunotherapy for atopic dermatitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits and harms.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD, eczema) is driven by a combination of skin barrier defects, immune dysregulation, and extrinsic stimuli such as allergens, irritants, and microbes. The role of environmental allergens (aeroallergens) in triggering AD remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We systematically synthesized evidence regarding the benefits and harms of allergen immunotherapy (AIT) for AD. METHODS: As part of the 2022 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology/American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD Guideline update, we searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Global Resource for Eczema Trials, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 2021 for randomized controlled trials comparing subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT), sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), and/or no AIT (placebo or standard care) for guideline panel-defined patient-important outcomes: AD severity, itch, AD-related quality of life (QoL), flares, and adverse events. Raters independently screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We synthesized intervention effects using frequentist and Bayesian random-effects models. The GRADE approach determined the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three randomized controlled trials including 1957 adult and pediatric patients sensitized primarily to house dust mite showed that add-on SCIT and SLIT have similar relative and absolute effects and likely result in important improvements in AD severity, defined as a 50% reduction in SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.53 [1.31-1.78]; 26% vs 40%, absolute difference 14%) and QoL, defined as an improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index by 4 points or more (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.44 [1.03-2.01]; 39% vs 56%, absolute difference 17%; both outcomes moderate certainty). Both routes of AIT increased adverse events (risk ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.61 [1.44-1.79]; 66% with SCIT vs 41% with placebo; 13% with SLIT vs 8% with placebo; high certainty). AIT's effect on sleep disturbance and eczema flares was very uncertain. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were consistent with the main findings. CONCLUSIONS: SCIT and SLIT to aeroallergens, particularly house dust mite, can similarly and importantly improve AD severity and QoL. SCIT increases adverse effects more than SLIT. These findings support a multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to optimally managing AD.

Lower Versus Higher Exposure to Vasopressor Therapy in Vasodilatory Hypotension: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Balancing the risks of hypotension and vasopressor-associated adverse effects is a daily challenge in ICUs. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the effect of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy on mortality among adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published from inception to October 15, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials of lower versus higher exposure to vasopressor therapy in adult ICU patients with vasodilatory hypotension without language or publication status limits. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality, with seven prespecified subgroups. Secondary outcomes included shorter- and longer-term mortality, use of life-sustaining therapies, vasopressor-related complications, neurologic outcome, and quality of life at longest reported follow-up. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to calculate summary effect measures across individual studies (risk ratio [RR] for dichotomous variables, mean difference for continuous variables, both with 95% CIs). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We registered this review on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021224434). DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 3,403 records retrieved, 68 full-text articles were reviewed and three eligible studies included. Lower exposure to vasopressors probably lowers 90-day mortality but this is based on moderate-certainty evidence, lowered for imprecision (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87-1.02). There was no credible subgroup effect. Lower vasopressor exposure may also decrease the risk of supraventricular arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36-0.86; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with vasodilatory hypotension who are started on vasopressors, moderate-certainty evidence from three randomized trials showed that lower vasopressor exposure probably lowers mortality. However, additional trial data are needed to reach an optimal information size to detect a clinically important 10% relative reduction in mortality with this approach.

Predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose after prescription of opioids for chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Higher doses of opioids, mental health comorbidities, co-prescription of sedatives, lower socioeconomic status and a history of opioid overdose have been reported as risk factors for opioid overdose; however, the magnitude of these associations and their credibility are unclear. We sought to identify predictors of fatal and nonfatal overdose from prescription opioids. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science up to Oct. 30, 2022, for observational studies that explored predictors of opioid overdose after their prescription for chronic pain. We performed random-effects meta-analyses for all predictors reported by 2 or more studies using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (23 963 716 patients) reported the association of 103 predictors with fatal or nonfatal opioid overdose. Moderate- to high-certainty evidence supported large relative associations with history of overdose (OR 5.85, 95% CI 3.78-9.04), higher opioid dose (OR 2.57, 95% CI 2.08-3.18 per 90-mg increment), 3 or more prescribers (OR 4.68, 95% CI 3.57-6.12), 4 or more dispensing pharmacies (OR 4.92, 95% CI 4.35-5.57), prescription of fentanyl (OR 2.80, 95% CI 2.30-3.41), current substance use disorder (OR 2.62, 95% CI 2.09-3.27), any mental health diagnosis (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.73-2.61), depression (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.57-3.14), bipolar disorder (OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.77-2.41) or pancreatitis (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.52-2.64), with absolute risks among patients with the predictor ranging from 2-6 per 1000 for fatal overdose and 4-12 per 1000 for nonfatal overdose. INTERPRETATION: We identified 10 predictors that were strongly associated with opioid overdose. Awareness of these predictors may facilitate shared decision-making regarding prescribing opioids for chronic pain and inform harm-reduction strategies SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vznxj/).

Predictors of Persistent Post-Surgical Pain Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately one in four total knee replacement patients develop persistent pain. Identification of those at higher risk could help inform optimal management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO for observational studies that explored the association between risk factors and persistent pain (≥3 months) after total knee replacement. We pooled estimates of association for all independent variables reported by >1 study. RESULTS: Thirty studies (26,517 patients) reported the association of 151 independent variables with persistent pain after knee replacement. High certainty evidence demonstrated an increased risk of persistent pain with pain catastrophizing (absolute risk increase [ARI] 23%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12 to 35), younger age (ARI for every 10-year decrement from age 80, 4%, 95% CI 2 to 6), and moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain (ARI 30%, 95% CI 20 to 39). Moderate certainty evidence suggested an association with female sex (ARI 7%, 95% CI 3 to 11) and higher pre-operative pain (ARI 35%, 95% CI 7 to 58). Studies did not adjust for both peri-operative pain severity and pain catastrophizing, which are unlikely to be independent. High to moderate certainty evidence demonstrated no association with pre-operative range of motion, body mass index, bilateral or unilateral knee replacement, and American Society of Anesthesiologists score. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorously conducted observational studies are required to establish the relative importance of higher levels of peri-operative pain and pain catastrophizing with persistent pain after knee replacement surgery.

Quality of Reporting Using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study Criteria in Chiropractic Mixed Methods Research: A Methodological Review.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to examine the reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using Good Reporting of A Mixed Methods Study (GRAMMS) criteria. METHODS: In this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from the inception of each database to December 31, 2020, for chiropractic studies reporting the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods or mixed qualitative methods. Pairs of reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text studies, extracted data, and appraised reporting using the GRAMMS criteria and risk of bias with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Generalized estimating equations were used to explore factors associated with reporting using GRAMMS criteria. RESULTS: Of 1040 citations, 55 studies were eligible for review. Thirty-seven of these 55 articles employed either a multistage or convergent mixed methods design, and, on average, 3 of 6 GRAMMS items were reported among included studies. We found a strong positive correlation in scores between the GRAMMS and MMAT instruments (r = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87). In our adjusted analysis, publications in journals indexed in Web of Science (adjusted odds ratio = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.95) were associated with higher reporting using GRAMMS criteria. Three of the 55 studies fully adhered to all 6 GRAMMS criteria, 4 studies adhered to 5 criteria, 10 studies adhered to 4 criteria, and the remaining 38 adhered to 3 criteria or fewer. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that reporting in chiropractic mixed methods research using GRAMMS criteria was poor, particularly among studies with a higher risk of bias.

Bleach baths for atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis including unpublished data, Bayesian interpretation, and GRADE.

BACKGROUND: Bleach bathing is frequently recommended to treat atopic dermatitis (AD), but its efficacy and safety are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To systematically synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing bleach baths for AD. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and GREAT from inception to December 29, 2021, for RCTs assigning patients with AD to bleach vs no bleach baths. Paired reviewers independently and in duplicate screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane version 2) and GRADE quality of evidence. We obtained unpublished data, harmonized individual patient data and did Frequentist and Bayesian random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: There were 10 RCTs that enrolled 307 participants (median of mean age 7.2 years, Eczema Area Severity Index baseline mean of means 27.57 [median SD, 10.74]) for a median of 6 weeks (range, 4-10). We confirmed that other trials registered globally were terminated. Bleach baths probably improve AD severity (22% vs 32% improved Eczema Area Severity Index by 50% [ratio of means 0.78, 95% credible interval 0.59-0.99]; moderate certainty) and may slightly reduce skin Staphylococcal aureus colonization (risk ratio, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.09]; low certainty). Adverse events, mostly dry skin and irritation, along with itch, patient-reported disease severity, sleep quality, quality of life, and risk of AD flares were not clearly different between groups and of low to very low certainty. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe AD, bleach baths probably improve clinician-reported severity by a relative 22%. One in 10 will likely improve severity by 50%. Changes in other patient-important outcomes are uncertain. These findings support optimal eczema care and the need for additional large clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021238486.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors as adjuncts for postoperative pain management: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess effects of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) as adjuncts for postoperative pain management. METHODS: We searched seven databases and two trial registers from inception to February 2021 for RCTs that compared SSRIs or SNRIs with placebo or an active control for postoperative pain management. RESULTS: We included 24 RCTs with 2197 surgical patients (21 trials for SNRIs and three trials for SSRIs). Moderate-quality evidence found that, compared with placebo, SSRIs/SNRIs (majority SNRIs) significantly reduced postoperative pain within 6 h {weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.04 to -0.42)}, 12 h (-0.68 cm [-1.28 to -0.07]), 24 h (-0.68 cm [-1.16 to -0.20]), 48 h (-0.73 cm [-1.22 to -0.23]), 10 days to 1 month (-0.71 cm [-1.11 to -0.31]), 3 months (-0.64 cm [-1.05 to -0.22]), and 6 months (-0.95 cm [-1.64 to -0.25]), and opioid consumption within 24 h (WMD -12 mg [95% CI: -16 to -8]) and 48 h (-10 mg [-15 to -5]), and improved patient satisfaction (WMD 0.49 point on a 1-4 Likert scale [95% CI: 0.09 to 0.89]) without significant increase in adverse events. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors tended to be less effective despite non-significant subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS: Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors as an adjunct to standard perioperative care probably provide small reduction in both acute and chronic postoperative pain and opioid consumption, and small improvement in patient satisfaction without increases in adverse events. The effects of SSRIs are inconclusive because of very limited evidence.

Comparative benefits and harms of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Most systematic reviews of opioids for chronic pain have pooled treatment effects across individual opioids under the assumption they provide similar benefits and harms. We examined the comparative effects of individual opioids for chronic non-cancer pain through a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2021 for studies that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer pain, randomised them to receive different opioids, or opioids vs placebo, and followed them for at least 4 weeks. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified 82 eligible trials (22 619 participants) that evaluated 14 opioids. Compared with placebo, several opioids showed superiority to others for analgesia and improvement in physical function; however, when restricted to pooled-effect estimates supported by moderate certainty evidence, no differences between opioids were evident. Among opioids with moderate certainty evidence, all increased the risk of gastrointestinal adverse events compared with placebo, although no opioids were more harmful than others. Low to very low certainty evidence suggests that extended-release vs immediate-release opioids may provide similar benefits for pain relief and physical functioning, and gastrointestinal harms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the pooling of effect estimates across different types and formulations of opioids to inform effectiveness for chronic non-cancer pain.

Predictors of Prolonged Opioid Use After Initial Prescription for Acute Musculoskeletal Injuries in Adults : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are frequently prescribed for acute musculoskeletal injuries and may result in long-term use and consequent harms. PURPOSE: To explore factors associated with persistent opioid use after its prescription for acute musculoskeletal injury. DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple electronic databases, without language restrictions, from inception to 6 January 2020, and reference lists of selected articles. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies of adults with opioid prescriptions for outpatient acute musculoskeletal injuries, in an adjusted model, that explored risk factors for prolonged use. DATA EXTRACTION: 6 reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data, rated the quality of studies, and evaluated the certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 14 cohorts with 13 263 393 participants were included. The overall prevalence of prolonged opioid use after musculoskeletal injury for high-risk populations (that is, patients receiving workers' compensation benefits, Veterans Affairs claimants, or patients with high rates of concurrent substance use disorder) was 27% (95% CI, 18% to 37%). The prevalence among low-risk populations was 6% (CI, 4% to 8%; P for interaction < 0.001). Moderate-certainty evidence showed increased odds of persistent opioid use with older age (absolute risk increase [ARI] for every 10-year increase, 1.1% [CI, 0.7% to 1.5%]) and physical comorbidity (ARI, 0.9% [CI, 0.1% to 1.7%]). Low-certainty evidence suggested increased risk for persistent opioid use with past or current substance use disorder (ARI, 10.5% [CI, 4.2% to 19.8%]), prescriptions lasting more than 7 days (median ARI, 4.5%), and higher morphine milligram equivalents per day. LIMITATION: Sparse, heterogeneous data with suboptimal adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: Avoiding prescribing opioids for acute musculoskeletal injuries to patients with past or current substance use disorder, and restricting duration to 7 days or less and using lower doses when they are prescribed, are potentially important targets to reduce rates of persistent opioid use. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018104968).

Management of Acute Pain From Non-Low Back, Musculoskeletal Injuries : A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians can choose from several treatment options to address acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of outpatient treatments for acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to 2 January 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Pairs of reviewers independently identified interventional RCTs that enrolled patients presenting with pain of up to 4 weeks' duration from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. DATA EXTRACTION: Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data. Certainty of evidence was evaluated by using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 207 eligible studies included 32 959 participants and evaluated 45 therapies. Ninety-nine trials (48%) enrolled populations with diverse musculoskeletal injuries, 59 (29%) included patients with sprains, 13 (6%) with whiplash, and 11 (5%) with muscle strains; the remaining trials included various injuries ranging from nonsurgical fractures to contusions. Topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) proved to have the greatest net benefit, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac. Effects of these agents on pain were modest (around 1 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, approximating the minimal important difference). Regarding opioids, compared with placebo, acetaminophen plus an opioid improved intermediate pain (1 to 7 days) but not immediate pain (≤2 hours), tramadol was ineffective, and opioids increased the risk for gastrointestinal and neurologic harms (all moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: Only English-language studies were included. The number of head-to-head comparisons was limited. CONCLUSION: Topical NSAIDs, followed by oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen with or without diclofenac, showed the most convincing and attractive benefit-harm ratio for patients with acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries. No opioid achieved benefit greater than that of NSAIDs, and opioids caused the most harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Safety Council. (PROSPERO: CRD42018094412).

Efficacy and safety of convalescent plasma for severe COVID-19 based on evidence in other severe respiratory viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. To support a guideline on COVID-19 management, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 and other severe respiratory viral infections. METHODS: In March 2020, we searched international and Chinese biomedical literature databases, clinical trial registries and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies comparing patients receiving and not receiving convalescent plasma. We included patients with acute coronavirus, influenza and Ebola virus infections. We conducted a meta-analysis using random-effects models and assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Of 1099 unique records, 6 studies were eligible, and none of these included patients with COVID-19. One nonrandomized study (n = 40) on convalescent plasma in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) provided uninformative results regarding mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] CI 0.01 to 1.70). Pooled estimates from 4 RCTs on influenza (n = 572) showed no convincing effects on deaths (4 RCTs, RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81), complete recovery (2 RCTs, odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.64) or length of stay (3 RCTs, mean difference -1.62, 95% CI -3.82 to 0.58, d). The quality of evidence was very low for all efficacy outcomes. Convalescent plasma caused few or no serious adverse events in influenza RCTs (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29, low-quality evidence). INTERPRETATION: Studies of non-COVID-19 severe respiratory viral infections provide indirect, very low-quality evidence that raises the possibility that convalescent plasma has minimal or no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and low-quality evidence that it does not cause serious adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in COVID-19 based on evidence for COVID-19, other coronavirus infections, influenza, community-acquired pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Very little direct evidence exists on use of corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Indirect evidence from related conditions must therefore inform inferences regarding benefits and harms. To support a guideline for managing COVID-19, we conducted systematic reviews examining the impact of corticosteroids in COVID-19 and related severe acute respiratory illnesses. METHODS: We searched standard international and Chinese biomedical literature databases and prepublication sources for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing corticosteroids versus no corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). For acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), influenza and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we updated the most recent rigorous systematic review. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses to pool relative risks and then used baseline risk in patients with COVID-19 to generate absolute effects. RESULTS: In ARDS, according to 1 small cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and 7 RCTs in non-COVID-19 populations (risk ratio [RR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.55 to 0.93, mean difference 17.3% fewer; low-quality evidence), corticosteroids may reduce mortality. In patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, direct evidence from 2 observational studies provided very low-quality evidence of an increase in mortality with corticosteroids (hazard ratio [HR] 2.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 5.29, mean difference 11.9% more), as did observational data from influenza studies. Observational data from SARS and MERS studies provided very low-quality evidence of a small or no reduction in mortality. Randomized controlled trials in CAP suggest that corticosteroids may reduce mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98, 3.1% lower; very low-quality evidence), and may increase hyperglycemia. INTERPRETATION: Corticosteroids may reduce mortality for patients with COVID-19 and ARDS. For patients with severe COVID-19 but without ARDS, evidence regarding benefit from different bodies of evidence is inconsistent and of very low quality.

Efficacy and safety of antiviral treatment for COVID-19 from evidence in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and other acute viral infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral medications are being given empirically to some patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). To support the development of a COVID-19 management guideline, we conducted a systematic review that addressed the benefits and harms of 7 antiviral treatments for COVID-19. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and 3 Chinese databases (CNKI, WANFANG and SinoMed) through Apr. 19, medRxiv and Chinaxiv through Apr. 27, and Chongqing VIP through Apr. 30, 2020. We included studies of ribavirin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, umifenovir (arbidol), favipravir, interferon and lopinavir/ritonavir. If direct evidence from COVID-19 studies was not available, we included indirect evidence from studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) for efficacy outcomes and other acute respiratory viral infections for safety outcomes. RESULTS: In patients with nonsevere COVID-19 illness, the death rate was extremely low, precluding an important effect on mortality. We found only very low-quality evidence with little or no suggestion of benefit for most treatments and outcomes in both nonsevere and severe COVID-19. An exception was treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, for which we found low-quality evidence for a decrease in length of stay in the intensive care unit (risk difference 5 d shorter, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0 to 9 d) and hospital stay (risk difference 1 d shorter, 95% CI 0 to 2 d). For safety outcomes, evidence was of low or very low quality, with the exception of treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir for which moderate-quality evidence suggested likely increases in diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. INTERPRETATION: To date, persuasive evidence of important benefit in COVID-19 does not exist for any antiviral treatments, although for each treatment evidence has not excluded important benefit. Additional randomized controlled trials involving patients with COVID-19 will be needed before such treatments can be administered with confidence.