Alessandro Liberati

Bio: Alessandro Liberati is an academic researcher from University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Breast cancer & Systematic review. The author has an hindex of 46, co-authored 144 publications receiving 167184 citations. Previous affiliations of Alessandro Liberati include Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research & Cochrane Collaboration.

Impact of Follow-up Testing on Survival and Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract: Objective. —To assess prospectively the impact on survival and health-related quality of life of two follow-up protocols in patients with early breast cancer. Design. —Randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting. —Multicenter study involving 26 general hospitals in Italy. Patients. —A consecutive sample of 1320 women younger than 70 years with stage I, II, and III unilateral primary breast cancer. Intervention. —Patients were randomly assigned to an intensive surveillance, which included physician visits and performance of bone scan, liver echography, chest roentgenography, and laboratory tests at predefined intervals (n=655), or to a control regimen (n=665), in which patients were seen by their physicians at the same frequency but only clinically indicated tests were performed. Both groups received a yearly mammogram aimed at detecting contralateral breast cancer. Main Outcome Measures. —Primary end points were overall survival and health-related quality of life. Results. —Compliance to the two follow-up protocols was more than 80%. At a median follow-up of 71 months, no difference was apparent in overall survival with 132 deaths (20%) in the intensive group and 122 deaths (18%) in the control group. No significant differences were apparent in time to detection of recurrence between the two groups. Measurements of health-related quality of life (ie, overall health and quality-of-life perception, emotional well-being, body image, social functioning, symptoms, and satisfaction with care) at 6,12, 24, and 60 months of follow-up did not show differences by type of care received. Conclusions. —Results of this trial support the view that a protocol of frequent laboratory tests and roentgenography after primary treatment for breast cancer does not improve survival or influence health-related quality of life. Routine use of these tests should be discouraged. (JAMA. 1994;271:1587-1592)

Cytotoxic and hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of published randomized trials involving 31,510 women.

Abstract: PURPOSEA systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of medical treatment for metastatic breast cancer.METHODSRCTs published between 1975 and 1997 have been classified according to 12 therapeutic comparisons: (1) polychemotherapy (PCHT) agents versus single agent; (2) PCHT regimens with anthracycline versus PCHT without anthracycline; (3) other PCHT versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF); (4) chemotherapy (CHT) with epirubicin versus CHT with doxorubicin; (5) CHT versus same CHT delivered with less intensive schedules; (6) other endocrine therapy (OET) versus tamoxifen; (7) OET plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone; (8) OET versus medroxyprogesterone; (9) OET versus aromatase inhibitors; (10) OET versus megestrol; (11) endocrine therapy (ET) versus same ET at lower doses; and (12) CHT plus ET versus CHT. Tumor response rates, mortality hazards ratio (HR) and frequency of severe side effects were the outcome measures.RESULTSA tota...

Timing Matters in Hip Fracture Surgery : Patients Operated within 48 Hours Have Better Outcomes. A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of over 190,000 Patients

Abstract: Background To assess the relationship between surgical delay and mortality in elderly patients with hip fracture. Systematic review and meta-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies published from 1948 to 2011. Medline (from 1948), Embase (from 1974) and CINAHL (from 1982), and the Cochrane Library. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals for each study were extracted and pooled with a random effects model. Heterogeneity, publication bias, Bayesian analysis, and meta-regression analyses were done. Criteria for inclusion were retro- and prospective elderly population studies, patients with operated hip fractures, indication of timing of surgery and survival status. Methodology/Principal Findings There were 35 independent studies, with 191,873 participants and 34,448 deaths. The majority considered a cut-off between 24 and 48 hours. Early hip surgery was associated with a lower risk of death (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.81; P<0.000) and pressure sores (0.48, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.60; P<0.000). Meta-analysis of the adjusted prospective studies gave similar results. The Bayesian probability predicted that about 20% of future studies might find that early surgery is not beneficial for decreasing mortality. None of the confounders (e.g. age, sex, data source, baseline risk, cut-off points, study location, quality and year) explained the differences between studies. Conclusions/Significance Surgical delay is associated with a significant increase in the risk of death and pressure sores. Conservative timing strategies should be avoided. Orthopaedic surgery services should ensure the majority of patients are operated within one or two days.

Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Abstract: Objective: To determine whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces respiratory tract infections and overall mortality in unselected critically ill adult patients Design: Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials from 1984 and 1996 that compared different forms of antibiotic prophylaxis used to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality with aggregate data and, in a subset of trials, data from individual patients Subjects: Unselected critically ill adult patients; 5727 patients for aggregate data meta-analysis, 4343 for confirmatory meta-analysis with data from individual patients Main outcome measures: Respiratory tract infections and total mortality Results: Two categories of eligible trials were defined: topical plus systemic antibiotics versus no treatment and topical preparation with or without a systemic antibiotic versus a systemic agent or placebo Estimates from aggregate data meta-analysis of 16 trials (3361 patients) that tested combined treatment indicated a strong significant reduction in infection (odds ratio 035; 95% confidence interval 029 to 041) and total mortality (080; 069 to 093) With this treatment five and 23 patients would need to be treated to prevent one infection and one death, respectively Similar analysis of 17 trials (2366 patients) that tested only topical antibiotics indicated a clear reduction in infection (056; 046 to 068) without a significant effect on total mortality (101; 084 to 122) Analysis of data from individual patients yielded similar results No significant differences in treatment effect by major subgroups of patients emerged from the analyses Conclusions: This meta-analysis of 15 years of clinical research suggests that antibiotic prophylaxis with a combination of topical and systemic drugs can reduce respiratory tract infections and overall mortality in critically ill patients This effect is significant and worth while, and it should be considered when practice guidelines are defined Key messages Over 40% of patients who need ventilation in intensive care develop respiratory tract infections and about 30% may die in the units If the most effective antibiotic prophylaxis (that is, a protocol combining topical and systemic antibiotics) is used the incidence of respiratory tract infections can be reduced by 65% and total mortality by 20% A regimen of topical antibiotics alone reduces respiratory tract infections but does not influence survival The concern that widespread antibiotic use may lead to resistance cannot be confirmed or ruled out by this review Trials with different design are probably warranted to handle this question This important effect of antibiotic prophylaxis with a combination of topical and systemic antibiotics on survival should be considered by intensivists when treatment policies are designed

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …