Showing papers by "Gordon H. Guyatt published in 2020"

A living WHO guideline on drugs for covid-19

Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of drug interventions in the treatment of patients with covid-19? New recommendation Increased attention on ivermectin as a potential treatment for covid-19 triggered this recommendation. The panel made a recommendation against ivermectin in patients with covid-19 regardless of disease severity, except in the context of a clinical trial. Prior recommendations (a) a strong recommendation against the use of hydroxychloroquine in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (b) a strong recommendation against the use of lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with covid-19, regardless of disease severity; (c) a strong recommendation for systemic corticosteroids in patients with severe and critical covid-19; (d) a conditional recommendation against systemic corticosteroids in patients with non-severe covid-19, and (e) a conditional recommendation against remdesivir in hospitalised patients with covid-19. How this guideline was created This living guideline is from the World Health Organization (WHO) and provides up to date covid-19 guidance to inform policy and practice worldwide. Magic Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. A living systematic review with network analysis informed the recommendations. An international guideline development group (GDG) of content experts, clinicians, patients, an ethicist and methodologists produced recommendations following standards for trustworthy guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Understanding the new recommendation There is insufficient evidence to be clear to what extent, if any, ivermectin is helpful or harmful in treating covid-19. There was a large degree of uncertainty in the evidence about ivermectin on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, need for hospital admission, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes. There is potential for harm with an increased risk of adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. Applying pre-determined values and preferences, the panel inferred that almost all well informed patients would want to receive ivermectin only in the context of a randomised trial, given that the evidence left a very high degree of uncertainty on important effects. Updates This is a living guideline. It replaces earlier versions (4 September, 20 November, and 17 December 2020) and supersedes the BMJ Rapid Recommendations on remdesivir published on 2 July 2020. The previous versions can be found as data supplements. New recommendations will be published as updates to this guideline. Readers note This is the fourth version (update 3) of the living guideline (BMJ 2020;370:m3379). When citing this article, please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

The n-of-1 Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical Usefulness

Abstract: Objective:To review the feasibility and effectiveness ofn-of-1 randomized controlled trials (n-of-1 trials) in clinical practice. Design:Individual trials were double-blind, randomized, mu...

Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs examine effect modification (also called a subgroup effect or interaction), in which the effect of an intervention varies by another variable (e.g., age or disease severity). Assessing the credibility of an apparent effect modification presents challenges; therefore, we developed the Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN). METHODS: To develop ICEMAN, we established a detailed concept; identified candidate credibility considerations in a systematic survey of the literature; together with experts, performed a consensus study to identify key considerations and develop them into instrument items; and refined the instrument based on feedback from trial investigators, systematic review authors and journal editors, who applied drafts of ICEMAN to published claims of effect modification. RESULTS: The final instrument consists of a set of preliminary considerations, core questions (5 for RCTs, 8 for meta-analyses) with 4 response options, 1 optional item for additional considerations and a rating of credibility on a visual analogue scale ranging from very low to high. An accompanying manual provides rationales, detailed instructions and examples from the literature. Seventeen potential users tested ICEMAN; their suggestions improved the user-friendliness of the instrument. INTERPRETATION: The Instrument for assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses offers explicit guidance for investigators, systematic reviewers, journal editors and others considering making a claim of effect modification or interpreting a claim made by others.

Comparison of dietary macronutrient patterns of 14 popular named dietary programmes for weight and cardiovascular risk factor reduction in adults: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

Abstract: Objective To determine the relative effectiveness of dietary macronutrient patterns and popular named diet programmes for weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor improvement among adults who are overweight or obese. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and CENTRAL from database inception until September 2018, reference lists of eligible trials, and related reviews. Study selection Randomised trials that enrolled adults (≥18 years) who were overweight (body mass index 25-29) or obese (≥30) to a popular named diet or an alternative diet. Outcomes and measures Change in body weight, low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, and C reactive protein at the six and 12 month follow-up. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data on study participants, interventions, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) approach. A bayesian framework informed a series of random effects network meta-analyses to estimate the relative effectiveness of the diets. Results 121 eligible trials with 21 942 patients were included and reported on 14 named diets and three control diets. Compared with usual diet, low carbohydrate and low fat diets had a similar effect at six months on weight loss (4.63 v 4.37 kg, both moderate certainty) and reduction in systolic blood pressure (5.14 mm Hg, moderate certainty v 5.05 mm Hg, low certainty) and diastolic blood pressure (3.21 v 2.85 mm Hg, both low certainty). Moderate macronutrient diets resulted in slightly less weight loss and blood pressure reductions. Low carbohydrate diets had less effect than low fat diets and moderate macronutrient diets on reduction in LDL cholesterol (1.01 mg/dL, low certainty v 7.08 mg/dL, moderate certainty v 5.22 mg/dL, moderate certainty, respectively) but an increase in HDL cholesterol (2.31 mg/dL, low certainty), whereas low fat (−1.88 mg/dL, moderate certainty) and moderate macronutrient (−0.89 mg/dL, moderate certainty) did not. Among popular named diets, those with the largest effect on weight reduction and blood pressure in comparison with usual diet were Atkins (weight 5.5 kg, systolic blood pressure 5.1 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure 3.3 mm Hg), DASH (3.6 kg, 4.7 mm Hg, 2.9 mm Hg, respectively), and Zone (4.1 kg, 3.5 mm Hg, 2.3 mm Hg, respectively) at six months (all moderate certainty). No diets significantly improved levels of HDL cholesterol or C reactive protein at six months. Overall, weight loss diminished at 12 months among all macronutrient patterns and popular named diets, while the benefits for cardiovascular risk factors of all interventions, except the Mediterranean diet, essentially disappeared. Conclusions Moderate certainty evidence shows that most macronutrient diets, over six months, result in modest weight loss and substantial improvements in cardiovascular risk factors, particularly blood pressure. At 12 months the effects on weight reduction and improvements in cardiovascular risk factors largely disappear. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015027929.

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.

Abstract: 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.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission.

Abstract: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

2019 American College of Rheumatology Reproductive Health in Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases Guideline

Abstract: OBJECTIVE To develop an evidence-based guideline for rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMD) patients regarding contraception; assisted reproductive technology (ART); fertility preservation; pregnancy assessment, counseling, and management; medication use before, during and after pregnancy; and hormone replacement therapy (HRT). METHODS We conducted a systematic review of evidence relating to contraception, ART, fertility preservation, pregnancy and lactation, and HRT in RMD populations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence, and a group consensus process to determine final recommendations and grade their strength (conditional or strong). Good practice statements (GPS) were agreed upon when indirect evidence was sufficiently compelling that a formal vote was unnecessary. RESULTS This ACR guideline provides 12 ungraded GPS and 131 graded recommendations for reproductive health care in RMD patients. These recommendations are intended to guide care for all patients with RMD, except where indicated as being specific for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), those positive for antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) and/or those positive for anti-Ro/SSA and/or anti-La/SSB antibodies. Recommendations and GPS support several guiding principles: use of safe and effective contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy, pre-pregnancy counseling to encourage conception during periods of disease quiescence and while on pregnancy compatible medications, and ongoing physician-patient discussion with obstetrics/gynecology collaboration for all reproductive health issues given the overall low level of evidence available for RMD patients in this area. CONCLUSION This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations developed and reviewed by panels of experts and RMD patients. Many recommendations are conditional, reflecting a lack of data or low-level data. We intend that this guideline be used to inform a shared decision-making process between patients and their physicians on issues related to reproductive health that incorporates patients' values, preferences and comorbidities.

Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study.

Abstract: Objective To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument. Design Instrument development and reliability study. Data sources Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument. Participants With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates. Main outcome measures Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined. Results The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors. Conclusions Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

GRADE approach to drawing conclusions from a network meta-analysis using a minimally contextualised framework

Abstract: This article describes GRADE (grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation) guidance on how to make conclusions from a network meta-analysis of interventions that includes individual randomised controlled trials for one outcome at a time. The guidance is based on a partially contextualised approach in which review authors must establish ranges of magnitudes of effect that represent a trivial to no effect, small but important effect, moderate effect, and large effect. The principles guiding this framework are that interventions should be grouped in categories, based on the magnitude of the effect; and that the judgments that place interventions in such categories should consider the estimates of effect, the certainty of the evidence, and the rankings. We describe and illustrate the four steps of this framework using an example.

Transfusion strategies in non-bleeding critically ill adults: a clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract: To develop evidence-based clinical practice recommendations regarding transfusion practices in non-bleeding, critically ill adults. A task force involving 13 international experts and three methodologists used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The task force identified four main topics: red blood cell transfusion thresholds, red blood cell transfusion avoidance strategies, platelet transfusion, and plasma transfusion. The panel developed structured guideline questions using population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. The task force generated 16 clinical practice recommendations (3 strong recommendations, 13 conditional recommendations), and identified five PICOs with insufficient evidence to make any recommendation. This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations and identifies areas where further research is needed regarding transfusion practices and transfusion avoidance in non-bleeding, critically ill adults.

Diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adult patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: The accuracy of the signs and tests that clinicians use to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and initiate antibiotic treatment has not been well characterized. We sought to characterize and compare the accuracy of physical examination, chest radiography, endotracheal aspirate (ETA), bronchoscopic sampling cultures (protected specimen brush [PSB] and bronchoalveolar lavage [BAL]), and CPIS > 6 to diagnose VAP. We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected English-language studies investigating accuracy of any of the above tests for VAP diagnosis. Reference standard was histopathological analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We included 25 studies (1639 patients). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for VAP were poor: fever (66.4% [95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.7–85.0], 53.9% [95% CI 34.5–72.2]) and purulent secretions (77.0% [95% CI 64.7–85.9], 39.0% [95% CI 25.8–54.0]). Any infiltrate on chest radiography had a sensitivity of 88.9% (95% CI 73.9–95.8) and specificity of 26.1% (95% CI 15.1–41.4). ETA had a sensitivity of 75.7% (95% CI 51.5–90.1) and specificity of 67.9% (95% CI 40.5–86.8). Among bronchoscopic sampling methods, PSB had a sensitivity of 61.4% [95% CI 43.7–76.5] and specificity of 76.5% [95% CI 64.2–85.6]; while BAL had a sensitivity of 71.1% [95% CI 49.9–85.9] and specificity of 79.6% [95% CI 66.2–85.9]. CPIS > 6 had a sensitivity of 73.8% (95% CI 50.6–88.5) and specificity of 66.4% (95% CI 43.9–83.3). Classic clinical indicators had poor accuracy for diagnosis of VAP. Reliance upon these indicators in isolation may result in misdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary antimicrobial use.

Preoperative N-Terminal Pro-B-Type Natriuretic Peptide and Cardiovascular Events After Noncardiac Surgery: A Cohort Study

Abstract: Background Preliminary data suggest that preoperative N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) may improve risk prediction in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Objective To determine whether preoperative NT-proBNP has additional predictive value beyond a clinical risk score for the composite of vascular death and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) within 30 days after surgery. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting 16 hospitals in 9 countries. Patients 10 402 patients aged 45 years or older having inpatient noncardiac surgery. Measurements All patients had NT-proBNP levels measured before surgery and troponin T levels measured daily for up to 3 days after surgery. Results In multivariable analyses, compared with preoperative NT-proBNP values less than 100 pg/mL (the reference group), those of 100 to less than 200 pg/mL, 200 to less than 1500 pg/mL, and 1500 pg/mL or greater were associated with adjusted hazard ratios of 2.27 (95% CI, 1.90 to 2.70), 3.63 (CI, 3.13 to 4.21), and 5.82 (CI, 4.81 to 7.05) and corresponding incidences of the primary outcome of 12.3% (226 of 1843), 20.8% (542 of 2608), and 37.5% (223 of 595), respectively. Adding NT-proBNP thresholds to clinical stratification (that is, the Revised Cardiac Risk Index [RCRI]) resulted in a net absolute reclassification improvement of 258 per 1000 patients. Preoperative NT-proBNP values were also statistically significantly associated with 30-day all-cause mortality (less than 100 pg/mL [incidence, 0.3%], 100 to less than 200 pg/mL [incidence, 0.7%], 200 to less than 1500 pg/mL [incidence, 1.4%], and 1500 pg/mL or greater [incidence, 4.0%]). Limitation External validation of the identified NT-proBNP thresholds in other cohorts would reinforce our findings. Conclusion Preoperative NT-proBNP is strongly associated with vascular death and MINS within 30 days after noncardiac surgery and improves cardiac risk prediction in addition to the RCRI. Primary funding source Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

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.

Abstract: 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.

Gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis for critically ill patients: a clinical practice guideline.

Abstract: Clinical question What is the role of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (stress ulcer prophylaxis) in critically ill patients? This guideline was prompted by the publication of a new large randomised controlled trial. Current practice Gastric acid suppression with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) is commonly done to prevent gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Existing guidelines vary in their recommendations of which population to treat and which agent to use. Recommendations This guideline panel makes a weak recommendation for using gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients at high risk (>4%) of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding, and a weak recommendation for not using prophylaxis in patients at lower risk of clinically important bleeding (≤4%). The panel identified risk categories based on evidence, with variable certainty regarding risk factors. The panel suggests using a PPI rather than a H2RA (weak recommendation) and recommends against using sucralfate (strong recommendation). How this guideline was created A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations using standards for trustworthy guidelines and the GRADE approach. The recommendations are based on a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis. A weak recommendation means that both options are reasonable. The evidence The linked systematic review and network meta-analysis estimated the benefit and harm of these medications in 12 660 critically ill patients in 72 trials. Both PPIs and H2RAs reduce the risk of clinically important bleeding. The effect is larger in patients at higher bleeding risk (those with a coagulopathy, chronic liver disease, or receiving mechanical ventilation but not enteral nutrition or two or more of mechanical ventilation with enteral nutrition, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and shock) (moderate certainty). PPIs and H2RAs might increase the risk of pneumonia (low certainty). They probably do not have an effect on mortality (moderate certainty), length of hospital stay, or any other important outcomes. PPIs probably reduce the risk of bleeding more than H2RAs (moderate certainty). Understanding the recommendation In most critically ill patients, the reduction in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding from gastric acid suppressants is closely balanced with the possibility of pneumonia. Clinicians should consider individual patient values, risk of bleeding, and other factors such as medication availability when deciding whether to use gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis. Visual overviews provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of the options in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available on MAGICapp.

Subacromial decompression surgery for adults with shoulder pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective To determine the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery in adult patients with subacromial pain syndrome lasting for more than 3 months. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Main outcome measures Pain, physical function and health-related quality of life. Data sources Systematic searches for benefits and harms were conducted to 23 July 2018 in MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing subacromial decompression surgery for subacromial pain syndrome with any other treatment(s). For harms, we included prospective cohort studies. Review methods Two reviewers independently determined eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies. Thirty patients seeking primary or outpatient care for subacromial pain syndrome and a parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input regarding systematic review design and interpretation. Results There was high certainty evidence of no additional benefit of subacromial decompression surgery over placebo surgery in reducing pain at 1 year following surgery (mean difference [MD] −0.26, 95% CI −0.84 to 0.33, minimally important difference [MID] 1.5) or improving physical function at 1–2 years (MD 2.8, 95% CI −1.4 to 6.9, MID 8.3). There was moderate certainty evidence for no additional benefit of subacromial decompression surgery on health-related quality of life at 1 year (MD −0.03 points, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.06, MID 0.07). There was moderate certainty evidence for six serious harms per 1000 (95% CI 5 to 7) patients undergoing subacromial decompression. Conclusion Subacromial decompression surgery provided no important benefit compared with placebo surgery or exercise therapy, and probably carries a small risk of serious harms. Systematic reviewregistration number CRD42018086862.

Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Hemiarthroplasty for Displaced Femoral Neck Fracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Abstract: Background Hip fractures are a leading cause of disability worldwide, with displaced femoral neck fractures being of particular concern. A recent meta-analysis reported that total hip arthroplasty (THA) was superior to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in terms of reoperations, but inferior in terms of dislocations. However, publication of 4 additional randomized controlled trials that enrolled nearly 1,780 additional patients merits an updated meta-analysis. Methods We conducted a literature search of 4 databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing THA and HA in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. For patient-reported outcomes, the minimally important difference informed calculation of risk differences. We performed a subgroup analysis to address the possible impact of risk of bias and performed meta-regression to assess the possible impact of duration of follow-up. Results Sixteen studies that enrolled 3,084 patients randomized to undergo THA (n = 1,521) or HA (n = 1,563) proved eligible. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the revision rate at up to 5 years of follow-up or functional outcome at up to 3 years. Health-related quality of life was superior in the THA group (mean difference [MD] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02 to 0.07, minimally important difference, 0.145). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of dislocation or periprosthetic fracture incidence. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HA group (MD = 22 minutes, 95% CI = 9 to 35 minutes). Analyses addressing risk of bias and length of follow-up did not reveal subgroup differences. Certainty of evidence for all outcomes was rated as moderate. Conclusions The best evidence showed, with moderate certainty, that HA and THA likely result in similar revision rate, function, mortality, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation at up to 5 years, with a small, possibly unimportant benefit in health-related quality of life with THA. More specifically, the improvements are well below established cutoffs for clinical importance. Almost half of all patients were from a single large randomized controlled trial, although the results were consistent across the studies. In addition, HA likely results in a clinically unimportant reduction in operative time. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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

Abstract: 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).

Treatment of patients with nonsevere and severe coronavirus disease 2019: an evidence-based guideline.

Abstract: KEY POINTS On Mar. 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. The worldwide spread of COVID-19 represents a profound threat to human health. Patients with COVID-19 present primarily with fever, cough, and myalgia or fatigue, and sometimes

Efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective To determine, in critically ill patients, the relative impact of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), sucralfate, or no gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis (or stress ulcer prophylaxis) on outcomes important to patients. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, trial registers, and grey literature up to March 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods We included randomised controlled trials that compared gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided critical oversight of the systematic review, including identifying outcomes important to patients. We performed random-effects pairwise and network meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. When results differed between low risk and high risk of bias studies, we used the former as best estimates. Results Seventy two trials including 12 660 patients proved eligible. For patients at highest risk (>8%) or high risk (4-8%) of bleeding, both PPIs and H2RAs probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding compared with placebo or no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.89), 3.3% fewer for highest risk and 2.3% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 0.46 (0.27 to 0.79), 4.6% fewer for highest risk and 3.1% fewer for high risk patients, moderate certainty). Both may increase the risk of pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis (odds ratio for PPIs 1.39 (0.98 to 2.10), 5.0% more, low certainty; odds ratio for H2RAs 1.26 (0.89 to 1.85), 3.4% more, low certainty). It is likely that neither affect mortality (PPIs 1.06 (0.90 to 1.28), 1.3% more, moderate certainty; H2RAs 0.96 (0.79 to 1.19), 0.9% fewer, moderate certainty). Otherwise, results provided no support for any affect on mortality, Clostridium difficile infection, length of intensive care stay, length of hospital stay, or duration of mechanical ventilation (varying certainty of evidence). Conclusions For higher risk critically ill patients, PPIs and H2RAs likely result in important reductions in gastrointestinal bleeding compared with no prophylaxis; for patients at low risk, the reduction in bleeding may be unimportant. Both PPIs and H2RAs may result in important increases in pneumonia. Variable quality evidence suggested no important effects of interventions on mortality or other in-hospital morbidity outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019126656.