Gordon H. Guyatt

Bio: Gordon H. Guyatt is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Evidence-based medicine. The author has an hindex of 231, co-authored 1620 publications receiving 228631 citations. Previous affiliations of Gordon H. Guyatt include Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center & Cayetano Heredia University.

Effects of different phosphate lowering strategies in patients with CKD on laboratory outcomes: A systematic review and NMA.

Abstract: Background Chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD), a complication of chronic kidney disease, has been linked to reduced quality and length of life. High serum phosphate levels that result from CKD-MBD require phosphate-lowering agents, also known as phosphate binders. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the effects of available phosphate binders on laboratory outcomes in patients with CKD-MBD. Methods Data sources included MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1996 to April 2016, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to April 2016. Teams of two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, screened titles and abstracts and potentially eligible full text reports to determine eligibility, and subsequently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias in eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible trials enrolled patients with CKD-MBD and randomized them to receive calcium-based phosphate binders (delivered as calcium acetate, calcium citrate or calcium carbonate), non-calcium-based phosphate binders (NCBPB) (sevelamer hydrochloride, sevelamer carbonate, lanthanum carbonate, sucroferric oxyhydroxide and ferric citrate), phosphorus restricted diet (diet), placebo or no treatment and reported effects on serum levels of phosphate, calcium and parathyroid hormone. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA) to calculate the effect estimates (mean differences) and 95% credible intervals for serum levels of phosphate, calcium and parathyroid hormone. We calculated direct, indirect and network meta-analysis estimates using random-effects models. We applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to rate the quality of evidence for each pairwise comparison. Results Our search yielded 1108 citations; 71 RCTs were retrieved for full review and 16 proved eligible. Including an additional 13 studies from a previous review, 29 studies that enrolled 8335 participants proved eligible; 26 trials provided data for quantitative synthesis. Sevelamer, lanthanum, calcium, iron, diet and combinations of active treatments (calcium or sevelamer or lanthanum and combination of calcium and sevelamer) resulted in significantly lower serum phosphate as compared to placebo (moderate to very low quality of evidence). We found no statistically significant differences between active treatment categories in lowering serum phosphate. Sevelamer, lanthanum and diet resulted in lower serum calcium compared to calcium (moderate quality evidence for lanthanum and diet; low quality evidence for Sevelamer). Iron, sevelamer and calcium yielded lower parathyroid hormone levels as compared to lanthanum. Meta-regression analyses did not yield a statistically significant association between treatment effect and trial duration. Discussion/Conclusions We found few differences between treatments in impact on phosphate and differences in parathyroid hormone. Relative to calcium, sevelamer, lanthanum and diet showed significant reduction in serum calcium from baseline. Treatment recommendations should be based on impact on patient-important outcomes rather than on surrogate outcomes. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD-42016032945

Measuring health-related quality of life in childhood cancer: lessons from the workshop (discussion).

Abstract: In this article, I will focus on some of the themes that emerged from the reports presented at the International Workshop and the discussion that flowed out of them. I will focus on how investigators should be clear on their purposes and the implications of different goals, alternative strategies for instrument development and the uses of parent and child ratings of health-related quality of life (HRQL).

Early vasopressor use following traumatic injury: a systematic review.

Abstract: Objectives Current guidelines suggest limiting the use of vasopressors following traumatic injury; however, wide variations in practice exist. Although excessive vasoconstriction may be harmful, these agents may help reduce administration of potentially harmful resuscitation fluids. This systematic review aims to compare early vasopressor use to standard resuscitation in adults with trauma-induced shock. Design Systematic review. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until October 2016, as well as the proceedings of 10 relevant international conferences from 2005 to 2016. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies that compared the early vasopressor use with standard resuscitation in adults with acute traumatic injury. Results Of 8001 citations, we retrieved 18 full-text articles and included 6 studies (1 randomised controlled trial and 5 observational studies), including 2 published exclusively in abstract form. Across observational studies, vasopressor use was associated with increased short-term mortality, with unadjusted risk ratios ranging from 2.31 to 7.39. However, the risk of bias was considered high in these observational studies because patients who received vasopressors were systematically sicker than patients treated without vasopressors. One clinical trial (n=78) was too imprecise to yield meaningful results. Two clinical trials are currently ongoing. No study measured long-term quality of life or cognitive function. Conclusions Existing data on the effects of vasopressors following traumatic injury are of very low quality according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. With emerging evidence of harm associated with aggressive fluid resuscitation and, in selected subgroups of patients, with permissive hypotension, the alternatives to vasopressor therapy are limited. Observational data showing that vasopressors are part of usual care would provide a strong justification for high-quality clinical trials of early vasopressor use during trauma resuscitation. Trial registration number CRD42016033437.

Evaluation of Graduating Neonatal Nurse Practitioners

Abstract: To compare the knowledge and problem-solving, communication, and clinical skills of graduating neonatal nurse practitioners (NNPs) and pediatric residents, a cohort study was conducted in a 33-bed tertiary-level neonatal intensive care unit in a 400-bed teaching hospital affiliated with a faculty of health sciences. Participants were all (n = 10) NNP graduates from the first 3 years of the educational program and 13 (87%) of 15 second-year pediatric residents. One hundred multiple-choice questions and 20 radiographic slides were used to test knowledge; a semistructured oral examination tested problem-solving skills; three simulated interactions with parents tested communication skills; and seven simulated procedures tested clinical skills. Graduating NNPs scored similarly to the pediatric residents on the multiple-choice questions (difference –3.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] around difference –9.7, 2.9), radiographs (difference –1.4%; 95% CI –11.5, 8.7), oral examination (difference 2.8%; 95% CI –11.1, 16.7), communication skills (simulated parents assessment: difference 0.8%; 95% CI –4.2, 5.7; expert observer assessment: difference 5.8%; 95% CI –2.8, 14.3), and clinical skills (difference 7.4%; 95% CI –5.5, 20.2). The NNPs about to graduate from their educational program showed knowledge and problem-solving, communication, and clinical skills equivalent to those of second-year pediatric residents and are thus likely to deliver comparable care in the clinical setting. The results support the adoption of the NNP role.

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 …

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Abstract: Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries.

Abstract: This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.