Systematic literature reviews including meta-analyses are invaluable scientific activities. The rationale for such reviews is well established. Health care providers, researchers, and policy makers are inundated with unmanageable amounts of information; they need systematic reviews to efficiently integrate existing information and provide data for rational decision making. Systematic reviews establish whether scientific findings are consistent and can be generalised across populations, settings, and treatment variations, or whether findings vary significantly by particular subsets. Meta-analyses in particular can increase power and precision of estimates of treatment effects and exposure risks. Finally explicit methods used in systematic reviews limit bias and, hopefully, will improve reliability and accuracy of conclusions.

Systematic literature review is a fundamental scientific activity. Its rationale is grounded firmly in several premises. Firstly, large quantities of information must be reduced into palatable pieces for digestion. Over two million articles are published annually in the biomedical literature in over 20 000 journals1 - literally a small mountain of information. For example, about 4400 pages were devoted to approximately 1100 articles in the BMJ and New England Journal of Medicine, combined, in 1992. In a stack, two million such articles would rise 500 m. Clearly, systematic literature review is needed to refine these unmanageable amounts of information. Through critical exploration, evaluation, and synthesis the systematic review separates the insignificant, unsound, or redundant deadwood in the medical literature from the salient and critical studies that are worthy of reflection.2

Secondly, various decision makers need to integrate the critical pieces of available biomedical information. Systematic reviews are used by more specialised integrators, such as economic and decision analysts, to estimate the variables and outcomes that are included in their evaluations. Both systematic and more specialised integrations are used by clinicians to keep abreast of the primary literature in a given field …

/pdf/rationale-for-systematic-reviews-4nxx9f6koq.pdf

Rationale for systematic reviews.

Acute psychophysiologic reactivity and risk of cardiovascular disease: A review and methodologic critique.

Classification of orally administered drugs on the World Health Organization Model list of Essential Medicines according to the biopharmaceutics classification system.

The acute phase response is a nonspecific inflammatory reaction of the host that occurs shortly after any tissue injury. The response includes changes in the concentration of plasma proteins called acute phase proteins (APPs), some of which decrease in concentration (negative APPs), such as albumin or transferrin, and others of which increase in concentration (positive APPs), such as C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A, haptoglobin, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, and ceruloplasmin. Most positive APPs are glycoproteins synthesized mainly by hepatocytes upon stimulation by proinflammatory cytokines and released into the bloodstream. The acute phase response and clinical application of monitoring APPs in dogs and cats are reviewed in this article, including biochemical characteristics, assays developed for each individual APP, and preanalytic and analytic factors influencing APP results that should be taken into account for proper and adequate clinical interpretation. In addition, the diagnostic use of APPs and their possible application in monitoring treatment, which can be considered one of the most interesting and promising practical applications of these proteins, will be discussed. Finally, challenges and future developments of APPs in dogs and cats will be considered, because it is expected that new and cheaper automated assays for determination of the main APPs in small animals will contribute to a wider use of these proteins as biomarkers of infection and inflammatory lesions.

Acute phase proteins in dogs and cats: current knowledge and future perspectives

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: Predicting the tissue distribution of moderate‐to‐strong bases

Objectives : To collect and evaluate all trials on clinical efficacy of topical treatments for head lice. Design : Systematic review of randomised trials identified from following data sources: Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Science Citation Index, letters to key authors and companies, and hand search of journals. Setting : Trials in schools or communities. Subjects : Patients infested with lice. Main outcome measure : Cure rate (absence of live lice and viable nits) on day 14 after treatment. Results : Total of 28 trials were identified and evaluated according to eight general and 18 lice specific criteria. Of the 14 trials rated as having low to moderate risk of bias, seven were selected as they used the main outcome measure. These seven trials described 21 evaluations of eight different compounds and placebo (all but two evaluations were of single applications). Only permethrin 1% creme rinse showed efficacy in more than two studies with the lower 95% confidence limit of cure rate above 90%. Conclusions : Only for permethrin has sufficient evidence been published to show efficacy. Less expensive treatments such as malathion and carbaryl need more evidence of efficacy. Lindane and the natural pyrethrines are not sufficiently effective to justify their use.

/pdf/systematic-review-of-clinical-efficacy-of-topical-treatments-1y3epltbi2.pdf

Systematic review of clinical efficacy of topical treatments for head lice

Determination of nifedipine in human plasma by capillary gas chromatography with nitrogen detection.

Binding of oxprenolol and propranolol to serum, albumin and α1-acid glycoprotein in man and other species

Gastric relaxation and vomiting by apomorphine, morphine and fentanyl in the conscious dog

We designed an 84-item questionnaire to determine the attitude of the Belgian public toward package inserts (PI) for medication information, written in technical language and intended for health professionals, within an original drug-dispensing distribution system. There were 398 respondents to this general public survey, based on a 0.05 percent selection from election registers of the districts of Gent and Liege. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents read the PI, focusing their attention principally on adverse effects (88 percent), dosage and dosing guidelines (85 percent), contraindications (82 percent), indications (79 percent), and medication shelf-life (76 percent). Compliance (83 percent), reassurance (57 percent), increased knowledge about the medication (50 percent), and decision to take the medicine (31 percent) were among the respondents' motives for reading the PI. Most respondents considered the PI information useful and complete, but difficult to remember and understand. Readers further crit...

Marc G. Bogaert

Papers

Systematic review of clinical efficacy of topical treatments for head lice

Determination of nifedipine in human plasma by capillary gas chromatography with nitrogen detection.

Binding of oxprenolol and propranolol to serum, albumin and α1-acid glycoprotein in man and other species

Gastric relaxation and vomiting by apomorphine, morphine and fentanyl in the conscious dog

Attitude of the Public toward Technical Package Inserts for Medication Information in Belgium