Showing papers by "Cochrane Collaboration published in 2009"

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

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition)

Abstract: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, systematic review registration number 2 Structured summary

Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Abstract: Editor's Note: PTJ 's Editorial Board has adopted PRISMA to help PTJ better communicate research to physical therapists. For more, read Chris Maher's [editorial][1] starting on page 870. Membership of the PRISMA Group is provided in the Acknowledgments . This article has been reprinted with permission from the Annals of Internal Medicine from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Ann Intern Med . Available at: . The authors jointly hold copyright of this article. This article has also been published in PLoS Medicine , BMJ , Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , and Open Medicine . Copyright © 2009 Moher et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. [1]: http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/89/9/870

Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.

Abstract: Background The tendency for authors to submit, and of journals to accept, manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings has been termed publication bias. Objectives To assess the extent to which publication of a cohort of clinical trials is influenced by the statistical significance, perceived importance, or direction of their results. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library [Online] Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1950 to March Week 2 2007), EMBASE (1980 to Week 11 2007) and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (March 21 2007). We also searched the Science Citation Index (April 2007), checked reference lists of relevant articles and contacted researchers to identify additional studies. Selection criteria Studies containing analyses of the association between publication and the statistical significance or direction of the results (trial findings), for a cohort of registered clinical trials. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data. We classified findings as either positive (defined as results classified by the investigators as statistically significant (P < 0.05), or perceived as striking or important, or showing a positive direction of effect) or negative (findings that were not statistically significant (P ≥ 0.05), or perceived as unimportant, or showing a negative or null direction in effect). We extracted information on other potential risk factors for failure to publish, when these data were available. Main results Five studies were included. Trials with positive findings were more likely to be published than trials with negative or null findings (odds ratio 3.90; 95% confidence interval 2.68 to 5.68). This corresponds to a risk ratio of 1.78 (95% CI 1.58 to 1.95), assuming that 41% of negative trials are published (the median among the included studies, range = 11% to 85%). In absolute terms, this means that if 41% of negative trials are published, we would expect that 73% of positive trials would be published. Two studies assessed time to publication and showed that trials with positive findings tended to be published after four to five years compared to those with negative findings, which were published after six to eight years. Three studies found no statistically significant association between sample size and publication. One study found no significant association between either funding mechanism, investigator rank, or sex and publication. Authors' conclusions Trials with positive findings are published more often, and more quickly, than trials with negative findings.

Prepregnancy BMI and the risk of gestational diabetes: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis

Abstract: The objective of this study is to assess and quantify the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) according to prepregnancy maternal body mass index (BMI). The design is a systematic review of observational studies published in the last 30 years. Four electronic databases were searched for publications (1977-2007). BMI was elected as the only measure of obesity, and all diagnostic criteria for GDM were accepted. Studies with selective screening for GDM were excluded. There were no language restrictions. The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed. Some 1745 citations were screened, and 70 studies (two unpublished) involving 671 945 women were included (59 cohorts and 11 case-controls). Most studies were of high or medium quality. Compared with women with a normal BMI, the unadjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) of an underweight woman developing GDM was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69 to 0.82). The OR for overweight, moderately obese and morbidly obese women were 1.97 (95% CI 1.77 to 2.19), 3.01 (95% CI 2.34 to 3.87) and 5.55 (95% CI 4.27 to 7.21) respectively. For every 1 kg m(-2) increase in BMI, the prevalence of GDM increased by 0.92% (95% CI 0.73 to 1.10). The risk of GDM is positively associated with prepregnancy BMI. This information is important when counselling women planning a pregnancy.

Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends

Abstract: Objective To estimate the extent of overdiagnosis (the detection of cancers that will not cause death or symptoms) in publicly organised screening programmes. Design Systematic review of published trends in incidence of breast cancer before and after the introduction of mammography screening. Data sources PubMed (April 2007), reference lists, and authors. Review methods One author extracted data on incidence of breast cancer (including carcinoma in situ), population size, screening uptake, time periods, and age groups, which were checked independently by the other author. Linear regression was used to estimate trends in incidence before and after the introduction of screening and in older, previously screened women. Meta-analysis was used to estimate the extent of overdiagnosis. Results Incidence data covering at least seven years before screening and seven years after screening had been fully implemented, and including both screened and non-screened age groups, were available from the United Kingdom; Manitoba, Canada; New South Wales, Australia; Sweden; and parts of Norway. The implementation phase with its prevalence peak was excluded and adjustment made for changing background incidence and compensatory drops in incidence among older, previously screened women. Overdiagnosis was estimated at 52% (95% confidence interval 46% to 58%). Data from three countries showed a drop in incidence as the women exceeded the age limit for screening, but the reduction was small and the estimate of overdiagnosis was compensated for in this review. Conclusions The increase in incidence of breast cancer was closely related to the introduction of screening and little of this increase was compensated for by a drop in incidence of breast cancer in previously screened women. One in three breast cancers detected in a population offered organised screening is overdiagnosed.

Spontaneous improvement in randomised clinical trials: meta-analysis of three-armed trials comparing no treatment, placebo and active intervention

Abstract: It can be challenging for patients and clinicians to properly interpret a change in the clinical condition after a treatment has been given. It is not known to which extent spontaneous improvement, effect of placebo and effect of active interventions contribute to the observed change from baseline, and we aimed at quantifying these contributions. Systematic review and meta-analysis, based on a Cochrane review of the effect of placebo interventions for all clinical conditions. We selected all trials that had randomised the patients to three arms: no treatment, placebo and active intervention, and that had used an outcome that was measured on a continuous scale or on a ranking scale. Clinical conditions that had been studied in less than three trials were excluded. We analysed 37 trials (2900 patients) that covered 8 clinical conditions. The active interventions were psychological in 17 trials, physical in 15 trials, and pharmacological in 5 trials. Overall, across all conditions and interventions, there was a statistically significant change from baseline in all three arms. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for change from baseline was -0.24 (95% confidence interval -0.36 to -0.12) for no treatment, -0.44 (-0.61 to -0.28) for placebo, and -1.01 (-1.16 to -0.86) for active treatment. Thus, on average, the relative contributions of spontaneous improvement and of placebo to that of the active interventions were 24% and 20%, respectively, but with some uncertainty, as indicated by the confidence intervals for the three SMDs. The conditions that had the most pronounced spontaneous improvement were nausea (45%), smoking (40%), depression (35%), phobia (34%) and acute pain (25%). Spontaneous improvement and effect of placebo contributed importantly to the observed treatment effect in actively treated patients, but the relative importance of these factors differed according to clinical condition and intervention.

The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review

Abstract: Issues: Numerous studies have reported that brief interventions delivered in primary care are effective in reducing excessive drinking. However, much of this work has been criticised for being clinically unrepresentative. This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions in primary care and determine if outcomes differ between efficacy and effectiveness trials. Approach: A pre-specified search strategy was used to search all relevant electronic databases up to 2006. We also hand-searched the reference lists of key articles and reviews. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) involving patients in primary care who were not seeking alcohol treatment and who received brief intervention. Two authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality. Random effects meta-analyses, subgroup and sensitivity analyses and meta-regression were conducted. Key Findings: The primary meta-analysis included 22 RCT and evaluated outcomes in over 5800 patients. At 1 year follow up, patients receiving brief intervention had a significant reduction in alcohol consumption compared with controls [mean difference: -38 g week(-1), 95%CI (confidence interval): -54 to -23], although there was substantial heterogeneity between trials (I(2) = 57%). Subgroup analysis confirmed the benefit of brief intervention in men but not in women. Extended intervention was associated with a non-significantly increased reduction in alcohol consumption compared with brief intervention. There was no significant difference in effect sizes for efficacy and effectiveness trials. Conclusions: Brief interventions can reduce alcohol consumption in men, with benefit at a year after intervention, but they are unproven in women for whom there is insufficient research data. Longer counselling has little additional effect over brief intervention. The lack of differences in outcomes between efficacy and effectiveness trials suggests that the current literature is relevant to routine primary care. Language: en

Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care

Abstract: Background Pneumonia is an important cause of mortality in intensive care units (ICUs). The incidence of pneumonia in ICU patients ranges between 7% and 40%, and the crude mortality from ventilator-associated pneumonia may exceed 50%. Although not all deaths in patients with this form of pneumonia are directly attributable to pneumonia, it has been shown to contribute to mortality in ICUs independently of other factors that are also strongly associated with such deaths. Objectives To assess the effects of prophylactic antibiotic regimens, such as selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) for the prevention of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) and overall mortality in adults receiving intensive care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, issue 1), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register; MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009); and EMBASE (January 1990 to March 2009). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of antibiotic prophylaxis for RTIs and deaths among adult ICU patients. Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Main results We included 36 trials involving 6914 people. There was variation in the antibiotics used, patient characteristics and risk of RTIs and mortality in the control groups. In trials comparing a combination of topical and systemic antibiotics, there was a significant reduction in both RTIs (number of studies = 16, odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.38) and total mortality (number of studies = 17, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87) in the treated group. In trials comparing topical antimicrobials alone (or comparing topical plus systemic versus systemic alone) there was a significant reduction in RTIs (number of studies = 17, OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) but not in total mortality (number of studies = 19, OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16) in the treated group. Authors' conclusions A combination of topical and systemic prophylactic antibiotics reduces RTIs and overall mortality in adult patients receiving intensive care. Treatment based on the use of topical prophylaxis alone reduces respiratory infections but not mortality. The risk of resistance occurring as a negative consequence of antibiotic use was appropriately explored only in one trial which did not show any such effect.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Objectives To update a 2005 Cochrane review that assessed the effects of neuraminidase inhibitors in preventing or ameliorating the symptoms of influenza, the transmission of influenza, and complications from influenza in healthy adults, and to estimate the frequency of adverse effects. Search strategy An updated search of the Cochrane central register of controlled trials ( Cochrane Library 2009, issue 2), which contains the Acute Respiratory Infections Group’s specialised register, Medline (1950-Aug 2009), Embase (1980-Aug 2009), and post-marketing pharmacovigilance data and comparative safety cohorts. Selection criteria Randomised placebo controlled studies of neuraminidase inhibitors in otherwise healthy adults exposed to naturally occurring influenza. Main outcome measures Duration and incidence of symptoms; incidence of lower respiratory tract infections, or their proxies; and adverse events. Data extraction Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted data. Data analysis Comparisons were structured into prophylaxis, treatment, and adverse events, with further subdivision by outcome and dose. Results 20 trials were included: four on prophylaxis, 12 on treatment, and four on postexposure prophylaxis. For prophylaxis, neuraminidase inhibitors had no effect against influenza-like illness or asymptomatic influenza. The efficacy of oral oseltamivir against symptomatic laboratory confirmed influenza was 61% (risk ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.85) at 75 mg daily and 73% (0.27, 0.11 to 0.67) at 150 mg daily. Inhaled zanamivir 10 mg daily was 62% efficacious (0.38, 0.17 to 0.85). Oseltamivir for postexposure prophylaxis had an efficacy of 58% (95% confidence interval 15% to 79%) and 84% (49% to 95%) in two trials of households. Zanamivir performed similarly. The hazard ratios for time to alleviation of influenza-like illness symptoms were in favour of treatment: 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.06 to 1.35) for oseltamivir and 1.24 (1.13 to 1.36) for zanamivir. Eight unpublished studies on complications were ineligible and therefore excluded. The remaining evidence suggests oseltamivir did not reduce influenza related lower respiratory tract complications (risk ratio 0.55, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 1.35). From trial evidence, oseltamivir induced nausea (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 2.93). Evidence of rarer adverse events from pharmacovigilance was of poor quality or possibly under-reported. Conclusion Neuraminidase inhibitors have modest effectiveness against the symptoms of influenza in otherwise healthy adults. The drugs are effective postexposure against laboratory confirmed influenza, but this is a small component of influenza-like illness, so for this outcome neuraminidase inhibitors are not effective. Neuraminidase inhibitors might be regarded as optional for reducing the symptoms of seasonal influenza. Paucity of good data has undermined previous findings for oseltamivir’s prevention of complications from influenza. Independent randomised trials to resolve these uncertainties are needed.

Interventions for Treating Depression After Stroke

Abstract: Graeme J. Hankey MD, FRCP Section Editor: Depression is an important consequence of stroke, affecting one third of patients, that often goes undetected or is inadequately treated and managed. This is an update of a Cochrane review we first published in 2004 to determine whether pharmacological, psychological, or electroconvulsive treatment (ECT) of depression in patients with stroke can improve outcome.1 We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group (last searched October 2007) and the Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis Group (last searched February 2008). In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials ( The Cochrane Library , Issue 1, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2006), EMBASE (1980 to May 2006), CINAHL (1982 to May 2006), PsycINFO (1967 to May 2006), and …

Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups

Abstract: Objectives To study the analgesic effect of acupuncture and placebo acupuncture and to explore whether the type of the placebo acupuncture is associated with the estimated effect of acupuncture. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of three armed randomised clinical trials. Data sources Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Biological Abstracts, and PsycLIT. Data extraction and analysis Standardised mean differences from each trial were used to estimate the effect of acupuncture and placebo acupuncture. The different types of placebo acupuncture were ranked from 1 to 5 according to assessment of the possibility of a physiological effect, and this ranking was meta-regressed with the effect of acupuncture. Data synthesis Thirteen trials (3025 patients) involving a variety of pain conditions were eligible. The allocation of patients was adequately concealed in eight trials. The clinicians managing the acupuncture and placebo acupuncture treatments were not blinded in any of the trials. One clearly outlying trial (70 patients) was excluded. A small difference was found between acupuncture and placebo acupuncture: standardised mean difference −0.17 (95% confidence interval −0.26 to −0.08), corresponding to 4 mm (2 mm to 6 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. No statistically significant heterogeneity was present (P=0.10, I 2 =36%). A moderate difference was found between placebo acupuncture and no acupuncture: standardised mean difference −0.42 (−0.60 to −0.23). However, considerable heterogeneity (P 2 =66%) was also found, as large trials reported both small and large effects of placebo. No association was detected between the type of placebo acupuncture and the effect of acupuncture (P=0.60). Conclusions A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear.

Strengthening the reporting of genetic association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement

Abstract: Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.

Can We Systematically Review Studies That Evaluate Complex Interventions

Abstract: Background to the debate The UK Medical Research Council defines complex interventions as those comprising “a number of separate elements which seem essential to the proper functioning of the interventions although the ‘active ingredient’ of the intervention that is effective is difficult to specify.” A typical example is specialist care on a stroke unit, which involves a wide range of health professionals delivering a variety of treatments. Michelle Campbell and colleagues have argued that there are “specific difficulties in defining, developing, documenting, and reproducing complex interventions that are subject to more variation than a drug” [10]. These difficulties are one of the reasons why it is challenging for researchers to systematically review complex interventions and synthesize data from separate studies. This PLoS Medicine Debate considers the challenges facing systematic reviewers and suggests several ways of addressing them.

Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells.

Abstract: For clinical trials with binary endpoints there are a variety of effect measures, for example risk difference, risk ratio and odds ratio (OR). The choice of metric is not always straightforward and should reflect the clinical question. Additional issues arise if the event of interest is rare. In systematic reviews, trials with zero events in both arms are encountered and often excluded from the meta-analysis.The arcsine difference (AS) is a measure which is rarely considered in the medical literature. It appears to have considerable promise, because it handles zeros naturally, and its asymptotic variance does not depend on the event probability.This paper investigates the pros and cons of using the AS as a measure of intervention effect. We give a pictorial representation of its meaning and explore its properties in relation to other measures. Based on analytical calculation of the variance of the arcsine transformation, a more conservative variance estimate for the rare event setting is proposed. Motivated by a published meta-analysis in cardiac surgery, we examine the statistical properties of the various metrics in the rare event setting.We find the variance estimate of the AS to be more stable than that of the log-OR, even if events are rare. However, parameter estimation is biased if the groups are markedly unbalanced. Though, from a theoretical viewpoint, the AS is a natural choice, its practical use is likely to continue to be limited by its less direct interpretation.

Duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy or chronic pain.

Abstract: Background Duloxetine is a balanced serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor licensed for the treatment of major depressive disorders, urinary stress incontinence and the management of neuropathic pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy. A number of trials have been conducted to investigate the use of duloxetine in neuropathic and nociceptive painful conditions. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of duloxetine for treating painful neuropathy and different types of chronic pain. Search strategy We searched The Cochrane Neuromuscular Group Specialized Register (10 March 2009), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2009), and www.clinicaltrials.gov to March 2009 and the reference lists of identified publications for trials of duloxetine used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain. Selection criteria We selected all randomised or quasi-randomised trials of any formulation of duloxetine, used for the treatment of painful peripheral neuropathy or chronic pain in adult participants. Data collection and analysis Two authors extracted data independently onto a specially designed proforma and cross checked them. Main results Six trials were identified including 2220 participants. Three studies included participants with painful diabetic neuropathy and three treated participants with fibromyalgia. Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is effective in treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the short-term to 12 weeks with a risk ratio (RR) for 50% pain reduction at 12 weeks of 1.65 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.03), number needed to treat (NNT) 6 (95% CI 5 to 10). Duloxetine at 60 mg daily is also effective in fibromyalgia over 12 weeks (RR 50% reduction in pain 1.57, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.06; NNT 8, 95% CI 5 to 17) and 28 weeks (RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.27). Adverse events were common in both treatment and placebo arms but more common in the treatment arm with a dose dependent effect. Most side effects were minor, but 16% of participants stopped the drug due to side effects. Serious adverse events were rare. Authors' conclusions There is moderately strong evidence that duloxetine 60 mg and 120 mg daily are efficacious for treating pain in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and fibromyalgia but 20 mg daily is not. Minor side effects are common at therapeutic doses but serious side effects are rare. Direct comparisons of duloxetine with other antidepressants and with other drugs already shown to be efficacious in neuropathic pain would be appropriate and should include unbiased economic analyses.

Breast screening: the facts—or maybe not

Abstract: Peter Gotzsche and colleagues argue that women are still not given enough, nor correct, information about the harms of screening

Erythropoietin or Darbepoetin for patients with cancer--meta-analysis based on individual patient data.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) reduce anemia in cancer patients and may improve quality of life, but there are concerns that ESAs might increase mortality OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to examine the effect of ESAs and identify factors that modify the effects of ESAs on overall survival, progression free survival, thromboembolic and cardiovascular events as well as need for transfusions and other important safety and efficacy outcomes in cancer patients SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and conference proceedings for eligible trials Manufacturers of ESAs were contacted to identify additional trials SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin or darbepoetin plus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) versus red blood cell transfusions (as necessary) alone, to prevent or treat anemia in adult or pediatric cancer patients with or without concurrent antineoplastic therapy DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing epoetin alpha, epoetin beta or darbepoetin alpha plus red blood cell transfusions versus transfusion alone, for prophylaxis or therapy of anemia while or after receiving anti-cancer treatment Patient-level data were obtained and analyzed by independent statisticians at two academic departments, using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analysis Analyses were according to the intention-to-treat principle Primary endpoints were on study mortality and overall survival during the longest available follow-up, regardless of anticancer treatment, and in patients receiving chemotherapy Tests for interactions were used to identify differences in effects of ESAs on mortality across pre-specified subgroups The present review reports only the results for the primary endpoint MAIN RESULTS: A total of 13933 cancer patients from 53 trials were analyzed, 1530 patients died on-study and 4993 overall ESAs increased on study mortality (combined hazard ratio [cHR] 117; 95% CI 106-130) and worsened overall survival (cHR 106; 95% CI 100-112), with little heterogeneity between trials (I(2) 0%, p=087 and I(2) 71%, p=033, respectively) Thirty-eight trials enrolled 10441 patients receiving chemotherapy The cHR for on study mortality was 110 (95% CI 098-124) and 104; 95% CI 097-111) for overall survival There was little evidence for a difference between trials of patients receiving different cancer treatments (P for interaction=042) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: ESA treatment in cancer patients increased on study mortality and worsened overall survival For patients undergoing chemotherapy the increase was less pronounced, but an adverse effect could not be excluded

Triage of women with equivocal or low‐grade cervical cytology results: a meta‐analysis of the HPV test positivity rate

Abstract: Consistent evidence underlines the utility of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing in the management of women with equivocal cervical cytological abnormalities, but not in case of low-grade lesions. We performed a meta-analysis including studies where the high-risk probe of the Hybrid Capture-II is used to triage these two cytological categories. The triage test-positivity rate reflects the colposcopy referral workload.Data were pooled on the HPV test positivity rate in women with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS/ASC-US) or low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (LSIL), derived from different cytological classification systems. The meta-analysis was restricted to studies, published between 1991 and 2007. A random-effect model was applied for meta-analytical pooling and the influence of covariates on the HPV positivity rate was analyzed by meta-regression. The variation by age was assessed within individual studies since age strata were not defined uniformly. On an average, 43% (95% CI: 40–46%) of women with ASCUS/ASC-US were high-risk HPV positive (range 23–74%). In women with LSIL, the pooled positivity rate was 76% (95% CI: 71–81%; range 55–89%). In spite of considerable inter-study heterogeneity, the difference in HPV positivity between the two triage groups was large and highly significant: 32% (95% CI: 27–38%). HPV rates dropped tremendously as age and cutoffs of test positivity increased. Other factors (cytological classification system, country, continent, collection method and year of publication) had no statistically significant impact, except in LSIL triage where HPV positivity was significantly lower in European compared to American studies. Women with LSIL, especially younger women, have high HPV positivity rates suggesting limited utility of reflex HPV triaging these cases. Research is needed to identify more specific methods to triage women with low-grade squamous cervical lesions.

Pre-hospital tracheal intubation in patients with traumatic brain injury: systematic review of current evidence

Abstract: Background We reviewed the current evidence on the benefit and harm of pre-hospital tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2007 without language restriction to identify interventional and observational studies comparing pre-hospital intubation with other airway management (e.g. bag-valve-mask or oxygen administration) in patients with TBI. Information on study design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by two investigators and cross-checked by two others. Seventeen studies were included with data for 15 335 patients collected from 1985 to 2004. There were 12 retrospective analyses of trauma registries or hospital databases, three cohort studies, one case–control study, and one controlled trial. Using Brain Trauma Foundation classification of evidence, there were 14 class 3 studies, three class 2 studies, and no class 1 study. Six studies were of adults, five of children, and three of both; age groups were unclear in three studies. Maximum follow-up was up to 6 months or hospital discharge. Results In 13 studies, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for an effect of pre-hospital intubation on in-hospital mortality ranged from 0.17 (favouring control interventions) to 2.43 (favouring pre-hospital intubation); adjusted ORs ranged from 0.24 to 1.42. Estimates for functional outcomes after TBI were equivocal. Three studies indicated higher risk of pneumonia associated with pre-hospital (when compared with in-hospital) intubation. Conclusions Overall, the available evidence did not support any benefit from pre-hospital intubation and mechanical ventilation after TBI. Additional arguments need to be taken into account, including medical and procedural aspects.

What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature

Abstract: Background to the debate: Ghostwriting occurs when someone makes substantial contributions to a manuscript without attribution or disclosure. It is considered bad publication practice in the medical sciences, and some argue it is scientific misconduct. At its extreme, medical ghostwriting involves pharmaceutical companies hiring professional writers to produce papers promoting their products but hiding those contributions and instead naming academic physicians or scientists as the authors. To improve transparency, many editors' associations and journals allow professional medical writers to contribute to the writing of papers without being listed as authors provided their role is acknowledged. This debate examines how best to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature from the perspectives of a researcher, an editor, and the professional medical writer.