Showing papers by "Cochrane Collaboration published in 2013"

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

Abstract: High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.

Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

Abstract: Screening with mammography uses X-ray imaging to find breast cancer before a lump can be felt. The goal is to treat cancer earlier, when a cure is more likely. The review includes seven trials that involved 600,000 women in the age range 39 to 74 years who were randomly assigned to receive screening mammograms or not. The studies which provided the most reliable information showed that screening did not reduce breast cancer mortality. Studies that were potentially more biased (less carefully done) found that screening reduced breast cancer mortality. However, screening will result in some women getting a cancer diagnosis even though their cancer would not have led to death or sickness. Currently, it is not possible to tell which women these are, and they are therefore likely to have breasts or lumps removed and to receive radiotherapy unnecessarily. If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% after 13 years of follow-up and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both the benefits and harms. To help ensure that the requirements for informed choice for women contemplating whether or not to attend a screening programme can be met, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.

Clinical Practice Guideline Tympanostomy Tubes in Children

Abstract: ObjectiveInsertion of tympanostomy tubes is the most common ambulatory surgery performed on children in the United States. Tympanostomy tubes are most often inserted because of persistent middle ea...

PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

Abstract: Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

Folic acid and folinic acid for reducing side effects in patients receiving methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract: Background Methotrexate (MTX) is a disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) used as a first line agent for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Pharmacologically, it is classified as an antimetabolite due to its antagonistic effect on folic acid metabolism. Many patients treated with MTX experience mucosal, gastrointestinal, hepatic or haematologic side effects. Supplementation with folic or folinic acid during treatment with MTX may ameliorate these side effects. Objectives To identify trials of supplementation with folic acid or folinic acid during MTX therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and to assess the benefits and harms of folic acid and folinic acid (a) in reducing the mucosal, gastrointestinal (GI), hepatic and haematologic side effects of MTX, and (b) whether or not folic or folinic acid supplementation has any effect on MTX benefit. Search methods We originally performed MEDLINE searches, from January 1966 to June 1999. During the update of this review, we searched additional databases and used a sensitive search strategy designed to retrieve all trials on folic acid or folinic acid for rheumatoid arthritis from 1999 up to 2 March 2012. Selection criteria We selected all double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in which adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis were treated with MTX (at a dose equal to or less than 25 mg/week) concurrently with folate supplementation. In this update of the review we only included trials using 'low dose' folic or folinic acid (a starting dose of ≤ 7 mg weekly). Data collection and analysis Data were extracted from the trials, and the trials were independently assessed for risk of bias using a predetermined set of criteria. Main results Six trials with 624 patients were eligible for inclusion. Most studies had low or unclear risk of bias for key domains. The quality of the evidence was rated as 'moderate' for each outcome as assessed by GRADE, with the exception of haematologic side effects which were rated as 'low'. There was no significant heterogeneity between trials, including where folic acid and folinic acid studies were pooled. For patients supplemented with any form of exogenous folate (either folic or folinic acid) whilst on MTX therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, a 26% relative (9% absolute) risk reduction was seen for the incidence of GI side effects such as nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92; P = 0.008). Folic and folinic acid also appear to be protective against abnormal serum transaminase elevation caused by MTX, with a 76.9% relative (16% absolute) risk reduction (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.34; P < 0.00001), as well as reducing patient withdrawal from MTX for any reason (60.8% relative (15.2% absolute) risk reduction, RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.53; P < 0.00001). We analysed the effect of folic or folinic acid on the incidence of stomatitis / mouth sores, and whilst showing a trend towards reduction in risk, the results were not statistically significant (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06) It was not possible to draw meaningful conclusions on the effect of folic or folinic acid on haematologic side effects of methotrexate due to small numbers of events and poor reporting of this outcome in included trials. It does not appear that supplementation with either folic or folinic acid has a statistically significant effect on the efficacy of MTX in treating RA (as measured by RA disease activity parameters such as tender and swollen joint counts, or physician's global assessment scores). Authors' conclusions The results support a protective effect of supplementation with either folic or folinic acid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis during treatment with MTX. There was a clincally important significant reduction shown in the incidence of GI side effects, hepatic dysfunction (asmeasured by elevated serum transaminase levels) as well as a clincally important significant reduction in discontinuation of MTX treatment for any reason. A trend towards a reduction in stomatitis was demonstrated however this did not reach statistical significance. This updated review with its focus on lower doses of folic acid and folinic acid and updated assessment of risk of bias aimed to give a more precise and more clinically relevant estimate of the benefit of folate supplementation for patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving methotrexate.

Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

Abstract: Objective To assess the influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates within meta-analyses. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 93 meta-analyses (735 randomised controlled trials) assessing therapeutic interventions with binary outcomes, published in the 10 leading journals of each medical subject category of the Journal Citation Reports or in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Data extraction Sample size, outcome data, and risk of bias extracted from each trial. Data synthesis Trials within each meta-analysis were sorted by their sample size: using quarters within each meta-analysis (from quarter 1 with 25% of the smallest trials, to quarter 4 with 25% of the largest trials), and using size groups across meta-analyses (ranging from Results Treatment effect estimates were significantly larger in smaller trials, regardless of sample size. Compared with quarter 4 (which included the largest trials), treatment effects were, on average, 32% larger in trials in quarter 1 (which included the smallest trials; ratio of odds ratios 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.82), 17% larger in trials in quarter 2 (0.83, 0.75 to 0.91), and 12% larger in trials in quarter 3 (0.88, 0.82 to 0.95). Similar results were obtained when comparing treatment effect estimates between different size groups. Compared with trials of 1000 patients or more, treatment effects were, on average, 48% larger in trials with fewer than 50 patients (0.52, 0.41 to 0.66) and 10% larger in trials with 500-999 patients (0.90, 0.82 to 1.00). Conclusions Treatment effect estimates differed within meta-analyses solely based on trial sample size, with stronger effect estimates seen in small to moderately sized trials than in the largest trials.

Observer bias in randomized clinical trials with measurement scale outcomes: A systematic review of trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessors

Abstract: Background: Clinical trials are commonly done without blinded outcome assessors despite the risk of bias. We wanted to evaluate the effect of nonblinded outcome assessment on estimated effects in randomized clinical trials with outcomes that involved subjective measurement scales. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with both blinded and nonblinded assessment of the same measurement scale outcome. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press and Google Scholar for relevant studies. Two investigators agreed on the inclusion of trials and the outcome scale. For each trial, we calculated the difference in effect size (i.e., standardized mean difference between nonblinded and blinded assessments). A difference in effect size of less than 0 suggested that nonblinded assessors generated more optimistic estimates of effect. We pooled the differences in effect size using inverse variance random-effects meta-analysis and used metaregression to identify potential reasons for variation. Results: We included 24 trials in our review. The main meta-analysis included 16 trials (involving 2854 patients) with subjective outcomes. The estimated treatment effect was more beneficial when based on nonblinded assessors (pooled difference in effect size −0.23 [95% confidence interval (CI) −0.40 to −0.06]). In relative terms, nonblinded assessors exaggerated the pooled effect size by 68% (95% CI 14% to 230%). Heterogeneity was moderate ( I 2 = 46%, p = 0.02) and unexplained by metaregression. Interpretation: We provide empirical evidence for observer bias in randomized clinical trials with subjective measurement scale outcomes. A failure to blind assessors of outcomes in such trials results in a high risk of substantial bias.

Interim Cosmetic and Toxicity Results From RAPID: A Randomized Trial of Accelerated Partial Breast Irradiation Using Three-Dimensional Conformal External Beam Radiation Therapy

Abstract: Purpose To report interim cosmetic and toxicity results of a multicenter randomized trial comparing accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) using three-dimensional conformal external beam radiation therapy (3D-CRT) with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Patients and Methods Women age > 40 years with invasive or in situ breast cancer ≤ 3 cm were randomly assigned after breast-conserving surgery to 3D-CRT APBI (38.5 Gy in 10 fractions twice daily) or WBI (42.5 Gy in 16 or 50 Gy in 25 daily fractions ± boost irradiation). The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). Secondary outcomes were cosmesis and toxicity. Adverse cosmesis was defined as a fair or poor global cosmetic score. After a planned interim cosmetic analysis, the data, safety, and monitoring committee recommended release of results. There have been too few IBTR events to trigger an efficacy analysis. Results Between 2006 and 2011, 2,135 women were randomly assigned to 3D-CRT APBI or WBI. Median follow-up was 36 months...

The role of evidence, context, and facilitation in an implementation trial: implications for the development of the PARIHS framework

Abstract: The case has been made for more and better theory-informed process evaluations within trials in an effort to facilitate insightful understandings of how interventions work. In this paper, we provide an explanation of implementation processes from one of the first national implementation research randomized controlled trials with embedded process evaluation conducted within acute care, and a proposed extension to the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. The PARIHS framework was prospectively applied to guide decisions about intervention design, data collection, and analysis processes in a trial focussed on reducing peri-operative fasting times. In order to capture a holistic picture of implementation processes, the same data were collected across 19 participating hospitals irrespective of allocation to intervention. This paper reports on findings from data collected from a purposive sample of 151 staff and patients pre- and post-intervention. Data were analysed using content analysis within, and then across data sets. A robust and uncontested evidence base was a necessary, but not sufficient condition for practice change, in that individual staff and patient responses such as caution influenced decision making. The implementation context was challenging, in which individuals and teams were bounded by professional issues, communication challenges, power and a lack of clarity for the authority and responsibility for practice change. Progress was made in sites where processes were aligned with existing initiatives. Additionally, facilitators reported engaging in many intervention implementation activities, some of which result in practice changes, but not significant improvements to outcomes. This study provided an opportunity for reflection on the comprehensiveness of the PARIHS framework. Consistent with the underlying tenant of PARIHS, a multi-faceted and dynamic story of implementation was evident. However, the prominent role that individuals played as part of the interaction between evidence and context is not currently explicit within the framework. We propose that successful implementation of evidence into practice is a planned facilitated process involving an interplay between individuals, evidence, and context to promote evidence-informed practice. This proposal will enhance the potential of the PARIHS framework for explanation, and ensure theoretical development both informs and responds to the evidence base for implementation. ISRCTN18046709 - Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (PoISE).

Differential effectiveness of placebo treatments: a systematic review of migraine prophylaxis

Abstract: Importance When analyzing results of randomized clinical trials, the treatment with the greatest specific effect compared with its placebo control is considered to be the most effective one Although systematic variations of improvements in placebo control groups would have important implications for the interpretation of placebo-controlled trials, the knowledge base on the subject is weak Objective To investigate whether different types of placebo treatments are associated with different responses using the studies of migraine prophylaxis for this analysis Design, Setting, and Participants We searched relevant sources through February 2012 and contacted the authors to identify randomized clinical trials on the prophylaxis of migraine with an observation period of at least 8 weeks after randomization that compared an experimental treatment with a placebo control group We calculated pooled random-effects estimates according to the type of placebo for the proportions of treatment response We performed meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity In a network meta-analysis, direct and indirect comparisons within and across trials were combined Additional analyses were performed for continuous outcomes Exposure Active migraine treatment and the placebo control conditions Main Outcomes and Measures Proportion of treatment responders, defined as having an attack frequency reduction of at least 50% Other available outcomes in order of preference included a reduction of 50% or greater in migraine days, the number of headache days, or headache score or a significant improvement as assessed by the patients or their physicians Results Of the 102 eligible trials, 23 could not be included in the meta-analyses owing to insufficient data Sham acupuncture (proportion of responders, 038 [95% CI, 030-047]) and sham surgery (058 [037-077]) were associated with a more pronounced reduction of migraine frequency than oral pharmacological placebos (022 [017-028]) and were the only significant predictors of response in placebo groups in multivariable analyses (P = 005 andP = 001, respectively) Network meta-analysis confirmed that more patients reported response in sham acupuncture groups than in oral pharmacological placebo groups (odds ratio, 188 [95% CI, 130-272]) Corresponding analyses for continuous outcomes showed similar findings Conclusions and Relevance Sham acupuncture and sham surgery are associated with higher responder ratios than oral pharmacological placebos Clinicians who treat patients with migraine should be aware that a relevant part of the overall effect they observe in practice might be due to nonspecific effects and that the size of such effects might differ between treatment modalities

Cochrane in context: Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children

Abstract: Cochrane Review: Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Debalini MG, Di Pietrantonj C. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004407. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3 This companion piece to the review, “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children,” contains the following pieces: The abstract of the review A commentary from one or more of the review authors, explaining why the review team felt the review was an important one to produce A commentary from Joan Robinson, Editor-in-chief, outlining the review's findings A review of clinical practice guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), United Kingdom Some other recently published references on this topic

Resistance exercise training for fibromyalgia.

Abstract: Background Fibromyalgia is characterized by chronic widespread pain that leads to reduced physical function. Exercise training is commonly recommended as a treatment for management of symptoms. We examined the literature on resistance training for individuals with fibromyalgia. Resistance training is exercise performed against a progressive resistance with the intention of improving muscle strength, muscle endurance, muscle power, or a combination of these. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of resistance exercise training in adults with fibromyalgia. We compared resistance training versus control and versus other types of exercise training. Search methods We searched nine electronic databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Dissertation Abstracts, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, AMED) and other sources for published full-text articles. The date of the last search was 5 March 2013. Two review authors independently screened 1856 citations, 766 abstracts and 156 full-text articles. We included five studies that met our inclusion criteria. Selection criteria Selection criteria included: a) randomized clinical trial, b) diagnosis of fibromyalgia based on published criteria, c) adult sample, d) full-text publication, and e) inclusion of between-group data comparing resistance training versus a control or other physical activity intervention. Data collection and analysis Pairs of review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted intervention and outcome data. We resolved disagreements between the two review authors and questions regarding interpretation of study methods by discussion within the pairs or when necessary the issue was taken to the full team of 11 members. We extracted 21 outcomes of which seven were designated as major outcomes: multidimensional function, self reported physical function, pain, tenderness, muscle strength, attrition rates, and adverse effects. We evaluated benefits and harms of the interventions using standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) or risk ratios or Peto odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where two or more studies provided data for an outcome, we carried out a meta-analysis. Main results The literature search yielded 1865 citations with five studies meeting the selection criteria. One of the studies that had three arms contributed data for two comparisons. In the included studies, there were 219 women participants with fibromyalgia, 95 of whom were assigned to resistance training programs. Three randomized trials compared 16 to 21 weeks of moderate- to high-intensity resistance training versus a control group. Two studies compared eight weeks of progressive resistance training (intensity as tolerated) using free weights or body weight resistance exercise versus aerobic training (ie, progressive treadmill walking, indoor and outdoor walking), and one study compared 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training using hand weights (1 to 3 lbs (0.45 to 1.36 kg)) and elastic tubing versus flexibility exercise (static stretches to major muscle groups). Statistically significant differences (MD; 95% CI) favoring the resistance training interventions over control group(s) were found in multidimensional function (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) total decreased 16.75 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -23.31 to -10.19), self reported physical function (-6.29 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -10.45 to -2.13), pain (-3.3 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -6.35 to -0.26), tenderness (-1.84 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -2.6 to -1.08), and muscle strength (27.32 kg force on bilateral concentric leg extension; 95% CI 18.28 to 36.36). Differences between the resistance training group(s) and the aerobic training groups were not statistically significant for multidimensional function (5.48 on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -0.92 to 11.88), self reported physical function (-1.48 units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -6.69 to 3.74) or tenderness (SMD -0.13; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.30). There was a statistically significant reduction in pain (0.99 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67) favoring the aerobic groups. Statistically significant differences were found between a resistance training group and a flexibility group favoring the resistance training group for multidimensional function (-6.49 FIQ units on a 100-point scale; 95% CI -12.57 to -0.41) and pain (-0.88 cm on a 10-cm scale; 95% CI -1.57 to -0.19), but not for tenderness (-0.46 out of 18 tender points; 95% CI -1.56 to 0.64) or strength (4.77 foot pounds torque on concentric knee extension; 95% CI -2.40 to 11.94). This evidence was classified low quality due to the low number of studies and risk of bias assessment. There were no statistically significant differences in attrition rates between the interventions. In general, adverse effects were poorly recorded, but no serious adverse effects were reported. Assessment of risk of bias was hampered by poor written descriptions (eg, allocation concealment, blinding of outcome assessors). The lack of a priori protocols and lack of care provider blinding were also identified as methodologic concerns. Authors' conclusions The evidence (rated as low quality) suggested that moderate- and moderate- to high-intensity resistance training improves multidimensional function, pain, tenderness, and muscle strength in women with fibromyalgia. The evidence (rated as low quality) also suggested that eight weeks of aerobic exercise was superior to moderate-intensity resistance training for improving pain in women with fibromyalgia. There was low-quality evidence that 12 weeks of low-intensity resistance training was superior to flexibility exercise training in women with fibromyalgia for improvements in pain and multidimensional function. There was low-quality evidence that women with fibromyalgia can safely perform moderate- to high-resistance training.

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds

Abstract: Background Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a treatment that contains fibrin and high concentrations of growth factors and has the potential to aid wound healing. Objectives To determine whether autologous PRP promotes the healing of chronic wounds. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register (searched 15 August 2012); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8); Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to August Week 1 2012); Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, August 14, 2012); Ovid EMBASE (1980 to 2012 Week 32); EBSCO CINAHL (1982 to 10 August 2012) and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)(accessed 22 August 2012). No date or language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared autologous PRP with placebo or alternative treatments for any type of chronic wound in adults. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed each study against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included trials. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and time to wound healing was analysed as survival data using the hazard ratio (HR). We considered heterogeneity as significant when I2 was >75%. Main results Nine eligible RCTs were included, with a total of 325 participants of whom 44% were women. The median number of participants per RCT was 26 (range 10 to 86). Four RCTs recruited people with mixed chronic wounds (there were participants with wounds caused by more than one aetiology and participants who had wounds of several aetiologies in the same trial), three RCTs recruited people with venous leg ulcers and two RCTs considered foot ulcers in people with diabetes. The median length of treatment was 12 weeks (range eight to 40 weeks). One study was at low risk of bias, three studies were at high risk of bias with the remainder being at overall unclear risk of bias. The proportion of completely healed chronic wounds was reported in seven RCTs that compared PRP with standard treatment or placebo, with no statistically significant difference between the groups, in diabetic foot ulcers (RR 1.16; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.35), in venous leg ulcers (pooled RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.27; I2=0% ) and in mixed chronic wounds (pooled RR 1.85; 95% CI 0.76 to 4.51; I2=42%). The total area epithelialised at the end of the intervention was reported in three RCTs of mixed chronic wounds, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (pooled MD -1.94 cm2; 95% CI -4.74 to 0.86; I2=47%). The percentage of wound area healed was reported in two RCTs of mixed chronic wounds, and results were statistically significant in favour of the PRP group (RR 51.78%; 95% CI 32.70 to 70.86; I2= 0%). Wound complications like infection or necrosis were reported by three RCTs, and there was no statistically significant difference between groups (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.31 to 3.73). Adverse effects were reported by three studies and there was no statistically significant difference between people treated with PRP and those not given PRP (pooled RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.32 to 3.58; I2=0%). Authors' conclusions There is currently no evidence to suggest that autologous PRP is of value for treating chronic wounds. However, current evidence is based on a small number of RCTs, most of which are either at high or unclear risk of bias. Well-designed and adequately powered clinical trials are needed.

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice

Abstract: Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice (Review) 1 Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality.We grouped the results from the included studies by drug used and the effect aimed at for aminoglycoside antibiotics, amitriptyline, anaesthetics, insulin, anticoagulants, ovarian stimulation, anti-rejection drugs and theophylline. We combined the effect sizes to give an overall effect for each subgroup of studies, using a random-effects model. We further grouped studies by type of outcome when appropriate (i.e. no evidence of heterogeneity). Main results Forty-six comparisons (from 42 trials) were included (as compared with 26 comparisons in the last update) including a wide range of drugs in inpatient and outpatient settings. All were randomized controlled trials except two studies. Interventions usually targeted doctors, although some studies attempted to influence prescriptions by pharmacists and nurses. Drugs evaluated were anticoagulants, insulin, aminoglycoside antibiotics, theophylline, anti-rejection drugs, anaesthetic agents, antidepressants and gonadotropins. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, their quality was generally low. This update found similar results to the previous update and managed to identify specific therapeutic areas where the computerized advice on drug dosage was beneficial compared with routine care: 1. it increased target peak serum concentrations (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13) and the proportion of people with plasma drug concentrations within the therapeutic range after two days (pooled risk ratio (RR) 4.44, 95% CI 1.94 to 10.13) for aminoglycoside antibiotics; 2. it led to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants (SMD for percentage of time spent in target international normalized ratio +0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.33) and insulin (SMD for percentage of time in target glucose range: +1.27, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.98); 3. it decreased the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.04); 4. it decreased the thromboembolism events (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94) and tended to decrease bleeding events for anticoagulants although the difference was not significant (rate ratio 0.81, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.08). It tended to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics (nephrotoxicity: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06) and anti-rejection drugs (cytomegalovirus infections: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40); 5. it tended to reduce the length of time spent in the hospital although the difference was not significant (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.02) and to achieve comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios than usual care; 6. there was no evidence of differences in mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, antirejection drugs and antidepressants. For all outcomes, statistical heterogeneity quantified by I2 statistics was moderate to high. Authors’ conclusions This review update suggests that computerized advice for drug dosage has some benefits: it increases the serum concentrations for aminoglycoside antibiotics and improves the proportion of people for which the plasma drug is within the therapeutic range for aminoglycoside antibiotics. It leads to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants and insulin. It decreases the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants. It tends to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics and anti-rejection drugs, and it significantly decreases thromboembolism events for anticoagulants. It tends to reduce the length of hospital stay compared with routine care while comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios were achieved. However, there was no evidence that decision support had an effect on mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that some decision support technical features (such as its integration into a computer physician order entry system) or aspects of organization of care (such as the setting) could optimize the effect of computerized advice. Taking into account the high risk of bias of, and high heterogeneity between, studies, these results must be interpreted with caution. P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice (Review) 2 Copyright © 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd. Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice Background Physicians and other healthcare professionals often prescribe drugs that will only work at certain concentrations. These drugs are said to have a narrow therapeutic window. This means that if the concentration of the drug is too high or too low, they may cause serious side effects or not provide the benefits they should. For example, blood thinners (anticoagulants) are prescribed to thin the blood to prevent clots. If the concentration is too high, people may experience excessive bleeding and even death. In contrast, if the concentration is too low, a clot could form and cause a stroke. For these types of drugs, it is important that the correct amount of the drug be prescribed. Calculating and prescribing the correct amount can be complicated and time-consuming for healthcare professionals. Sometimes determining the correct dose can take a long time since healthcare professionals may not want to prescribe high doses of the drugs initially because they make mistakes in calculations. Several computer systems have been designed to do these calculations and assist healthcare professionals in prescribing these types of drugs. Study characteristics We sought clinical trial evidence from scientific databases to evaluate the effectiveness of these computer systems. The evidence is current to January 2012. We found data from 42 trials (40 randomized controlled trials (trials that allocate people at random to receive one of a number of drugs or procedures) and two non-randomized controlled trials). Key results Computerized advice for drug dosage can benefit people taking certain drugs compared with empiric dosing (where a dose is chosen based on a doctor’s observations and experience)without computer assistance.When using the computer system, healthcare professionals prescribed appropriately higher doses of the drugs initially for aminoglycoside antibiotics and the correct drug dose was reached more quickly for oral anticoagulants. It significantly decreased thromboembolism (blood clotting) events for anticoagulants and tended to reduce unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics and anti-rejection drugs (although not an important difference). It tended to reduce the length of hospital stay compared with routine care with comparable or better cost-effectiveness. There was no evidence of effects on death or clinical side events for insulin (low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia)), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs (drugs taken to prevent rejection of a transplanted organ) and antidepressants. Quality of evidence The quality of the studies was low so these results must be interpreted with caution.

Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): do they contribute to differences in cancer survival?

Abstract: Background: There are wide international differences in 1-year cancer survival. The UK and Denmark perform poorly compared with other high-income countries with similar health care systems: Australia, Canada and Sweden have good cancer survival rates, Norway intermediate survival rates. The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of differences in cancer awareness and beliefs across these countries to identify where these might contribute to the pattern of survival. Methods: We carried out a population-based telephone interview survey of 19 079 men and women aged greater than or equal to50 years in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure. Results: Awareness that the risk of cancer increased with age was lower in the UK (14%), Canada (13%) and Australia (16%) but was higher in Denmark (25%), Norway (29%) and Sweden (38%). Symptom awareness was no lower in the UK and Denmark than other countries. Perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation were highest in the UK, in particular being worried about wasting the doctor's time (UK 34%; Canada 21%; Australia 14%; Denmark 12%; Norway 11%; Sweden 9%). Conclusion: The UK had low awareness of age-related risk and the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation, but symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries. Denmark had higher awareness of age-related risk and few perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation. This suggests that other factors must be involved in explaining Denmark's poor survival rates. In the UK, interventions that address barriers to prompt presentation in primary care should be developed and evaluated.

Developing and evaluating communication strategies to support informed decisions and practice based on evidence (DECIDE): protocol and preliminary results

Abstract: Background: Healthcare decision makers face challenges when using guidelines, including understanding the quality of the evidence or the values and preferences upon which recommendations are made, which are often not clear. Methods: GRADE is a systematic approach towards assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in healthcare. GRADE also gives advice on how to go from evidence to decisions. It has been developed to address the weaknesses of other grading systems and is now widely used internationally. The Developing and Evaluating Communication Strategies to Support Informed Decisions and Practice Based on Evidence (DECIDE) consortium (http://www.decide-collaboration.eu/), which includes members of the GRADE Working Group and other partners, will explore methods to ensure effective communication of evidence-based recommendations targeted at key stakeholders: healthcare professionals, policymakers, and managers, as well as patients and the general public. Surveys and interviews with guideline producers and other stakeholders will explore how presentation of the evidence could be improved to better meet their information needs. We will collect further stakeholder input from advisory groups, via consultations and user testing; this will be done across a wide range of healthcare systems in Europe, North America, and other countries. Targeted communication strategies will be developed, evaluated in randomized trials, refined, and assessed during the development of real guidelines. Discussion: Results of the DECIDE project will improve the communication of evidence-based healthcare recommendations. Building on the work of the GRADE Working Group, DECIDE will develop and evaluate methods that address communication needs of guideline users. The project will produce strategies for communicating recommendations that have been rigorously evaluated in diverse settings, and it will support the transfer of research into practice in healthcare systems globally.

Beta-lactam versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy in cancer patients with neutropenia.

Abstract: Background Continued controversy surrounds the optimal empirical treatment for febrile neutropenia. New broad-spectrum beta-lactams have been introduced as single treatment, and classically, a combination of a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside has been used. Objectives To compare beta-lactam monotherapy versus beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy for cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. Search methods The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 7, 2012), LILACS (August 2012), MEDLINE and EMBASE (August 2012) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (Issue 3, 2012). We scanned references of all included studies and pertinent reviews and contacted the first author of each included trial, as well as the pharmaceutical companies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any beta-lactam antibiotic monotherapy with any combination of a beta-lactam and an aminoglycoside antibiotic, for the initial empirical treatment of febrile neutropenic cancer patients. All cause mortality was the primary outcome assessed. Data collection and analysis Data concerning all cause mortality, infection related mortality, treatment failure (including treatment modifications), super-infections, adverse effects and study quality measures were extracted independently by two review authors. Risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis whenever possible. Individual domains of risk of bias were examined through sensitivity analyses. Published data were complemented by correspondence with authors. Main results Seventy-one trials published between 1983 and 2012 were included. All cause mortality was lower with monotherapy (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02, without statistical significance). Results were similar for trials comparing the same beta-lactam in both trial arms (11 trials, 1718 episodes; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.06) and for trials comparing different beta-lactams－usually a broad-spectrum beta-lactam compared with a narrower-spectrum beta-lactam combined with an aminoglycoside (33 trials, 5468 episodes; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.09). Infection related mortality was significantly lower with monotherapy (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.99). Treatment failure was significantly more frequent with monotherapy in trials comparing the same beta-lactam (16 trials, 2833 episodes; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20), and was significantly more frequent with combination therapy in trials comparing different beta-lactams (55 trials, 7736 episodes; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97). Bacterial super-infections occurred with equal frequency, and fungal super-infections were more common with combination therapy. Adverse events were more frequent with combination therapy (numbers needed to harm 4; 95% CI 4 to 5). Specifically, the difference with regard to nephrotoxicity was highly significant. Adequate trial methods were associated with a larger effect estimate for mortality and smaller effect estimates for failure. Nearly all trials were open-label. No correlation was noted between mortality and failure rates and these trials. Authors' conclusions Beta-lactam monotherapy is advantageous compared with beta-lactam-aminoglycoside combination therapy with regard to survival, adverse events and fungal super-infections. Treatment failure should not be regarded as the primary outcome in open-label trials, as it reflects mainly treatment modifications.

Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings

Abstract: Unpublished and misreported studies make it difficult to determine the true value of a treatment. Peter Doshi and colleagues call for sponsors and investigators of abandoned studies to publish (or republish) and propose a system for independent publishing if sponsors fail to respond

Effect of initial treatment strategy on survival of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract: Summary Background Several treatment strategies are available for adults with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, but studies assessing two alternative standards of care—increased dose bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP escalated ), and doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD)—were not powered to test differences in overall survival. To guide treatment decisions in this population of patients, we did a systematic review and network meta-analysis to identify the best initial treatment strategy. Methods We searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, and conference proceedings for randomised controlled trials published between January, 1980, and June, 2013, that assessed overall survival in patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma given BEACOPP baseline , BEACOPP escalated , BEACOPP variants, ABVD, cyclophosphamide (mechlorethamine), vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (C[M]OPP), hybrid or alternating chemotherapy regimens with ABVD as the backbone (eg, COPP/ABVD, MOPP/ABVD), or doxorubicin, vinblastine, mechlorethamine, vincristine, bleomycin, etoposide, and prednisone combined with radiation therapy (the Stanford V regimen). We assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed their quality. We then pooled the data and used a Bayesian random-effects model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We also reconstructed individual patient survival data from published Kaplan-Meier curves and did standard random-effects Poisson regression. Results are reported relative to ABVD. The primary outcome was overall survival. Findings We screened 2055 records and identified 75 papers covering 14 eligible trials that assessed 11 different regimens in 9993 patients, providing 59 651 patient-years of follow-up. 1189 patients died, and the median follow-up was 5·9 years (IQR 4·9–6·7). Included studies were of high methodological quality, and between-trial heterogeneity was negligible (τ 2 =0·01). Overall survival was highest in patients who received six cycles of BEACOPP escalated (HR 0·38, 95% credibility interval [CrI] 0·20–0·75). Compared with a 5 year survival of 88% for ABVD, the survival benefit for six cycles of BEACOPP escalated is 7% (95% CrI 3–10)—ie, a 5 year survival of 95%. Reconstructed individual survival data showed that, at 5 years, BEACOPP escalated has a 10% (95% CI 3–15) advantage over ABVD in overall survival. Interpretation Six cycles of BEACOPP escalated significantly improves overall survival compared with ABVD and other regimens, and thus we recommend this treatment strategy as standard of care for patients with access to the appropriate supportive care. Funding None.

Development of dependence following treatment with opioid analgesics for pain relief: a systematic review

Abstract: Aims To assess the incidence or prevalence of opioid dependence syndrome in adults (with and without previous history of substance abuse) following treatment with opioid analgesics for pain relief. Methods Medline, Embase, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2011. Systematic reviews and primary studies were included if they reported data about incidence or prevalence of opioid dependence syndrome (as defined by DSM-IV or ICD-10) in patients receiving strong opioids (or opioid-type analgesics) for treatment of acute or chronic pain due to any physical condition. The data were abstracted, and the methodological quality was assessed using validated checklists.Results Data were extracted from 17 studies involving a total of 88 235 participants.The studies included three systematic reviews, one randomized controlled trial, eight cross-sectional studies and four uncontrolled case series. Most studies included adult patients with chronic non-malignant pain; two also included patients with cancer pain; only one included patients with a previous history of dependence. Incidence ranged from 0 to 24% (median 0.5%); prevalence ranged from 0 to 31% (median 4.5%). Conclusions The available evidence suggests that opioid analgesics for chronic pain conditions are not associated with a major risk for developing dependence.

Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. METHODS This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered 'non-adherent to the protocol' but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data. RESULTS Systematic reviewer authors should include data from 'non-adherent' participants excluded from the primary study authors' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events. CONCLUSIONS This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.

Nonoperative treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication

Abstract: Background Lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication is one of the most commonly diagnosed and treated pathological spinal conditions. It frequently afflicts the elderly population. Objectives To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of nonoperative treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication. Search methods CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) databases were searched up to June 2012. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials published in English, in which at least one arm provided data on nonoperative treatments Data collection and analysis We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Risk of bias in each study was independently assessed by two review authors using the 12 criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group (Furlan 2009). Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as relative risk, continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference; uncertainty was expressed with 95% confidence intervals. If possible a meta-analysis was performed, otherwise results were described qualitatively. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. Main results From the 8635 citations screened, 56 full-text articles were assessed and 21 trials (1851 participants) were included. There was very low-quality evidence from six trials that calcitonin is no better than placebo or paracetamol, regardless of mode of administration or outcome assessed. From single small trials, there was low-quality evidence for prostaglandins, and very low-quality evidence for gabapentin or methylcobalamin that they improved walking distance. There was very low-quality evidence from a single trial that epidural steroid injections improved pain, function, and quality of life, up to two weeks, compared with home exercise or inpatient physical therapy. There was low-quality evidence from a single trial that exercise is of short-term benefit for leg pain and function compared with no treatment. There was low and very low-quality evidence from six trials that multimodal nonoperative treatment is less effective than indirect or direct surgical decompression with or without fusion. A meta-analysis of two trials comparing direct decompression with or without fusion to multimodal nonoperative care found no significant difference in function at six months (mean difference (MD) -3.66, 95% CI -10.12 to 2.80) and one year (MD -6.18, 95% CI -15.03 to 2.66), but at 24 months a significant difference was found favouring decompression (MD -4.43, 95% CI -7.91 to -0.96). Authors' conclusions Moderate and high-quality evidence for nonoperative treatment is lacking and thus prohibits recommendations for guiding clinical practice. Given the expected exponential rise in the prevalence of lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication, large high-quality trials are urgently needed.

Development and validation of a self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III).

Abstract: Cross-sectional validation study. To develop and validate a self-report version of the Spinal Cord Independence Measure (SCIM III). Two SCI rehabilitation facilities in Switzerland. SCIM III comprises 19 questions on daily tasks with a total score between 0 and 100 and subscales for ‘self-care’, ‘respiration & sphincter management’ and ‘mobility’. A self-report version (SCIM-SR) was developed by expert discussions and pretests in individuals with spinal cord injury (SCI) using a German translation. A convenience sample of 99 inpatients with SCI was recruited. SCIM-SR data were analyzed together with SCIM III data obtained from attending health professionals. High correlations between SCIM III and SCIM-SR were observed. Pearson’s r for the total score was 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82–0.91), for the subscales self-care 0.87 (0.81–0.91); respiration & sphincter management 0.81 (0.73–0.87); and mobility 0.87 (0.82–0.91). Intraclass correlations were: total score 0.90 (95% CI 0.85–0.93); self-care 0.86 (0.79–0.90); respiration & sphincter management 0.80 (0.71–0.86); and mobility 0.83 (0.76–0.89). Bland–Altman plots showed that patients rated their functioning higher than professionals, in particular for mobility. The mean difference between SCIM-SR and SCIM III for the total score was 5.14 (point estimate 95% CI 2.95–7.34), self-care 0.89 (0.19–1.59), respiration & sphincter management 1.05 (0.18–2.28 ) and mobility 3.49 (2.44–4.54). Particularly patients readmitted because of pressure sores rated their independence higher than attending professionals. Our results support the criterion validity of SCIM-SR. The self-report version may facilitate long-term evaluations of independence in persons with SCI in their home situation.

Celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal cancer pain: a systematic review.

Abstract: Objective This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and side effects of celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) in the treatment of upper abdominal cancer pain, and evaluates whether there are any differences between the percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) denervation techniques. Methods Five databases were searched, expanded by assessing the reference lists of all retrieved papers. Sixty-six publications fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Randomized controlled trials were available for the percutaneous CPN, and therefore meta-analyses were performed for pain, opioid consumption, and specific side effects. The quality of life data were too heterogeneous to be assessed by a meta-analysis, and evidence for EUS CPN could only be evaluated by observational studies. Results Meta-analyses show that percutaneous CPN significantly improves pain in patients with upper abdominal cancer, with a decrease in opioid consumption and side effects. It is unclear whether there is any change in quality of life. Case series suggest that EUS CPN improves pain. No conclusion can be made about EUS CPN's influence on opioid consumption. Although CPN is a safe procedure, side effects and complications can occur with both the percutaneous and EUS techniques. Conclusions Following this review, evidence suggests that CPN should be considered in patients with upper abdominal cancer where the pain is not adequately controlled with systemic analgesics or when significant opioid-induced side effects are present. The percutaneous approach remains the standard technique as robust evidence for EUS CPN is lacking.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for preventing burn wound infection

Abstract: Background Infection of burn wounds is a serious problem because it can delay healing, increase scarring and invasive infection may result in the death of the patient. Antibiotic prophylaxis is one of several interventions that may prevent burn wound infection and protect the burned patient from invasive infections. Objectives To assess the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis on rates of burn wound infection. Search methods In January 2013 we searched the Wounds Group Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid MEDLINE - In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (2013); Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO CINAHL and reference lists of relevant articles. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting. Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of antibiotic prophylaxis for the prevention of BWI. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted relevant data. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were estimated for dichotomous data and continuous data, respectively. When sufficient numbers of comparable RCTs were available, trials were pooled in a meta-analysis to estimate the combined effect. Main results This review includes 36 RCTs (2117 participants); twenty six (72%) evaluated topical antibiotics, seven evaluated systemic antibiotics (four of these administered the antibiotic perioperatively and three administered upon hospital admission or during routine treatment), two evaluated prophylaxis with non absorbable antibiotics, and one evaluated local antibiotics administered via the airway. The 11 trials (645 participants) that evaluated topical prophylaxis with silver sulfadiazine were pooled in a meta analysis. There was a statistically significant increase in burn wound infection associated with silver sulfadiazine compared with dressings/skin substitute (OR = 1.87; 95% CI: 1.09 to 3.19, I2 = 0%). These trials were at high, or unclear, risk of bias. Silver sulfadiazine was also associated with significantly longer length of hospital stay compared with dressings/skin substitute (MD = 2.11 days; 95% CI: 1.93 to 2.28). Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in non-surgical patients was evaluated in three trials (119 participants) and there was no evidence of an effect on rates of burn wound infection. Systemic antibiotics (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) were associated with a significant reduction in pneumonia (only one trial, 40 participants) (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.72) but not sepsis (two trials 59 participants) (RR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.12 to 1.61). Perioperative systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had no effect on any of the outcomes of this review. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract with non-absorbable antibiotics had no significant effect on rates of all types of infection (2 trials, 140 participants). Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase in rates of MRSA associated with use of non-absorbable antibiotics plus cefotaxime compared with placebo (RR = 2.22; 95% CI: 1.21 to 4.07). There was no evidence of a difference in mortality or rates of sepsis with local airway antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo (only one trial, 30 participants). Authors' conclusions The conclusions we are able to draw regarding the effects of prophylactic antibiotics in people with burns are limited by the volume and quality of the existing research (largely small numbers of small studies at unclear or high risk of bias for each comparison). The largest volume of evidence suggests that topical silver sulfadiazine is associated with a significant increase in rates of burn wound infection and increased length of hospital stay compared with dressings or skin substitutes; this evidence is at unclear or high risk of bias. Currently the effects of other forms of antibiotic prophylaxis on burn wound infection are unclear. One small study reported a reduction in incidence of pneumonia associated with a specific systematic antibiotic regimen.

Levothyroxine treatment and pregnancy outcome in women with subclinical hypothyroidism undergoing assisted reproduction technologies: systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Abstract: BACKGROUND Previous meta-analyses of observational data indicate that pregnant women with subclinical hypothyroidism have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcome. Potential benefits of levothyroxine (LT4) supplementation remain unclear, and no systematic review or meta-analysis of trial findings is available in a setting of assisted reproduction technologies (ART). METHODS Relevant trials published until August 2012 were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register databases and bibliographies of retrieved publications without language restrictions. RESULTS From 630 articles retrieved, we included three trials with data on 220 patients. One of these three trials stated 'live delivery' as outcome. LT4 treatment resulted in a significantly higher delivery rate, with a pooled relative risk (RR) of 2.76 (95% confidence limits 1.20-6.44; P = 0.018; I(2) = 70%), a pooled absolute risk difference (ARD) of 36.3% (3.5-69.0%: P = 0.030) and a summary number needed to treat (NNT) of 3 (1-28) in favour of LT4 supplementation. LT4 treatment significantly lowered miscarriage rate with a pooled RR of 0.45 (0.24-0.82; P = 0.010; I(2) = 26%), a pooled ARD of -31.3% (-48.2 to -14.5%: P < 0.001) and a summary NNT of 3 (2-7) in favour of LT4 supplementation. LT4 treatment had no effect on clinical pregnancy (RR 1.75; 0.90-3.38; P = 0.098; I(2) = 82%). In an ART setting, no data are available on the effects of LT4 supplementation on premature delivery, arterial hypertension, placental abruption or pre-eclampsia. CONCLUSIONS Our meta-analyses provide evidence that LT4 supplementation should be recommended to improve clinical pregnancy outcome in women with subclinical hypothyroidism and/or thyroid autoimmunity undergoing ART. Further research is needed to determine pregnancy outcome after close monitoring of thyroid function to maintain thyroid-stimulating hormone and free T4 levels within the trimester-specific reference ranges for pregnancy.