Showing papers by "Cochrane Collaboration published in 2016"

ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Abstract: Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.

Abstract: Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan ( http://rayyan.qcri.org ), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.

Sex and Gender Equity in Research: rationale for the SAGER guidelines and recommended use

Abstract: Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication. This oversight limits the generalizability of research findings and their applicability to clinical practice, in particular for women but also for men. This article describes the rationale for an international set of guidelines to encourage a more systematic approach to the reporting of sex and gender in research across disciplines. A panel of 13 experts representing nine countries developed the guidelines through a series of teleconferences, conference presentations and a 2-day workshop. An internet survey of 716 journal editors, scientists and other members of the international publishing community was conducted as well as a literature search on sex and gender policies in scientific publishing. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines are a comprehensive procedure for reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analyses, results and interpretation of findings. The SAGER guidelines are designed primarily to guide authors in preparing their manuscripts, but they are also useful for editors, as gatekeepers of science, to integrate assessment of sex and gender into all manuscripts as an integral part of the editorial process.

Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

Abstract: Background Oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs in doses of at least 2 g/day, were more effective than placebo but no more effective than SASP for inducing remission in ulcerative colitis. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the efficacy and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for the treatment of mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Objectives The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective of this systematic review was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens. Search methods A computer-assisted literature search for relevant studies (inception to July 9, 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies. Selection criteria Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of parallel design, with a minimum treatment duration of four weeks. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with active ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other formulations of 5-ASA were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA (two or three times daily) and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion. Data collection and analysis The outcomes of interest were the failure to induce global/clinical remission, global/clinical improvement, endoscopic remission, endoscopic improvement, adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. SASP-controlled trials were subgrouped by 5-ASA/SASP mass ratios. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol, Claversal, Salofalk and Pentasa). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Main results Fifty-three studies (8548 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo with regard to all measured outcome variables. Seventy-one per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 83% of placebo patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). A dose-response trend for 5-ASA was also observed. No statistically significant differences in efficacy were found between 5-ASA and SASP. Fifty-four per cent of 5-ASA patients failed to enter remission compared to 58% of SASP patients (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.04). No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Forty-five per cent of once daily patients failed to enter clinical remission compared to 48% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). Eight per cent of patients dosed once daily failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 6% of conventionally dosed patients (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.86). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Fifty per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group failed to enter remission compared to 52% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02). A pooled analysis of 3 studies (n = 1459 patients) studies found no statistically significant difference in clinical improvement between Asacol 4.8 g/day and 2.4 g/day used for the treatment of moderately active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4.8 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 41% of patients in the 2.4 g/day group (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that patients with moderate disease may benefit from the higher dose of 4.8 g/day. One study compared (n = 123 patients) Pentasa 4 g/day to 2.25 g/day in patients with moderate disease. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the 4 g/day group failed to improve clinically compared to 57% of patients in the 2.25 g/day group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71). A pooled analysis of two studies comparing MMX mesalamine 4.8 g/day to 2.4 g/day found no statistically significant difference in efficacy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.29). There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulation and 5-ASA dose ranging (high dose versus low dose) studies. Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache and worsening ulcerative colitis. SASP was not as well tolerated as 5-ASA. Twenty-nine percent of SASP patients experienced an adverse event compared to 15% of 5-ASA patients (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.63). Authors' conclusions 5-ASA was superior to placebo and no more effective than SASP. Considering their relative costs, a clinical advantage to using oral 5-ASA in place of SASP appears unlikely. 5-ASA dosed once daily appears to be as efficacious and safe as conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Adherence does not appear to be enhanced by once daily dosing in the clinical trial setting. It is unknown if once daily dosing of 5-ASA improves adherence in a community-based setting. There do not appear to be any differences in efficacy or safety among the various 5-ASA formulations. A daily dosage of 2.4 g appears to be a safe and effective induction therapy for patients with mild to moderately active ulcerative colitis. Patients with moderate disease may benefit from an initial dose of 4.8 g/day.

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines

Abstract: #### Summary points Clinicians regularly face situations with two or more alternative actions. Each alternative often has different advantages and disadvantages, including differences in effectiveness, adverse effects, costs and other factors …

Oral 5‐aminosalicylic acid for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

Abstract: Background Oral 5-aminosalicylic (5-ASA) preparations were intended to avoid the adverse effects of sulfasalazine (SASP) while maintaining its therapeutic benefits. Previously, it was found that 5-ASA drugs were more effective than placebo but had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. This updated review includes more recent studies and evaluates the effectiveness, dose-responsiveness, and safety of 5-ASA preparations used for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. Objectives The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy, dose-responsiveness and safety of oral 5-ASA compared to placebo, SASP, or 5-ASA comparators for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. A secondary objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of once daily dosing of oral 5-ASA with conventional (two or three times daily) dosing regimens. Search methods A literature search for relevant studies (inception to 9 July 2015) was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Review articles and conference proceedings were also searched to identify additional studies. Selection criteria Studies were accepted for analysis if they were randomized controlled trials with a minimum treatment duration of six months. Studies of oral 5-ASA therapy for treatment of patients with quiescent ulcerative colitis compared with placebo, SASP or other 5-ASA formulations were considered for inclusion. Studies that compared once daily 5-ASA treatment with conventional dosing of 5-ASA and 5-ASA dose ranging studies were also considered for inclusion. Data collection and analysis The primary outcome was the failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adherence, adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and withdrawals or exclusions after entry. Trials were separated into five comparison groups: 5-ASA versus placebo, 5-ASA versus sulfasalazine, once daily dosing versus conventional dosing, 5-ASA versus comparator 5-ASA formulation, and 5-ASA dose-ranging. Placebo-controlled trials were subgrouped by dosage. Once daily versus conventional dosing studies were subgrouped by formulation. 5-ASA-controlled trials were subgrouped by common 5-ASA comparators (e.g. Asacol and Salofalk). Dose-ranging studies were subgrouped by 5-ASA formulation. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each outcome. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Main results Forty-one studies (8928 patients) were included. The majority of included studies were rated as low risk of bias. Ten studies were rated at high risk of bias. Seven of these studies were single-blind and three studies were open-label. However, two open-label studies and four of the single-blind studies utilized investigator performed endoscopy as an endpoint, which may protect against bias. 5-ASA was significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of clinical or endoscopic remission. Forty-one per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 58% of placebo patients (7 studies, 1298 patients; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.77). There was a trend towards greater efficacy with higher doses of 5-ASA with a statistically significant benefit for the 1 to 1.9 g/day (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.76) and the > 2 g/day subgroups (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.89). SASP was significantly superior to 5-ASA for maintenance of remission. Forty-eight per cent of 5-ASA patients relapsed compared to 43% of SASP patients (12 studies, 1655 patients; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.27). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcome for the placebo and SASP-controlled studies was high. No statistically significant differences in efficacy or adherence were found between once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA. Twenty-nine per cent of once daily patients relapsed over 12 months compared to 31% of conventionally dosed patients (8 studies, 3127 patients; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01). Eleven per cent of patients in the once daily group failed to adhere to their medication regimen compared to 9% of patients in the conventional dosing group (6 studies, 1462 patients; RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64). There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy among the various 5-ASA formulations. Forty-four per cent of patients in the 5-ASA group relapsed compared to 41% of patients in the 5-ASA comparator group (6 studies, 707 patients; RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.28). A pooled analysis of two studies showed no statistically significant difference in efficacy between Balsalazide 6 g and 3 g/day. Twenty-three per cent of patients in the 6 g/day group relapsed compared to 33% of patients in the 3 g/day group (216 patients; RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.45 to 2.79). One study found Balsalazide 4 g to be superior to 2 g/day. Thirty-seven per cent of patients in the 4 g/day Balsalazide group relapsed compared to 55% of patients in the 2 g/day group (133 patients; RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97). One study found a statistically significant difference between Salofalk granules 3 g and 1.5 g/day. Twenty-five per cent of patients in the Salofalk 3 g/day group relapsed compared to 39% of patients in the 1.5 g/day group (429 patients; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.86). Common adverse events included flatulence, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, headache, dyspepsia, and nasopharyngitis. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between 5-ASA and placebo, 5-ASA and SASP, once daily and conventionally dosed 5-ASA, 5-ASA and comparator 5-ASA formulations and 5-ASA dose ranging studies. The trials that compared 5-ASA and SASP may have been biased in favour of SASP because most trials enrolled patients known to be tolerant to SASP which may have minimized SASP-related adverse events. Authors' conclusions 5-ASA was superior to placebo for maintenance therapy in ulcerative colitis. However, 5-ASA had a statistically significant therapeutic inferiority relative to SASP. Oral 5-ASA administered once daily is as effective and safe as conventional dosing for maintenance of remission in quiescent ulcerative colitis. There does not appear to be any difference in efficacy or safety between the various formulations of 5-ASA. Patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or with frequent relapses may benefit from a higher dose of maintenance therapy. High dose therapy appears to be as safe as low dose and is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.

Azathioprine and 6‐mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis

Abstract: Background Maintenance of remission is a major issue in inflammatory bowel disease. In ulcerative colitis, the evidence for the effectiveness of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for the maintenance of remission is still controversial. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis. Search methods The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 30 July 2015. Both full randomized controlled trials and associated abstracts were included. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration that compared azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine with placebo or standard maintenance therapy (e.g. mesalazine) were included. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data using standard forms. Disagreements were solved by consensus including a third author. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was failure to maintain clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. Analyses were performed separately by type of control (placebo, or active comparator). Pooled risk ratios were calculated based on the fixed-effect model unless heterogeneity was shown. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for pooled outcomes. Main results Seven studies including 302 patients with ulcerative colitis were included in the review. The risk of bias was high in three of the studies due to lack of blinding. Azathioprine was shown to be significantly superior to placebo for maintenance of remission. Fourty-four per cent (51/115) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 65% (76/117) of placebo patients (4 studies, 232 patients; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome as low due to risk of bias and imprecision (sparse data). Two trials that compared 6-mercaptopurine to mesalazine, or azathioprine to sulfasalazine showed significant heterogeneity and thus were not pooled. Fifty per cent (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 100% (8/8) of mesalazine patients (1 study, 22 patients; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.90). Fifty-eight per cent (7/12) of azathioprine patients failed to maintain remission compared to 38% (5/13) of sulfasalazine patients (1 study, 25 patients; RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.50). One small study found that 6-mercaptopurine was superior to methotrexate for maintenance of remission. In the study, 50% (7/14) of 6-mercaptopurine patients and 92% (11/12) of methotrexate patients failed to maintain remission (1 study, 26 patients; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.95). One very small study compared azathioprine with cyclosporin and found that there was no significant difference between patients failing remission on azathioprine (50%, 4/8) or cyclosporin (62.5%, 5/8) (1 study, 16 patients, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.33 to 1.92). When placebo-controlled studies were pooled with aminosalicylate-comparator studies to assess adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between azathioprine and control in the incidence of adverse events. Nine per cent (11/127) of azathioprine patients experienced at least one adverse event compared to 2% (3/130) of placebo patients (5 studies, 257 patients; RR 2.82, 95% CI 0.99 to 8.01). Patients receiving azathioprine were at significantly increased risk of withdrawing due to adverse events. Eight per cent (8/101) of azathioprine patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 0% (0/98) of control patients (5 studies, 199 patients; RR 5.43, 95% CI 1.02 to 28.75). Adverse events related to study medication included acute pancreatitis (3 cases, plus 1 case on cyclosporin) and significant bone marrow suppression (5 cases). Deaths, opportunistic infection or neoplasia were not reported. Authors' conclusions Azathioprine therapy appears to be more effective than placebo for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine may be effective as maintenance therapy for patients who have failed or cannot tolerate mesalazine or sulfasalazine and for patients who require repeated courses of steroids. More research is needed to evaluate superiority over standard maintenance therapy, especially in the light of a potential for adverse events from azathioprine. This review updates the existing review of azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis which was published in the Cochrane Library (September 2012).

Association of BCG, DTP, and measles containing vaccines with childhood mortality: systematic review.

Abstract: Objectives To evaluate the effects on non-specific and all cause mortality, in children under 5, of Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG), diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP), and standard titre measles containing vaccines (MCV); to examine internal validity of the studies; and to examine any modifying effects of sex, age, vaccine sequence, and co-administration of vitamin A. Design Systematic review, including assessment of risk of bias, and meta-analyses of similar studies. Study eligibility criteria Clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of the effects on mortality of BCG, whole cell DTP, and standard titre MCV in children under 5. Data sources Searches of Medline, Embase, Global Index Medicus, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, supplemented by contact with experts in the field. To avoid overlap in children studied across the included articles, findings from non-overlapping birth cohorts were identified. Results Results from 34 birth cohorts were identified. Most evidence was from observational studies, with some from short term clinical trials. Most studies reported on all cause (rather than non-specific) mortality. Receipt of BCG vaccine was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality: the average relative risks were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01) from five clinical trials and 0.47 (0.32 to 0.69) from nine observational studies at high risk of bias. Receipt of DTP (almost always with oral polio vaccine) was associated with a possible increase in all cause mortality on average (relative risk 1.38, 0.92 to 2.08) from 10 studies at high risk of bias; this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Receipt of standard titre MCV was associated with a reduction in all cause mortality (relative risks 0.74 (0.51 to 1.07) from four clinical trials and 0.51 (0.42 to 0.63) from 18 observational studies at high risk of bias); this effect seemed stronger in girls than in boys. Seven observational studies, assessed as being at high risk of bias, have compared sequences of vaccines; results of a subset of these suggest that administering DTP with or after MCV may be associated with higher mortality than administering it before MCV. Conclusions Evidence suggests that receipt of BCG and MCV reduce overall mortality by more than would be expected through their effects on the diseases they prevent, and receipt of DTP may be associated with an increase in all cause mortality. Although efforts should be made to ensure that all children are immunised on schedule with BCG, DTP, and MCV, randomised trials are needed to compare the effects of different sequences.

Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents

Abstract: Background Fluoride mouthrinses have been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention in school-based programmes and by individuals at home. This is an update of the Cochrane review of fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents that was first published in 2003. Objectives The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride mouthrinses in preventing dental caries in the child and adolescent population. The secondary objective is to examine whether the effect of fluoride rinses is influenced by: • initial level of caries severity; • background exposure to fluoride in water (or salt), toothpastes or reported fluoride sources other than the study option(s); or • fluoride concentration (ppm F) or frequency of use (times per year). Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (whole database, to 22 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 April 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 April 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1937 to 22 April 2016), LILACS BIREME (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database, 1982 to 22 April 2016), BBO BIREME (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia; from 1986 to 22 April 2016), Proquest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 22 April 2016) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22 April 2016). We undertook a search for ongoing trials on the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching electronic databases. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. Selection criteria Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials where blind outcome assessment was stated or indicated, comparing fluoride mouthrinse with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years of age. Study duration had to be at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in permanent teeth (D(M)FS). Data collection and analysis At least two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for additional information when required. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF), that is, the difference in mean caries increments between treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses where data could be pooled. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity in random-effects metaregression analyses. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. Main results In this review, we included 37 trials involving 15,813 children and adolescents. All trials tested supervised use of fluoride mouthrinse in schools, with two studies also including home use. Almost all children received a fluoride rinse formulated with sodium fluoride (NaF), mostly on either a daily or weekly/fortnightly basis and at two main strengths, 230 or 900 ppm F, respectively. Most studies (28) were at high risk of bias, and nine were at unclear risk of bias. From the 35 trials (15,305 participants) that contributed data on permanent tooth surface for meta-analysis, the D(M)FS pooled PF was 27% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23% to 30%; I2 = 42%) (moderate quality evidence). We found no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, rinsing frequency or fluoride concentration in metaregression analyses. A funnel plot of the 35 studies in the D(M)FS PF meta-analysis indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision (no evidence of reporting bias). The pooled estimate of D(M)FT PF was 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%; I² = 54%), from the 13 trials that contributed data for the permanent teeth meta-analysis (moderate quality evidence). We found limited information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of the treatment regimen in the included trials. Three trials incompletely reported data on tooth staining, and one trial incompletely reported information on mucosal irritation/allergic reaction. None of the trials reported on acute adverse symptoms during treatment. Authors' conclusions This review found that supervised regular use of fluoride mouthrinse by children and adolescents is associated with a large reduction in caries increment in permanent teeth. We are moderately certain of the size of the effect. Most of the evidence evaluated use of fluoride mouthrinse supervised in a school setting, but the findings may be applicable to children in other settings with supervised or unsupervised rinsing, although the size of the caries-preventive effect is less clear. Any future research on fluoride mouthrinses should focus on head-to-head comparisons between different fluoride rinse features or fluoride rinses against other preventive strategies, and should evaluate adverse effects and acceptability.

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist.

Abstract: Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. This guidance helps authors of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and then how to go about updating the review.

Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports.

Abstract: Objective To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Main outcome measures Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia. Data sources Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly’s website. Eligibility criteria for study selection Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms. Data extraction and analysis Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto’s exact method (fixed effect model). Results We included 70 trials (64 381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18 526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly’s website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remaining outcomes was incomplete. Conclusions Because of the shortcomings identified and having only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately. In adults there was no significant increase in all four outcomes, but in children and adolescents the risk of suicidality and aggression doubled. To elucidate the harms reliably, access to anonymised individual patient data is needed.

Chest physiotherapy for acute bronchiolitis in paediatric patients between 0 and 24 months old

Abstract: Background This Cochrane review was first published in 2005 and updated in 2007, 2012 and now 2015. Acute bronchiolitis is the leading cause of medical emergencies during winter in children younger than two years of age. Chest physiotherapy is sometimes used to assist infants in the clearance of secretions in order to decrease ventilatory effort. Objectives To determine the efficacy of chest physiotherapy in infants aged less than 24 months old with acute bronchiolitis. A secondary objective was to determine the efficacy of different techniques of chest physiotherapy (for example, vibration and percussion and passive forced exhalation). Search methods We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 9) (accessed 8 July 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2015), MEDLINE in-process and other non-indexed citations (July 2015), EMBASE (1990 to July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to July 2015), LILACS (1985 to July 2015), Web of Science (1985 to July 2015) and Pedro (1929 to July 2015). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which chest physiotherapy was compared against no intervention or against another type of physiotherapy in bronchiolitis patients younger than 24 months of age. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data. Primary outcomes were change in the severity status of bronchiolitis and time to recovery. Secondary outcomes were respiratory parameters, duration of oxygen supplementation, length of hospital stay, use of bronchodilators and steroids, adverse events and parents' impression of physiotherapy benefit. No pooling of data was possible. Main results We included 12 RCTs (1249 participants), three more than the previous Cochrane review, comparing physiotherapy with no intervention. Five trials (246 participants) evaluated conventional techniques (vibration and percussion plus postural drainage), and seven trials (1003 participants) evaluated passive flow-oriented expiratory techniques: slow passive expiratory techniques in four trials, and forced passive expiratory techniques in three trials. Conventional techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcome of change in severity status of bronchiolitis measured by means of clinical scores (five trials, 241 participants analysed). Safety of conventional techniques has been studied only anecdotally, with one case of atelectasis, the collapse or closure of the lung resulting in reduced or absent gas exchange, reported in the control arm of one trial. Slow passive expiratory techniques failed to show a benefit in the primary outcomes of severity status of bronchiolitis and in time to recovery (low quality of evidence). Three trials analysing 286 participants measured severity of bronchiolitis through clinical scores, with no significant differences between groups in any of these trials, conducted in patients with moderate and severe disease. Only one trial observed a transient significant small improvement in the Wang clinical score immediately after the intervention in patients with moderate severity of disease. There is very low quality evidence that slow passive expiratory techniques seem to be safe, as two studies (256 participants) reported that no adverse effects were observed. Forced passive expiratory techniques failed to show an effect on severity of bronchiolitis in terms of time to recovery (two trials, 509 participants) and time to clinical stability (one trial, 99 participants analysed). This evidence is of high quality and corresponds to patients with severe bronchiolitis. Furthermore, there is also high quality evidence that these techniques are related to an increased risk of transient respiratory destabilisation (risk ratio (RR) 5.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 18.4, one trial) and vomiting during the procedure (RR 10.2, 95% CI 1.3 to 78.8, one trial). Results are inconclusive for bradycardia with desaturation (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.0, one trial) and bradycardia without desaturation (RR 3.6, 95% CI 0.7 to 16.9, one trial), due to the limited precision of estimators. However, in mild to moderate bronchiolitis patients, forced expiration combined with conventional techniques produced an immediate relief of disease severity (one trial, 13 participants). Authors' conclusions None of the chest physiotherapy techniques analysed in this review (conventional, slow passive expiratory techniques or forced expiratory techniques) have demonstrated a reduction in the severity of disease. For these reasons, these techniques cannot be used as standard clinical practice for hospitalised patients with severe bronchiolitis. There is high quality evidence that forced expiratory techniques in severe patients do not improve their health status and can lead to severe adverse events. Slow passive expiratory techniques provide an immediate and transient relief in moderate patients without impact on duration. Future studies should test the potential effect of slow passive expiratory techniques in mild to moderate non-hospitalised patients and patients who are respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) positive. Also, they could explore the combination of chest physiotherapy with salbutamol or hypertonic saline.

Bisphosphonate therapy for osteogenesis imperfecta.

Abstract: Background Osteogenesis imperfecta is caused by a genetic defect resulting in an abnormal type I collagen bone matrix which typically results in multiple fractures with little or no trauma. Bisphosphonates are used in an attempt to increase bone mineral density and reduce these fractures in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. Objectives To assess the effectiveness and safety of bisphosphonates in increasing bone mineral density, reducing fractures and improving clinical function in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of journals and conference proceedings. We additionally searched PubMed and major conference proceedings. Date of the most recent search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Register: 28 April 2016. Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing bisphosphonates to placebo, no treatment, or comparator interventions in all types of osteogenesis imperfecta. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Main results Fourteen trials (819 participants) were included. Overall, the trials were mainly at a low risk of bias, although selective reporting was an issue in several of the trials. Data for oral bisphosphonates versus placebo could not be aggregated; a statistically significant difference favouring oral bisphosphonates in fracture risk reduction and number of fractures was noted in two trials. No differences were reported in the remaining three trials which commented on fracture incidence. Five trials reported data for spine bone mineral density; all found statistically significant increased lumbar spine density z scores for at least one time point studied. For intravenous bisphosphonates versus placebo, aggregated data from two trials showed no statistically significant difference for the number of participants with at least one fracture, risk ratio 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 1.06). In the remaining trial no statistically significant difference was noted in fracture incidence. For spine bone mineral density, no statistically significant difference was noted in the aggregated data from two trials, mean difference 9.96 (95% confidence interval -2.51 to 22.43). In the remaining trial a statistically significant difference in mean per cent change in spine bone mineral density z score favoured intravenous bisphosphonates at six and 12 months. Data describing growth, bone pain, and functional outcomes after oral or intravenous bisphosphonate therapy, or both, as compared to placebo were incomplete among all studies, but do not show consistent improvements in these outcomes. Two studies compared different doses of bisphosphonates. No differences were found between doses when bone mineral density, fractures, and height or length z score were assessed. One trial compared oral versus intravenous bisphosphonates and found no differences in primary outcomes. Two studies compared the intravenous bisphosphonates zoledronic acid and pamidronate. There were no significant differences in primary outcome. However, the studies were at odds as to the relative benefit of zoledronic acid over pamidronate for lumbosacral bone mineral density at 12 months. Authors' conclusions Bisphophonates are commonly prescribed to individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta. Current evidence, albeit limited, demonstrates oral or intravenous bisphosphonates increase bone mineral density in children and adults with this condition. These were not shown to be different in their ability to increase bone mineral density. It is unclear whether oral or intravenous bisphosphonate treatment consistently decreases fractures, though multiple studies report this independently and no studies report an increased fracture rate with treatment. The studies included here do not show bisphosphonates conclusively improve clinical status (reduce pain; improve growth and functional mobility) in people with osteogenesis imperfecta. Given their current widespread and expected continued use, the optimal method, duration of therapy and long-term safety of bisphosphonate therapy require further investigation. In addition, attention should be given to long-term fracture reduction and improvement in quality of life indicators.

Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: Overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Abstract: The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials was introduced in 2008 and has frequently been commented on and used in systematic reviews. We wanted to evaluate the tool by reviewing published comments on its strengths and challenges and by describing and analysing how the tool is applied to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews. A review of published comments (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Methodology Register and Google Scholar) and an observational study (100 Cochrane and 100 non-Cochrane reviews from 2014). Our review included 68 comments, 15 of which were categorised as major. The main strengths of the tool were considered to be its aim (to assess trial conduct and not reporting), its developmental basis (wide consultation, empirical and theoretical evidence) and its transparent procedures. The challenges of the tool were mainly considered to be its choice of core bias domains (e.g. not involving funding/conflicts of interest) and issues to do with implementation (i.e. modest inter-rater agreement) and terminology. Our observational study found that the tool was used in all Cochrane reviews (100/100) and was the preferred tool in non-Cochrane reviews (31/100). Both types of reviews frequently implemented the tool in non-recommended ways. Most Cochrane reviews planned to use risk of bias assessments as basis for sensitivity analyses (70 %), but only a minority conducted such analyses (19 %) because, in many cases, few trials were assessed as having “low” risk of bias for all standard domains (6 %). The judgement of at least one risk of bias domain as “unclear” was found in 89 % of included randomized clinical trials (1103/1242). The Cochrane tool has become the standard approach to assess risk of bias in randomized clinical trials but is frequently implemented in a non-recommended way. Based on published comments and how it is applied in practice in systematic reviews, the tool may be further improved by a revised structure and more focused guidance.

Self‐monitoring and self‐management of oral anticoagulation

Abstract: © 2016 The Cochrane Collaboration. Background: The introduction of point-of-care devices for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a pre-determined dose-INR (international normalized ratio) schedule (self-management), or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Increasing evidence suggests self-testing of oral anticoagulant therapy is equal to or better than standard monitoring. This is an updated version of the original review published in 2010. Objectives: To evaluate the effects on thrombotic events, major haemorrhages, and all-cause mortality of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring. Search methods: For this review update, we re-ran the searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2015, Issue 6, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June week 4 2015), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to 2015 week 27) on 1 July 2015. We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. We did not apply any language restrictions . Selection criteria: Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management. Data collection and analysis: Review authors independently extracted data and we used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi2and I2statistics and used GRADE methodology to assess the quality of evidence. Main results: We identified 28 randomised trials including 8950 participants (newly incorporated in this update: 10 trials including 4227 participants). The overall quality of the evidence was generally low to moderate. Pooled estimates showed a reduction in thromboembolic events (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; participants = 7594; studies = 18; moderate quality of evidence). Both, trials of self-management or self-monitoring showed reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70; participants = 3497; studies = 11) and (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97; participants = 4097; studies = 7), respectively; the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. No reduction in all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; participants = 6358; studies = 11; moderate quality of evidence). While self-management caused a reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84; participants = 3058; studies = 8); self-monitoring did not (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.15; participants = 3300; studies = 3); the quality of evidence for both interventions was moderate. In 20 trials (8018 participants) self-monitoring or self-management did not reduce major haemorrhage (RR 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.12; moderate quality of evidence). There was no significant difference found for minor haemorrhage (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.41; participants = 5365; studies = 13). The quality of evidence was graded as low because of serious risk of bias and substantial heterogeneity (I2= 82%). Authors' conclusions: Participants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.

First‐line treatment of advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer

Abstract: Background Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation positive (M+) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is emerging as an important subtype of lung cancer comprising 10% to 15% of non-squamous tumours. This subtype is more common in women than men and is less associated with smoking. Objectives To assess the clinical effectiveness of single -agent or combination EGFR therapies used in the first-line treatment of people with locally advanced or metastatic EGFR M+ NSCLC compared with other cytotoxic chemotherapy (CTX) agents used alone or in combination, or best supportive care (BSC). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival, response rate, toxicity, and quality of life. Search methods We conducted electronic searches of the the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to 1 June 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 1 June 2015), and ISI Web of Science (1899 to 1 June 2015). We also searched the conference abstracts of the American Society for Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology (1 June 2015); Evidence Review Group submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; and the reference lists of retrieved articles. Selection criteria Parallel randomised controlled trials comparing EGFR-targeted agents (alone or in combination with cytotoxic agents or BSC) with cytotoxic chemotherapy (single or doublet) or BSC in chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic (stage IIIB or IV) EGFR M+ NSCLC unsuitable for treatment with curative intent. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently identified articles, extracted data, and carried out the 'Risk of bias' assessment. We conducted meta-analyses using a fixed-effect model unless there was substantial heterogeneity, in which case we also performed a random-effects analysis as a sensitivity analysis. Main results Nineteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Seven of these exclusively recruited people with EGFR M+ NSCLC; the remainder recruited a mixed population and reported results for people with EGFR M+ NSCLC as subgroup analyses. The number of participants with EGFR M+ tumours totalled 2317, of whom 1700 were of Asian origin. Overall survival (OS) data showed inconsistent results between the included trials that compared EGFR-targeted treatments against cytotoxic chemotherapy or placebo. Erlotinib was the intervention treatment used in eight trials, gefitinib in seven trials, afatinib in two trials, and cetuximab in two trials. The findings of one trial (FASTACT 2) did report a statistically significant OS gain for participants treated with erlotinib plus cytotoxic chemotherapy when compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, but this result was based on a small number of participants (n = 97). For progression-free survival (PFS), a pooled analysis of 3 trials (n = 378) demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for erlotinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.38). In a pooled analysis with 491 participants administered gefitinib, 2 trials (IPASS and NEJSG) demonstrated a statistically significant PFS benefit of gefitinib compared with cytotoxic chemotherapy (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.48). Afatinib (n = 709) showed a statistically significant PFS benefit when compared with chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of 2 trials (HR 0.42; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53). Commonly reported grade 3/4 adverse events for afatinib, erlotinib, and gefitinib monotherapy were rash and diarrhoea. Myelosuppression was consistently worse in the chemotherapy arms, fatigue and anorexia were also associated with some chemotherapies. No statistically significant PFS or OS benefit for cetuximab plus cytotoxic chemotherapy (n = 81) compared to chemotherapy alone was reported in either of the two trials. Six trials reported on quality of life and symptom improvement using different methodologies. For each of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib, 2 trials showed improvement in one or more indices for the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) compared to chemotherapy. The quality of evidence was high for the comparisons of erlotinib and gefitinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy and for the comparison of afatinib with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Authors' conclusions Erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib are all active agents in EGFR M+ NSCLC patients, and demonstrate an increased tumour response rate and prolonged progression-free survival compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. We also found a beneficial effect of the TKI compared to cytotoxic chemotherapy. However, we found no increase in overall survival for the TKI when compared with standard chemotherapy. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is less effective in EGFR M+ NSCLC than erlotinib, gefitinib, or afatinib and is associated with greater toxicity. There were no data supporting the use of monoclonal antibody therapy.

Comparison of Treatment Effects Measured by the Hazard Ratio and by the Ratio of Restricted Mean Survival Times in Oncology Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract: PurposeWe aimed to compare empirically the treatment effects measured by the hazard ratio (HR) and by the difference (and ratio) of restricted mean survival times (RMST) in oncology randomized trials.MethodsWe selected oncology randomized controlled trials from five leading journals during the last 6 months of 2014. We reconstructed individual patient data for one time-to-event outcome from each trial, preferably the primary outcome. We reanalyzed each trial and compared the treatment effect estimated by the HR with that by the difference (and ratio) of RMST. We estimated an average ratio of the HR to the ratio of RMST; an average ratio less than one indicates more optimistic assessments with HRs.ResultsWe analyzed 54 randomized controlled trials totaling 33,212 patients. The selected outcome was overall survival in 21 (39%) trials. There was evidence of nonproportionality of hazards in 13 (24%) trials. The HR and RMST-based measures were in agreement regarding the statistical significance of the effect, ...

Aminosalicylates for induction of remission or response in Crohn's disease

Abstract: Background Randomized trials investigating the efficacy of aminosalicylates for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease have yielded conflicting results. A systematic review was conducted to critically examine current available data on the efficacy of sulfasalazine and mesalamine for inducing remission or clinical response in these patients. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of aminosalicylates compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease. Search methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Library from inception to June 2015 to identify relevant studies. There were no language restrictions. We also searched reference lists from potentially relevant papers and review articles, as well as proceedings from annual meetings (1991-2015) of the American Gastroenterological Association and American College of Gastroenterology. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of sulfasalazine or mesalamine in the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease compared to placebo, corticosteroids, and other aminosalicylates (alone or in combination with corticosteroids) were included. Data collection and analysis Data extraction and assessment of methodological quality was independently performed by the investigators and any disagreement was resolved by discussion and consensus. We assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome measure was a well defined clinical endpoint of induction of remission or response to treatment. Secondary outcomes included mean Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI) scores, adverse events, serious adverse events and withdrawal due to adverse events. For dichotomous outcomes we calculated the pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model. For continuous outcomes we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using a random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses based on a fixed-effect model and duration of therapy were conducted where appropriate. Main results Twenty studies (2367 patients) were included. Two studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. Eight studies were judged to be at high risk of bias due to incomplete outcomes data (high drop-out rates) and potential selective reporting. The other 10 studies were judged to be at low risk of bias. A non-significant trend in favour of sulfasalazine over placebo for inducing remission was observed, with benefit confined mainly to patients with Crohn's colitis. Forty-five per cent (63/141) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17-18 weeks compared to 29% (43/148) of placebo patients (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.89, 2 studies). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (106 events). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and placebo in adverse event outcomes. Sulfasalazine was significantly less effective than corticosteroids and inferior to combination therapy with corticosteroids (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.86, 1 study, 110 patients). Forty-three per cent (55/128) of sulfasalazine patients entered remission at 17 to 18 weeks compared to 60% (79/132) of corticosteroid patients (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 2 studies, 260 patients). A GRADE analysis rated the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome as moderate due to sparse data (134 events). Sulfasalazine patients experienced significantly fewer adverse events than corticosteroid patients (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.82; 1 study, 159 patients). There was no difference between sulfasalazine and corticosteroids in serious adverse events or withdrawal due to adverse events. Olsalazine was less effective than placebo in a single trial (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; 91 patients). Low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission. Twenty-three per cent (43/185) of low dose mesalamine patients entered remission at week 6 compared to 15% (18/117) of placebo patients (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.40; n = 302). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting this outcome was low due to risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (61 events). There was no difference between low dose mesalamine and placebo in the proportion of patients who had adverse events (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.96; 3 studies, 342 patients) or withdrew due to adverse events (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.95; 3 studies, 342 patients). High dose controlled-release mesalamine (4 g/day) was not superior to placebo, inducing a clinically non significant reduction in CDAI (MD -19.8 points, 95% CI -46.2 to 6.7; 3 studies, 615 patients), and was also inferior to budesonide (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78; 1 study, 182 patients, GRADE = low). While high dose delayed-release mesalamine (3 to 4.5 g/day) was not superior to placebo for induction of remission (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 5.45; 1 study, 38 patients, GRADE = very low), no significant difference in efficacy was found when compared to conventional corticosteroids (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36; 3 studies, 178 patients, GRADE = moderate) or budesonide (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05; 1 study, 307 patients, GRADE = moderate). However, these trials were limited by risk of bias (incomplete outcome data) and sparse data (small numbers of events). There was a lack of good quality clinical trials comparing sulfasalazine with other mesalamine formulations. Adverse events that were commonly reported included headache, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Authors' conclusions Sulfasalazine is only modestly effective with a trend towards benefit over placebo and is inferior to corticosteroids for the treatment of mildly to moderately active Crohn's disease. Olsalazine and low dose mesalamine (1 to 2 g/day) are not superior to placebo. High dose mesalamine (3.2 to 4 g/day) is not more effective than placebo for inducing response or remission. However, trials assessing the efficacy of high dose mesalamine (4 to 4.5 g/day) compared to budesonide yielded conflicting results and firm conclusions cannot be made. Future large randomized controlled trials are needed to provide definitive evidence on the efficacy of aminosalicylates in active Crohn's disease.

Active body surface warming systems for preventing complications caused by inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in adults

Abstract: Background Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a phenomenon that can occur as a result of the suppression of the central mechanisms of temperature regulation due to anaesthesia, and of prolonged exposure of large surfaces of skin to cold temperatures in operating rooms. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia has been associated with clinical complications such as surgical site infection and wound-healing delay, increased bleeding or cardiovascular events. One of the most frequently used techniques to prevent inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is active body surface warming systems (ABSW), which generate heat mechanically (heating of air, water or gels) that is transferred to the patient via skin contact. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of pre- or intraoperative active body surface warming systems (ABSW), or both, to prevent perioperative complications from unintended hypothermia during surgery in adults. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2015); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1964 to October 2015), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2015), and CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to October 2015). Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an ABSW system aimed at maintaining normothermia perioperatively against a control or against any other ABSW system. Eligible studies also had to include relevant clinical outcomes other than measuring temperature alone. Data collection and analysis Several authors, by pairs, screened references and determined eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and consensus, with the collaboration of a third author. Main results We included 67 trials with 5438 participants that comprised 79 comparisons. Forty-five RCTs compared ABSW versus control, whereas 18 compared two different types of ABSW, and 10 compared two different techniques to administer the same type of ABSW. Forced-air warming (FAW) was by far the most studied intervention. Trials varied widely regarding whether the interventions were applied alone or in combination with other active (based on a different mechanism of heat transfer) and/or passive methods of maintaining normothermia. The type of participants and surgical interventions, as well as anaesthesia management, co-interventions and the timing of outcome measurement, also varied widely. The risk of bias of included studies was largely unclear due to limitations in the reports. Most studies were open-label, due to the nature of the intervention and the fact that temperature was usually the principal outcome. Nevertheless, given that outcome measurement could have been conducted in a blinded manner, we rated the risk of detection and performance bias as high. The comparison of ABSW versus control showed a reduction in the rate of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.66; 3 RCTs, 589 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study at low risk of bias observed a beneficial effect with forced-air warming on major cardiovascular complications (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.00; 1 RCT with 12 events, 300 participants, low-quality evidence) in people at high cardiovascular risk. We found no beneficial effect for mortality. ABSW also reduced blood loss during surgery but the magnitude of this effect seems to be irrelevant (MD -46.17 mL, 95% CI -82.74 to -9.59; I² = 78%; 20 studies, 1372 participants). The same conclusion applies to total fluids infused during surgery (MD -144.49 mL, 95% CI -221.57 to -67.40; I² = 73%; 24 studies, 1491 participants). These effects did not translate into a significant reduction in the number of participants being transfused or the average amount of blood transfused. ABSW was associated with a reduction in shivering (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54; 29 studies, 1922 participants) and in thermal comfort (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.24; I² = 77%, 4 trials, 364 participants). For the comparison between different types of ABSW system or modes of administration of a particular type of ABSW, we found no evidence for the superiority of any system in terms of clinical outcomes, except for extending systemic warming to the preoperative period in participants undergoing major abdominal surgery (one study at low risk of bias). There were limited data on adverse effects (the most relevant being thermal burns). While some trials included a narrative report mentioning that no adverse effects were observed, the majority made no reference to it. Nothing so far suggests that ABSW involves a significant risk to patients. Authors' conclusions Forced-air warming seems to have a beneficial effect in terms of a lower rate of surgical site infection and complications, at least in those undergoing abdominal surgery, compared to not applying any active warming system. It also has a beneficial effect on major cardiovascular complications in people with substantial cardiovascular disease, although the evidence is limited to one study. It also improves patient's comfort, although we found high heterogeneity among trials. While the effect on blood loss is statistically significant, this difference does not translate to a significant reduction in transfusions. Again, we noted high heterogeneity among trials for this outcome. The clinical relevance of blood loss reduction is therefore questionable. The evidence for other types of ABSW is scant, although there is some evidence of a beneficial effect in the same direction on chills/shivering with electric or resistive-based heating systems. Some evidence suggests that extending systemic warming to the preoperative period could be more beneficial than limiting it only to during surgery. Nothing suggests that ABSW systems pose a significant risk to patients. The difficulty in observing a clinically-relevant beneficial effect with ABSW in outcomes other than temperature may be explained by the fact that many studies applied concomitant procedures that are routinely in place as co-interventions to prevent hypothermia, whether passive or active warming systems based in other physiological mechanisms (e.g. irrigation fluid or gas warming), as well as a stricter control of temperature in the context of the study compared with usual practice. These may have had a beneficial effect on the participants in the control group, leading to an underestimation of the net benefit of ABSW.

Saline irrigation for chronic rhinosinusitis

Abstract: BACKGROUND: This review is one of six looking at the primary medical management options for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis.Chronic rhinosinusitis is common and is characterised by inflammation of the lining of the nose and paranasal sinuses leading to nasal blockage, nasal discharge, facial pressure/pain and loss of sense of smell. The condition can occur with or without nasal polyps. Nasal saline irrigation is commonly used to improve patient symptoms. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of saline irrigation in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 30 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up period of at least three months comparing saline delivered to the nose by any means (douche, irrigation, drops, spray or nebuliser) with (a) placebo, (b) no treatment or (c) other pharmacological interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL), patient-reported disease severity and the commonest adverse event - epistaxis. Secondary outcomes included general HRQL, endoscopic nasal polyp score, computerised tomography (CT) scan score and the adverse events of local irritation and discomfort. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs (116 adult participants). One compared large-volume (150 ml) hypertonic (2%) saline irrigation with usual treatment over a six-month period; the other compared 5 ml nebulised saline twice a day with intranasal corticosteroids, treating participants for three months and evaluating them on completion of treatment and three months later. Large-volume, hypertonic nasal saline versus usual careOne trial included 76 adult participants (52 intervention, 24 control) with or without polyps.Disease-specific HRQL was reported using the Rhinosinusitis Disability Index (RSDI; 0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). At the end of three months of treatment, patients in the saline group were better than those in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 6.3 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 11.71) and at six months there was a greater effect (MD 13.5 points, 95% CI 9.63 to 17.37). We assessed the evidence to be of low quality for the three months follow-up and very low quality for the six months follow-up. Patient-reported disease severity was evaluated using a "single-item sinus symptom severity assessment" but the range of scores is not stated, making it impossible for us to determine the meaning of the data presented.No adverse effects data were collected in the control group but 23% of participants in the saline group experienced side effects including epistaxis. General HRQL was measured using SF-12 (0 to 100, 100 = best quality of life). No difference was found after three months of treatment (low quality evidence) but at six months there was a small difference favouring the saline group, which may not be of clinical significance and has high uncertainty (MD 10.5 points, 95% CI 0.66 to 20.34) (very low quality evidence). Low-volume, nebulised saline versus intranasal corticosteroidsOne trial included 40 adult participants with polyps. Our primary outcome of disease-specific HRQL was not reported. At the end of treatment (three months) the patients who had intranasal corticosteroids had less severe symptoms (MD -13.50, 95% CI -14.44 to -12.56); this corresponds to a large effect size. We assessed the evidence to be of very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The two studies were very different in terms of included populations, interventions and comparisons and so it is therefore difficult to draw conclusions for practice. The evidence suggests that there is no benefit of a low-volume (5 ml) nebulised saline spray over intranasal steroids. There is some benefit of daily, large-volume (150 ml) saline irrigation with a hypertonic solution when compared with placebo, but the quality of the evidence is low for three months and very low for six months of treatment.

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise.

Abstract: The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

Phlebotonics for venous insufficiency

Abstract: Background Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common condition caused by valvular dysfunction with or without associated obstruction, usually in the lower limbs. It might result in considerable discomfort with symptoms such as pain, itchiness and tiredness in the legs. Patients with CVI may also experience swelling and ulcers. Phlebotonics are a class of drugs often used to treat CVI. This is an update of a review first published in 2005. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of phlebotonics administered both orally and topically for treatment of signs and symptoms of lower extremity CVI. Search methods For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Specialised Register (August 2015), as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 7). The reference lists of the articles retrieved by electronic searches were searched for additional citations. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal for ongoing studies (last searched in August 2015). Selection criteria Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of rutosides, hidrosmine, diosmine, calcium dobesilate, chromocarbe, Centella asiatica, disodium flavodate, french maritime pine bark extract, grape seed extract and aminaftone in patients with CVI at any stage of the disease. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of included RCTs. We estimated the effects of treatment by using risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs), according to the outcome assessed. We calculated 95% confidence interval (CIs) and percentage of heterogeneity (I2). Additionally, we performed sensitivity analyses. Main results We included 66 RCTs of oral phlebotonics, but only 53 trials provided quantifiable data (involving 6013 participants; mean age 50 years) for the efficacy analysis: 28 for rutosides, 10 hidrosmine and diosmine, nine calcium dobesilate, two Centella asiatica, two aminaftone, two french maritime pine bark extract and one grape seed extract. No studies evaluating topical phlebotonics, chromocarbe, naftazone or disodium flavodate fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that phlebotonics reduced oedema in the lower legs compared with placebo. Phlebotonics showed beneficial effects among participants including reduced oedema (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.78; I2 = 20%; 1245 participants) and ankle circumference (MD -4.27 mm, 95% CI -5.61 to -2.93 mm; I2 = 47%; 2010 participants). Low-quality evidence reveals no difference in the proportion of ulcers cured with phlebotonics compared with placebo (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; I2 = 5%; 461 participants). In addition, phlebotonics showed greater efficacy for trophic disorders, cramps, restless legs, swelling and paraesthesia, when compared with placebo. We identified heterogeneity for the variables of pain, itching, heaviness, quality of life and global assessment by participants. For quality of life, it was not possible to pool the studies because heterogeneity was high. However, high-quality evidence suggests no differences in quality of life for calcium dobesilate compared with placebo (MD -0.60, 95% CI -2.15 to 0.95; I2 = 40%; 617 participants), and low-quality evidence indicates that in the aminaftone group, quality of life was improved over that reported in the placebo group (MD -10.00, 95% CI -17.01 to - 2.99; 79 participants). Moderate-quality evidence shows that the phlebotonics group had greater risk of non-severe adverse events than the placebo group (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.41; I2 = 0; 3975 participants). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most frequently reported adverse events. Authors' conclusions Moderate-quality evidence shows that phlebotonics may have beneficial effects on oedema and on some signs and symptoms related to CVI such as trophic disorders, cramps, restless legs, swelling and paraesthesia when compared with placebo but can produce more adverse effects. Phlebotonics showed no differences compared with placebo in ulcer healing. Additional high-quality RCTs focused on clinically important outcomes are needed to improve the evidence base.

Vaccines for preventing herpes zoster in older adults

Abstract: Background Herpes zoster, also known as 'shingles', is a neurocutaneous disease characterised by the reactivation of the latent varicella zoster virus (VZV), the virus that causes chickenpox when immunity to VZV declines. It is an extremely painful condition that can last many weeks or months and it can significantly compromise the quality of life of affected individuals. The natural process of aging is associated with a reduction in cellular immunity and this predisposes older people to herpes zoster. Vaccination with an attenuated form of VZV activates specific T cell production avoiding viral reactivation. The Food and Drug Administration has approved a herpes zoster vaccine with an attenuated active virus for clinical use among older adults, which has been tested in large populations. A new adjuvanted recombinant VZV subunit zoster vaccine has also been tested. It consists of recombinant VZV glycoprotein E and a liposome-based AS01B adjuvant system. This new vaccine is not yet available for clinical use. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of vaccination for preventing herpes zoster in older adults. Search methods For this 2015 update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1948 to the 3rd week of October 2015), EMBASE (2010 to October 2015), CINAHL (1981 to October 2015) and LILACS (1982 to October 2015). Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing zoster vaccine with placebo or no vaccine, to prevent herpes zoster in older adults (mean age > 60 years). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently collected and analysed data using a data extraction form. They also performed 'Risk of bias' assessment. Main results We identified 13 studies involving 69,916 participants. The largest study included 38,546 participants. All studies were conducted in high-income countries and included only healthy Caucasian individuals ≥ 60 years of age without immunosuppressive comorbidities. Ten studies used live attenuated varicella zoster virus (VZV) vaccines. Three studies tested a new type of vaccine not yet available for clinical use. We judged five of the included studies to be at low risk of bias. The incidence of herpes zoster, at up to three years of follow-up, was lower in participants who received the vaccine than in those who received a placebo: risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 0.56, risk difference (RD) 2%, number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of mild to moderate intensity adverse events. These date came from one large study that included 38,546 people aged 60 years or older. A study including 8122 participants compared the new vaccine (not yet available) to the placebo; the group that received the new vaccine had a lower incidence of herpes zoster at 3.2 years of follow-up: RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, RD 3%, NNTB 33; GRADE: moderate quality evidence. The vaccinated group had a higher incidence of adverse events but most them were of mild to moderate intensity. All studies received funding from the pharmaceutical industry. Authors' conclusions Herpes zoster vaccine is effective in preventing herpes zoster disease and this protection can last three years. In general, zoster vaccine is well tolerated; it produces few systemic adverse events and injection site adverse events of mild to moderate intensity. There are studies of a new vaccine (with a VZV glycoproteic fraction plus adjuvant), which is currently not yet available for clinical use.

Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers.

Abstract: Background Air travel might increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It has been suggested that wearing compression stockings might reduce this risk. This is an update of the review first published in 2006. Objectives To assess the effects of wearing compression stockings versus not wearing them for preventing DVT in people travelling on flights lasting at least four hours. Search methods For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (10 February 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 1)). Selection criteria Randomised trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists where necessary. Main results One new study that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was identified for this update. Eleven randomised trials (n = 2906) were included in this review: nine (n = 2821) compared wearing graduated compression stockings on both legs versus not wearing them; one trial (n = 50) compared wearing graduated compression tights versus not wearing them; and one trial (n = 35) compared wearing a graduated compression stocking on one leg for the outbound flight and on the other leg on the return flight. Eight trials included people judged to be at low or medium risk of developing DVT (n = 1598) and two included high-risk participants (n = 1273). All flights had a duration of more than five hours. Fifty of 2637 participants with follow-up data available in the trials of wearing compression stockings on both legs had a symptomless DVT; three wore stockings, 47 did not (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.25, P < 0.001; high-quality evidence). There were no symptomless DVTs in three trials. Sixteen of 1804 people developed superficial vein thrombosis, four wore stockings, 12 did not (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.13, P = 0.09; moderate-quality evidence). No deaths, pulmonary emboli or symptomatic DVTs were reported. Wearing stockings had a significant impact in reducing oedema (mean difference (MD) −4.72, 95% CI −4.91 to −4.52; based on six trials; low-quality evidence). A further two trials showed reduced oedema in the stockings group but could not be included in the meta-analysis as they used different methods to measure oedema. No significant adverse effects were reported. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that airline passengers similar to those in this review can expect a substantial reduction in the incidence of symptomless DVT and low-quality evidence that leg oedema is reduced if they wear compression stockings. Quality was limited by the way that oedema was measured. There is moderate-quality evidence that superficial vein thrombosis may be reduced if passengers wear compression stockings. We cannot assess the effect of wearing stockings on death, pulmonary embolism or symptomatic DVT because no such events occurred in these trials. Randomised trials to assess these outcomes would need to include a very large number of people.