Cochrane Collaboration

About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.

Extracorporeal life support for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: report of a Consensus Conference.

Abstract: The influenza H1N1 epidemics in 2009 led a substantial number of people to develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. In these patients, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used as rescue oxygenation therapy. Several randomized clinical trials and observational studies suggested that extracorporeal membrane oxygenation associated with protective mechanical ventilation could improve outcome, but its efficacy remains uncertain. Organized by the Societe de Reanimation de Langue Francaise (SRLF) in conjunction with the Societe Francaise d’Anesthesie et de Reanimation (SFAR), the Societe de Pneumologie de Langue Francaise (SPLF), the Groupe Francophone de Reanimation et d’Urgences Pediatriques (GFRUP), the Societe Francaise de Perfusion (SOFRAPERF), the Societe Francaise de Chirurgie Thoracique et Cardiovasculaire (SFCTV) et the Sociedad Espanola de Medecina Intensiva Critica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), a Consensus Conference was held in December 2013 and a jury of 13 members wrote 65 recommendations to answer the five following questions regarding the place of extracorporeal life support for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: 1) What are the available techniques?; 2) Which patients could benefit from extracorporeal life support?; 3) How to perform extracorporeal life support?; 4) How and when to stop extracorporeal life support?; 5) Which organization should be recommended? To write the recommendations, evidence-based medicine (GRADE method), expert panel opinions, and shared decisions taken by all the thirteen members of the jury of the Consensus Conference were taken into account.

Overestimated lead times in cancer screening has led to substantial underestimation of overdiagnosis.

Abstract: Published lead time estimates in breast cancer screening vary from 1 to 7 years and the percentages of overdiagnosis vary from 0 to 75%. The differences are usually explained as random variations. We study how much can be explained by using different definitions and methods. We estimated the clinically relevant lead time based on the observed incidence reduction after attending the last screening round in the Norwegian mammography screening programme. We compared this estimate with estimates based on models that do not take overdiagnosis into account (model-based lead times), for varying levels of overdiagnosis. Finally, we calculated overdiagnosis adjusted for clinical and model-based lead times and compared results. Clinical lead time was about one year based on the reduction in incidence in women previously offered screening. When overdiagnosed tumours were included, the estimates increased to 4–9 years, depending on the age at which screening begins and the level of overdiagnosis. Including all breast cancers detected in women long after the end of the screening programme dilutes the level of overdiagnosis by a factor of 2–3. When overdiagnosis is not taken into account, lead time is substantially overestimated. Overdiagnosis adjusted for model-based lead time is a function tending to zero, with no simple interpretation. Furthermore, the estimates are not in general comparable, because they depend on both the duration of screening and duration of follow-up. In contrast, overdiagnosis adjusted for clinically relevant tumours is a point estimate (and interpreted as percentage), which we find is the most reasonable method.

Clinical effectiveness: an approach to clinical trial design more relevant to clinical practice, acknowledging the importance of individual differences.

Abstract: a Pain Research and Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK b Department of Occupational and Social Medicine, University of Göttingen, Waldweg 37 B, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany c The UK Cochrane Centre, NHS R&D Programme, Summertown Pavilion, Middle Way, Oxford OX2 7LG, UK d Pain Clinic/Regional Centre of Excellence in Palliative Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway e Pain Clinic, Department of Anaesthesiology, Helsinki University Central Hospital, PO Box 140, 00029 HUS, Finland f CPMC Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA

Monitoring patients at risk of massive transfusion with Thrombelastography or Thromboelastometry: a systematic review

Abstract: Background Thrombelastography (TEG) and Thrombelastometry (ROTEM) are viscoelastic whole-blood assays evaluating the haemostatic capacity of blood. These devices are used in algorithms to guide transfusion of haemostatic blood components. Methods The methods used for this study were systematic reviews with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of TEG/ROTEM-based algorithm compared with standard treatment in patients with bleeding. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We searched the literature in seven databases (up to 31 October 2010), reference lists, registers of ongoing trials, and contacted authors and experts. We extracted data from included studies related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk and adverse events using Cochrane methodology. All trials irrespective of blinding or language status were included. Results Nine trials involving 776 participants were included. Eight trials involved cardiac surgery with an average blood loss of 390–960 ml, and one trial investigated liver transplantations. One trial was classified as low-risk-of-bias trial. We found two ongoing trials. No impact was identified on mortality, amount of blood transfused, incidence of surgical reinterventions, time to extubation, or length of stay in hospital and intensive care unit. We identified a significant reduction in blood loss favouring the use of TEG/ROTEM {85 ml [95% confidence interval (CI) 29.4−140.7]} and in the proportion of patients receiving freshly frozen plasma and platelets [relative risk 0.39 (95%CI 0.27–0.57)]. Conclusion There is currently weak evidence to support the use of TEG/ROTEM as a tool to guide transfusion in patients with severe bleeding. Further studies need to address other clinical settings and with larger blood losses.