scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Cochrane Collaboration

NonprofitOxford, United Kingdom
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.


Papers
More filters
Reference EntryDOI
TL;DR: Application of a TEG or ROTEM guided transfusion strategy seems to reduce the amount of bleeding but whether this has implications for the clinical condition of patients is still uncertain and more research is needed.
Abstract: Background Severe bleeding and coagulopathy as a result of massive transfusion are serious clinical conditions that are associated with high mortality. Thromboelastography (TEG) and thromboelastometry (ROTEM) are increasingly used to guide transfusion strategy but their roles remain disputed. Objectives To systematically assess the benefits and harms of a TEG or ROTEM guided transfusion strategy in randomized trials involving patients with severe bleeding. Search methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 9); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Science Citation Index Expanded; International Web of Science; CINAHL; LILACS; and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (up to 31st October 2010). We contacted trial authors, authors of previous reviews, and manufacturers in the field. Selection criteria We included all RCTs, irrespective of blinding or language, that compared transfusion guided by TEG or ROTEM to transfusion guided by clinical judgement and standard laboratory tests, or both. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently abstracted data; they resolved any disagreements by discussion. We presented pooled estimates of the intervention effects on dichotomous outcomes as relative risks (RR) and on continuous outcomes as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary outcome measure was all cause mortality. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to assess the effect of TEG or ROTEM in adults and children on various clinical and physiological outcomes. We assessed the risk of bias through assessment of trial methodological components and the risk of random error through trial sequential analysis. Main results We included nine RCTs with a total of 776 participants; only one trial had a low risk of bias. We found two ongoing trials but were unable to retrieve any data from them. Compared with standard treatment, TEG or ROTEM showed no statistically significant effect on overall mortality (3.78% versus 5.11%, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.72; I2 = 0%) but only five trials provided data on mortality. Our analyses demonstrated a statistically significant effect of TEG or ROTEM on the amount of bleeding (MD -85.05 ml, 95% CI -140.68 to -29.42; I2 = 26%) but failed to show any statistically significant effect on other predefined outcomes. Authors' conclusions There is an absence of evidence that TEG or ROTEM improves morbidity or mortality in patients with severe bleeding. Application of a TEG or ROTEM guided transfusion strategy seems to reduce the amount of bleeding but whether this has implications for the clinical condition of patients is still uncertain. More research is needed.

324 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The original severity classification has been replaced by a much simpler risk classification (low or high risk), on the basis of lung function, dyspnea grade, and history of exacerbations, while determination of clinical phenotype is recommended only in high-risk patients.
Abstract: The clinical presentation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies widely, so treatment must be tailored according to the level of risk and phenotype. In 2012, the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) first established pharmacological treatment regimens based on clinical phenotypes. These regimens were subsequently adopted by other national guidelines, and since then, have been backed up by new evidence. In this 2017 update, the original severity classification has been replaced by a much simpler risk classification (low or high risk), on the basis of lung function, dyspnea grade, and history of exacerbations, while determination of clinical phenotype is recommended only in high-risk patients. The same clinical phenotypes have been maintained: non-exacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), exacerbator with emphysema, and exacerbator with bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilators, the only treatment recommended in low-risk patients. High-risk patients will receive different drugs in addition to bronchodilators, depending on their clinical phenotype. GesEPOC reflects a more individualized approach to COPD treatment, according to patient clinical characteristics and level of risk or complexity.

321 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The overall antiviral treatment rate and the reasons for nontreatment in a general population of HCV-infected patients in a metropolitan liver clinic are investigated.
Abstract: Most patients with hepatitis C virus infection are not candidates for interferon-based therapies; alternative interventions should be sought for these patients.

321 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
27 Feb 2012-BMJ
TL;DR: On average, non-blinded assessors of subjective binary outcomes generated substantially biased effect estimates in randomised clinical trials, exaggerating odds ratios by 36%.
Abstract: Objective To evaluate the impact of non-blinded outcome assessment on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes. Design Systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded assessment of the same binary outcome. For each trial we calculated the ratio of the odds ratios—the odds ratio from non-blinded assessments relative to the corresponding odds ratio from blinded assessments. A ratio of odds ratios Data Sources PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HighWire Press, and Google Scholar. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials with blinded and non-blinded assessment of the same binary outcome. Results We included 21 trials in the main analysis (with 4391 patients); eight trials provided individual patient data. Outcomes in most trials were subjective—for example, qualitative assessment of the patient’s function. The ratio of the odds ratios ranged from 0.02 to 14.4. The pooled ratio of odds ratios was 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.96), indicating an average exaggeration of the non-blinded odds ratio by 36%. We found no significant association between low ratios of odds ratios and scores for outcome subjectivity (P=0.27); non-blinded assessor’s overall involvement in the trial (P=0.60); or outcome vulnerability to non-blinded patients (P=0.52). Blinded and non-blinded assessors agreed in a median of 78% of assessments (interquartile range 64-90%) in the 12 trials with available data. The exaggeration of treatment effects associated with non-blinded assessors was induced by the misclassification of a median of 3% of the assessed patients per trial (1-7%). Conclusions On average, non-blinded assessors of subjective binary outcomes generated substantially biased effect estimates in randomised clinical trials, exaggerating odds ratios by 36%. This bias was compatible with a high rate of agreement between blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors and driven by the misclassification of few patients.

318 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
21 Jan 2015-BMJ
TL;DR: At short term, in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment, glibenclamide is clearly inferior to both insulin and meetformin, while metformin (plus insulin when required) performs slightly better than insulin.
Abstract: Objective To summarize short term outcomes in randomized controlled trials comparing glibenclamide or metformin versus insulin or versus each other in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomized controlled trials that fulfilled all the following: (1) published as full text; (2) addressed women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment; (3) compared glibenclamide v insulin, metformin v insulin, or metformin v glibenclamide; and (4) provided information on maternal or fetal outcomes. Data sources Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched up to 20 May 2014. Outcomes measures We considered 14 primary outcomes (6 maternal, 8 fetal) and 16 secondary (5 maternal, 11 fetal) outcomes. Results We analyzed 15 articles, including 2509 subjects. Significant differences for primary outcomes in glibenclamide v insulin were obtained in birth weight (mean difference 109 g (95% confidence interval 35.9 to 181)), macrosomia (risk ratio 2.62 (1.35 to 5.08)), and neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 2.04 (1.30 to 3.20)). In metformin v insulin, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference −1.14 kg (−2.22 to −0.06)), gestational age at delivery (mean difference −0.16 weeks (−0.30 to −0.02)), and preterm birth (risk ratio 1.50 (1.04 to 2.16)), with a trend for neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 0.78 (0.60 to 1.01)). In metformin v glibenclamide, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference −2.06 kg (−3.98 to −0.14)), birth weight (mean difference −209 g (−314 to −104)), macrosomia (risk ratio 0.33 (0.13 to 0.81)), and large for gestational age newborn (risk ratio 0.44 (0.21 to 0.92)). Four secondary outcomes were better for metformin in metformin v insulin, and one was worse for metformin in metformin v glibenclamide. Treatment failure was higher with metformin than with glibenclamide. Conclusions At short term, in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment, glibenclamide is clearly inferior to both insulin and metformin, while metformin (plus insulin when required) performs slightly better than insulin. According to these results, glibenclamide should not be used for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes if insulin or metformin is available. Systematic review registration [NCT01998113][1] [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01998113&atom=%2Fbmj%2F350%2Fbmj.h102.atom

317 citations


Authors

Showing all 2000 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Douglas G. Altman2531001680344
John P. A. Ioannidis1851311193612
Jasvinder A. Singh1762382223370
George A. Wells149941114256
Shah Ebrahim14673396807
Holger J. Schünemann141810113169
Paul G. Shekelle132601101639
Peter Tugwell129948125480
Jeremy M. Grimshaw123691115126
Peter Jüni12159399254
John J. McGrath120791124804
Arne Astrup11486668877
Mike Clarke1131037164328
Rachelle Buchbinder11261394973
Ian Roberts11271451933
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Copenhagen University Hospital
21.5K papers, 789.8K citations

88% related

VU University Medical Center
22.9K papers, 1.1M citations

88% related

University Medical Center Groningen
30.3K papers, 967K citations

88% related

World Health Organization
22.2K papers, 1.3M citations

87% related

Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre
12.6K papers, 659.2K citations

87% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20231
202210
2021289
2020288
2019215
2018213