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.

Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis for cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding - an updated Cochrane review.

Abstract: Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 34: 509–518 Summary Background Antibiotic prophylaxis seems to decrease the incidence of bacterial infections in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleeding and is considered standard of care. However, there is no updated information regarding the effects of this intervention. Aim To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylaxis in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding by performing a systematic review of randomised trials. Methods We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Science Citation Index EXPANDED until June 2010. We statistically combined data calculating relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes. Results Twelve trials (1241 patients) evaluating antibiotic prophylaxis against placebo or no antibiotic prophylaxis were included. Antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63–0.98), mortality from bacterial infections (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19–0.97), bacterial infections (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.26–0.47), rebleeding (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38–0.74) and days of hospitalisation (MD −1.91, 95% CI −3.80–0.02). Trials analysing rebleeding rate and hospitalisation length are still scarce, thus, caution should be exerted when interpreting the results. Conclusions Antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and upper gastrointestinal bleeding significantly reduced bacterial infections, and reduce all-cause mortality, bacterial infection mortality, rebleeding events and hospitalisation length. Novel clinically significant outcomes were included in this meta-analysis. Some benefits are biased and the risks are not yet properly assessed, this encourages future research in this field.

Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews.

Abstract: BACKGROUND the biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are very effective in treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however there is a lack of head-to-head comparison studies. OBJECTIVES to compare the efficacy and safety of abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, infliximab, and rituximab in patients with RA. METHODS this 'Overview of Reviews' was done by including all Cochrane Reviews on Biologics for RA available in The Cochrane Library. We included only data on standard dosing regimens for these biologic DMARDs from placebo-controlled trials. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were ACR50 and withdrawals due to adverse events. We calculated Risk Ratios (RR) for efficacy, Odds Ratio (OR) for safety and combined estimates of events across the placebo groups as the expected Control Event Rate (CER). Indirect comparisons of biologics were performed for efficacy and safety using a hierarchical linear mixed model incorporating the most important study level characteristic (i.e. type of biologic) as a fixed factor and study as a random factor; reducing the between study heterogeneity by adjusting for the interaction between the proportion of patients responding on placebo and the duration of the trial. MAIN RESULTS from the six available Cochrane reviews, we obtained data from seven studies on abatacept, eight on adalimumab, five on anakinra, four on etanercept, four on infliximab, and three on rituximab. The indirect comparison estimates showed similar efficacy for the primary efficacy outcome for all biologics with three exceptions. Anakinra was less efficacious than etanercept with a ratio of RRs (95% CI; P value) of 0.44 (0.23 to 0.85; P = 0.014); anakinra was less efficacious than rituximab, 0.45 (0.22 to 0.90; P = 0.023); and likewise adalimumab was more efficacious than anakinra, 2.34 (1.32 to 4.13; P = 0.003). In terms of safety, adalimumab was more likely to lead to withdrawals compared to etanercept, with a ratio of ORs of 1.89 (1.18 to 3.04; P = 0.009); anakinra more likely than etanercept, 2.05 (1.27 to 3.29; P = 0.003); and likewise etanercept less likely than infliximab, 0.37 (0.19 to 0.70; P = 0.002). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS based upon indirect comparisons, anakinra seemed less efficacious than etanercept, adalimumab and rituximab and etanercept seemed to cause fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than adalimumab, anakinra and infliximab. Significant heterogeneity in characteristics of trial populations imply that these finding must be interpreted.

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines part 3 of 3. The GRADE approach to developing recommendations.

Abstract: This is the third and last article in the series about the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines and its application in the field of allergy. We describe the factors that influence the strength of recommendations about the use of diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic interventions: the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, the quality of a body of evidence related to a decision, patients' values and preferences, and considerations of resource use. We provide examples from two recently developed guidelines in the field of allergy that applied the GRADE approach. The main advantages of this approach are the focus on patient important outcomes, explicit consideration of patients' values and preferences, the systematic approach to collecting the evidence, the clear separation of the concepts of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, and transparent reporting of the decision process. The focus on transparency facilitates understanding and implementation and should empower patients, clinicians and other health care professionals to make informed choices.

Autologous platelet-rich plasma for treating chronic wounds

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