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.

Guidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks

Abstract: Updating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a crucial process for maintaining the validity of recommendations. Methodological handbooks should provide guidance on both developing and updating CPGs. However, little is known about the updating guidance provided by these handbooks. We conducted a systematic review to identify and describe the updating guidance provided by CPG methodological handbooks and included handbooks that provide updating guidance for CPGs. We searched in the Guidelines International Network library, US National Guidelines Clearinghouse and MEDLINE (PubMed) from 1966 to September 2013. Two authors independently selected the handbooks and extracted the data. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data and conducted a narrative synthesis. We included 35 handbooks. Most handbooks (97.1%) focus mainly on developing CPGs, including variable degrees of information about updating. Guidance on identifying new evidence and the methodology of assessing the need for an update is described in 11 (31.4%) and eight handbooks (22.8%), respectively. The period of time between two updates is described in 25 handbooks (71.4%), two to three years being the most frequent (40.0%). The majority of handbooks do not provide guidance for the literature search, evidence selection, assessment, synthesis, and external review of the updating process. Guidance for updating CPGs is poorly described in methodological handbooks. This guidance should be more rigorous and explicit. This could lead to a more optimal updating process, and, ultimately to valid trustworthy guidelines.

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

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

Yoga treatment for chronic non‐specific low back pain

Abstract: Background Non-specific low back pain is a common, potentially disabling condition usually treated with self-care and non-prescription medication. For chronic low back pain, current guidelines state that exercise therapy may be beneficial. Yoga is a mind-body exercise sometimes used for non-specific low back pain. Objectives To assess the effects of yoga for treating chronic non-specific low back pain, compared to no specific treatment, a minimal intervention (e.g. education), or another active treatment, with a focus on pain, function, and adverse events. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and four trials registers to 11 March 2016 without restriction of language or publication status. We screened reference lists and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials of yoga treatment in people with chronic non-specific low back pain. We included studies comparing yoga to any other intervention or to no intervention. We also included studies comparing yoga as an adjunct to other therapies, versus those other therapies alone. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted outcome data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing or unclear information. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results We included 12 trials (1080 participants) carried out in the USA (seven trials), India (three trials), and the UK (two trials). Studies were unfunded (one trial), funded by a yoga institution (one trial), funded by non-profit or government sources (seven trials), or did not report on funding (three trials). Most trials used Iyengar, Hatha, or Viniyoga forms of yoga. The trials compared yoga to no intervention or a non-exercise intervention such as education (seven trials), an exercise intervention (three trials), or both exercise and non-exercise interventions (two trials). All trials were at high risk of performance and detection bias because participants and providers were not blinded to treatment assignment, and outcomes were self-assessed. Therefore, we downgraded all outcomes to 'moderate' certainty evidence because of risk of bias, and when there was additional serious risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity between studies, or the analyses were imprecise, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence further. For yoga compared to non-exercise controls (9 trials; 810 participants), there was low-certainty evidence that yoga produced small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three to four months (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.66 to -0.14; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of mean difference (MD) -2.18, 95% -3.60 to -0.76), moderate-certainty evidence for small to moderate improvements at six months (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.22; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -2.15, 95% -3.23 to -1.08), and low-certainty evidence for small improvements at 12 months (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.05; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -1.36, 95% -2.41 to -0.26). On a 0-100 scale there was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga was slightly better for pain at three to four months (MD -4.55, 95% CI -7.04 to -2.06), six months (MD -7.81, 95% CI -13.37 to -2.25), and 12 months (MD -5.40, 95% CI -14.50 to -3.70), however we pre-defined clinically significant changes in pain as 15 points or greater and this threshold was not met. Based on information from six trials, there was moderate-certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events, primarily increased back pain, was higher in yoga than in non-exercise controls (risk difference (RD) 5%, 95% CI 2% to 8%). For yoga compared to non-yoga exercise controls (4 trials; 394 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference in back-related function at three months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.65 to 0.20; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.99, 95% -2.87 to 0.90) and six months (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.19; corresponding to a change in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire of MD -0.90, 95% -2.61 to 0.81), and no information on back-related function after six months. There was very low-certainty evidence for lower pain on a 0-100 scale at seven months (MD -20.40, 95% CI -25.48 to -15.32), and no information on pain at three months or after seven months. Based on information from three trials, there was low-certainty evidence for no difference in the risk of adverse events between yoga and non-yoga exercise controls (RD 1%, 95% CI -4% to 6%). For yoga added to exercise compared to exercise alone (1 trial; 24 participants), there was very-low-certainty evidence for little or no difference at 10 weeks in back-related function (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.42 to 0.22; corresponding to a change in the Oswestry Disability Index of MD -17.05, 95% -22.96 to 11.14) or pain on a 0-100 scale (MD -3.20, 95% CI -13.76 to 7.36). There was no information on outcomes at other time points. There was no information on adverse events. Studies provided limited evidence on risk of clinical improvement, measures of quality of life, and depression. There was no evidence on work-related disability. Authors' conclusions There is low- to moderate-certainty evidence that yoga compared to non-exercise controls results in small to moderate improvements in back-related function at three and six months. Yoga may also be slightly more effective for pain at three and six months, however the effect size did not meet predefined levels of minimum clinical importance. It is uncertain whether there is any difference between yoga and other exercise for back-related function or pain, or whether yoga added to exercise is more effective than exercise alone. Yoga is associated with more adverse events than non-exercise controls, but may have the same risk of adverse events as other back-focused exercise. Yoga is not associated with serious adverse events. There is a need for additional high-quality research to improve confidence in estimates of effect, to evaluate long-term outcomes, and to provide additional information on comparisons between yoga and other exercise for chronic non-specific low back pain.

Nosocomial infections among patients with COVID-19, SARS and MERS: A rapid review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background COVID-19, a disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, has now spread to most countries and regions of the world. As patients potentially infected by SARS-CoV-2 need to visit hospitals, the incidence of nosocomial infection can be expected to be high. Therefore, a comprehensive and objective understanding of nosocomial infection is needed to guide the prevention and control of the epidemic. Methods We searched major international and Chinese databases: Medicine, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, CBM (China Biology Medicine disc), CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) and Wanfang database for case series or case reports on nosocomial infections of COVID-19, SARS (severe acute respiratory syndromes) and MERS (Middle East respiratory syndrome) from their inception to March 31st, 2020. We conducted a meta-analysis of the proportion of nosocomial infection patients in the diagnosed patients, occupational distribution of nosocomial infection medical staff. Results We included 40 studies. Among the confirmed patients, the proportions of nosocomial infections with early outbreaks of COVID-19, SARS, and MERS were 44.0%, 36.0%, and 56.0%, respectively. Of the confirmed patients, the medical staff and other hospital-acquired infections accounted for 33.0% and 2.0% of COVID-19 cases, 37.0% and 24.0% of SARS cases, and 19.0% and 36.0% of MERS cases, respectively. Nurses and doctors were the most affected among the infected medical staff. The mean numbers of secondary cases caused by one index patient were 29.3 and 6.3 for SARS and MERS, respectively. Conclusions The proportion of nosocomial infection in patients with COVID-19 was 44% in the early outbreak. Patients attending hospitals should take personal protection. Medical staff should be awareness of the disease to protect themselves and the patients.