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.

Methods of Blinding in Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Assessing Pharmacologic Treatments: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Background Blinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments. Methods and Findings We undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events. Conclusions This review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmalogic trials.

Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review

Abstract: Background Reducing the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global priority. Contact tracing identifies people who were recently in contact with an infected individual, in order to isolate them and reduce further transmission. Digital technology could be implemented to augment and accelerate manual contact tracing. Digital tools for contact tracing may be grouped into three areas: 1) outbreak response; 2) proximity tracing; and 3) symptom tracking. We conducted a rapid review on the effectiveness of digital solutions to contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks. Objectives To assess the benefits, harms, and acceptability of personal digital contact tracing solutions for identifying contacts of an identified positive case of an infectious disease. Search methods An information specialist searched the literature from 1 January 2000 to 5 May 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. Additionally, we screened the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs, cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and modelling studies, in general populations. We preferentially included studies of contact tracing during infectious disease outbreaks (including COVID-19, Ebola, tuberculosis, severe acute respiratory syndrome virus, and Middle East respiratory syndrome) as direct evidence, but considered comparative studies of contact tracing outside an outbreak as indirect evidence. The digital solutions varied but typically included software (or firmware) for users to install on their devices or to be uploaded to devices provided by governments or third parties. Control measures included traditional or manual contact tracing, self-reported diaries and surveys, interviews, other standard methods for determining close contacts, and other technologies compared to digital solutions (e.g. electronic medical records). Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened records and all potentially relevant full-text publications. One review author extracted data for 50% of the included studies, another extracted data for the remaining 50%; the second review author checked all the extracted data. One review author assessed quality of included studies and a second checked the assessments. Our outcomes were identification of secondary cases and close contacts, time to complete contact tracing, acceptability and accessibility issues, privacy and safety concerns, and any other ethical issue identified. Though modelling studies will predict estimates of the effects of different contact tracing solutions on outcomes of interest, cohort studies provide empirically measured estimates of the effects of different contact tracing solutions on outcomes of interest. We used GRADE-CERQual to describe certainty of evidence from qualitative data and GRADE for modelling and cohort studies. Main results We identified six cohort studies reporting quantitative data and six modelling studies reporting simulations of digital solutions for contact tracing. Two cohort studies also provided qualitative data. Three cohort studies looked at contact tracing during an outbreak, whilst three emulated an outbreak in non-outbreak settings (schools). Of the six modelling studies, four evaluated digital solutions for contact tracing in simulated COVID-19 scenarios, while two simulated close contacts in non-specific outbreak settings. Modelling studies Two modelling studies provided low-certainty evidence of a reduction in secondary cases using digital contact tracing (measured as average number of secondary cases per index case - effective reproductive number (R eff)). One study estimated an 18% reduction in R eff with digital contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone, and a 35% reduction with manual contact-tracing. Another found a reduction in R eff for digital contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone (26% reduction) and a reduction in R eff for manual contact tracing compared to self-isolation alone (53% reduction). However, the certainty of evidence was reduced by unclear specifications of their models, and assumptions about the effectiveness of manual contact tracing (assumed 95% to 100% of contacts traced), and the proportion of the population who would have the app (53%). Cohort studies Two cohort studies provided very low-certainty evidence of a benefit of digital over manual contact tracing. During an Ebola outbreak, contact tracers using an app found twice as many close contacts per case on average than those using paper forms. Similarly, after a pertussis outbreak in a US hospital, researchers found that radio-frequency identification identified 45 close contacts but searches of electronic medical records found 13. The certainty of evidence was reduced by concerns about imprecision, and serious risk of bias due to the inability of contact tracing study designs to identify the true number of close contacts. One cohort study provided very low-certainty evidence that an app could reduce the time to complete a set of close contacts. The certainty of evidence for this outcome was affected by imprecision and serious risk of bias. Contact tracing teams reported that digital data entry and management systems were faster to use than paper systems and possibly less prone to data loss. Two studies from lower- or middle-income countries, reported that contact tracing teams found digital systems simpler to use and generally preferred them over paper systems; they saved personnel time, reportedly improved accuracy with large data sets, and were easier to transport compared with paper forms. However, personnel faced increased costs and internet access problems with digital compared to paper systems. Devices in the cohort studies appeared to have privacy from contacts regarding the exposed or diagnosed users. However, there were risks of privacy breaches from snoopers if linkage attacks occurred, particularly for wearable devices. Authors' conclusions The effectiveness of digital solutions is largely unproven as there are very few published data in real-world outbreak settings. Modelling studies provide low-certainty evidence of a reduction in secondary cases if digital contact tracing is used together with other public health measures such as self-isolation. Cohort studies provide very low-certainty evidence that digital contact tracing may produce more reliable counts of contacts and reduce time to complete contact tracing. Digital solutions may have equity implications for at-risk populations with poor internet access and poor access to digital technology. Stronger primary research on the effectiveness of contact tracing technologies is needed, including research into use of digital solutions in conjunction with manual systems, as digital solutions are unlikely to be used alone in real-world settings. Future studies should consider access to and acceptability of digital solutions, and the resultant impact on equity. Studies should also make acceptability and uptake a primary research question, as privacy concerns can prevent uptake and effectiveness of these technologies.

Interferon-γ Release Assays for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis and Tuberculosis Infection in HIV-Infected Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract: Background Despite the widespread use of interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs), their role in diagnosing tuberculosis and targeting preventive therapy in HIV-infected patients remains unclear. We conducted a comprehensive systematic review to contribute to the evidence-based practice in HIV-infected people. Methodology/Principal Findings We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Biomedicine databases to identify articles published between January 2005 and July 2011 that assessed QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT®.TB (T-SPOT.TB) in HIV-infected adults. We assessed their accuracy for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and incident active tuberculosis, and the proportion of indeterminate results. The search identified 38 evaluable studies covering a total of 6514 HIV-infected participants. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for tuberculosis were 61% and 72% for QFT-GIT, and 65% and 70% for T-SPOT.TB. The cumulative incidence of subsequent active tuberculosis was 8.3% for QFT-GIT and 10% for T-SPOT.TB in patients tested positive (one study each), and 0% for QFT-GIT (two studies) and T-SPOT.TB (one study) respectively in those tested negative. Pooled indeterminate rates were 8.2% for QFT-GIT and 5.9% for T-SPOT.TB. Rates were higher in high burden settings (12.0% for QFT-GIT and 7.7% for T-SPOT.TB) than in low-intermediate burden settings (3.9% for QFT-GIT and 4.3% for T-SPOT.TB). They were also higher in patients with CD4+ T-cell count <200 (11.6% for QFT-GIT and 11.4% for T-SPOT.TB) than in those with CD4+ T-cell count ≥200 (3.1% for QFT-GIT and 7.9% for T-SPOT.TB). Conclusions/Significance IGRAs have suboptimal accuracy for confirming or ruling out active tuberculosis disease in HIV-infected adults. While their predictive value for incident active tuberculosis is modest, a negative QFT-GIT implies a very low short- to medium-term risk. Identifying the factors associated with indeterminate results will help to optimize the use of IGRAs in clinical practice, particularly in resource-limited countries with a high prevalence of HIV-coinfection.

Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers

Abstract: INTRODUCTION Systematic reviewer authors intending to include all randomized participants in their meta-analyses need to make assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper is to provide systematic reviewer authors with a relatively simple guidance for addressing dichotomous data for participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. METHODS This guide is based on a review of the Cochrane handbook and published methodological research. The guide deals with participants excluded from the analysis who were considered 'non-adherent to the protocol' but for whom data are available, and participants with missing data. RESULTS Systematic reviewer authors should include data from 'non-adherent' participants excluded from the primary study authors' analysis but for whom data are available. For missing, unavailable participant data, authors may conduct a complete case analysis (excluding those with missing data) as the primary analysis. Alternatively, they may conduct a primary analysis that makes plausible assumptions about the outcomes of participants with missing data. When the primary analysis suggests important benefit, sensitivity meta-analyses using relatively extreme assumptions that may vary in plausibility can inform the extent to which risk of bias impacts the confidence in the results of the primary analysis. The more plausible assumptions draw on the outcome event rates within the trial or in all trials included in the meta-analysis. The proposed guide does not take into account the uncertainty associated with assumed events. CONCLUSIONS This guide proposes methods for handling participants excluded from analyses of randomized trials. These methods can help in establishing the extent to which risk of bias impacts meta-analysis results.