A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
01 Jan 2010-
TL;DR: The current evidence does not support the routine use of cryotherapy after total knee arthroplasty, and the patient-centered outcomes remain underinvestigated.
Abstract: Cryotherapy has theoretical and practical applications in the reduction of pain, swelling, and blood loss after trauma. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of cryotherapy after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Eleven studies involving 793 TKAs were included. There was considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Cryotherapy resulted in small benefits in blood loss and discharge knee range of motion. There were no benefits in transfusion and analgesia requirements, pain, swelling, length of stay, and gains in knee range of motion after discharge. Despite some early gains, cryotherapy after TKA yields no apparent lasting benefits. Patient-centered outcomes remain underinvestigated. The current evidence does not support the routine use of cryotherapy after TKA. Keywords: total knee arthroplasty, cryotherapy, cold therapy, Cryo/Cuff.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
13,813 citations
TL;DR: The guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of androgen deficiency syndromes in adult men published previously in 2006 were updated by the Task Force of the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of The Endocrine Society.
Abstract: Objective: Our objective was to update the guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of androgen deficiency syndromes in adult men published previously in 2006. Participants: The Task Force was composed of a chair, selected by the Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee of The Endocrine Society, five additional experts, a methodologist, and a medical writer. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. Conclusions: We recommend making a diagnosis of androgen deficiency only in men with consistent symptoms and signs and unequivocally low serum testosterone levels. We suggest the measurement of morning total testosterone level by a reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test. We recommend confirmation of the diagnosis by repeating the measurement of morning total testosterone and, in some men in whom total testosterone is near the lower limit of normal or in whom SHBG abnormality is suspected by measurement of free or bioavailable testosterone level, using validated assays. We recommend testos...
1,900 citations
TL;DR: Emerging evidence suggests that exploiting epithelial targets with nonabsorbable serotonergic agents could provide safe and effective therapies, and this work provides an overview of theseserotonergic actions and treatment strategies.
Abstract: Serotonin (5-HT) has been recognized for decades as an important signalling molecule in the gut, but it is still revealing its secrets. Novel gastrointestinal functions of 5-HT continue to be discovered, as well as distant actions of gut-derived 5-HT, and we are learning how 5-HT signalling is altered in gastrointestinal disorders. Conventional functions of 5-HT involving intrinsic reflexes include stimulation of propulsive and segmentation motility patterns, epithelial secretion and vasodilation. Activation of extrinsic vagal and spinal afferent fibres results in slowed gastric emptying, pancreatic secretion, satiation, pain and discomfort, as well as nausea and vomiting. Within the gut, 5-HT also exerts nonconventional actions such as promoting inflammation and serving as a trophic factor to promote the development and maintenance of neurons and interstitial cells of Cajal. Platelet 5-HT, originating in the gut, promotes haemostasis, influences bone development and serves many other functions. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists and 5-HT4 receptor agonists have been used to treat functional disorders with diarrhoea or constipation, respectively, and the synthetic enzyme tryptophan hydroxylase has also been targeted. Emerging evidence suggests that exploiting epithelial targets with nonabsorbable serotonergic agents could provide safe and effective therapies. We provide an overview of these serotonergic actions and treatment strategies.
728 citations
TL;DR: How tumour cells can resist immune checkpoint blockade, for example, by resistance to interferon signalling and through immune-evasive oncogenic signalling pathways is described.
Abstract: ‘Immune checkpoint blockade’ for cancer describes the use of therapeutic antibodies that disrupt negative immune regulatory checkpoints and unleash pre-existing antitumour immune responses. Antibodies targeting the checkpoint molecules cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA4), programmed cell death 1 (PD1) and PD1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) have had early success in the clinic, which has led to approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of multiple agents in several cancer types. Yet, clinicians still have very limited tools to discriminate a priori patients who will and will not respond to treatment. This has fuelled a wave of research into the molecular mechanisms of tumour-intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockade, leading to the rediscovery of biological processes critical to antitumour immunity, namely interferon signalling and antigen presentation. Other efforts have shed light on the immunological implications of canonical cancer signalling pathways, such as WNT–β-catenin signalling, cell cycle regulatory signalling, mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling and pathways activated by loss of the tumour suppressor phosphoinositide phosphatase PTEN. Here we review each of these molecular mechanisms of resistance and explore ongoing approaches to overcome resistance to immune checkpoint blockade and expand the spectrum of patients who can benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. Understanding why some patients and not others respond to immune checkpoint blockade for cancer is crucial for extending benefit from this therapy. Here the authors describe how tumour cells can resist immune checkpoint blockade, for example, by resistance to interferon signalling and through immune-evasive oncogenic signalling pathways.
706 citations
TL;DR: Weak evidence suggests that patients who are able to continue opioids long-term experience clinically significant pain relief, and whether quality of life or functioning improves is inconclusive, due to an insufficient quantity of evidence for oral administration studies and inconclusive statistical findings for transdermal and intrathecal administration studies.
Abstract: Background
Opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) is controversial due to concerns regarding long-term effectiveness and safety, particularly the risk of tolerance, dependence, or abuse.
Objectives
To assess safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of opioids taken long-term for CNCP.
Search methods
We searched 10 bibliographic databases up to May 2009.
Selection criteria
We searched for studies that: collected efficacy data on participants after at least 6 months of treatment; were full-text articles; did not include redundant data; were prospective; enrolled at least 10 participants; reported data of participants who had CNCP. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pre-post case-series studies were included.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently extracted safety and effectiveness data and settled discrepancies by consensus. We used random-effects meta-analysis' to summarize data where appropriate, used the I2 statistic to quantify heterogeneity, and, where appropriate, explored heterogeneity using meta-regression. Several sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.
Main results
We reviewed 26 studies with 27 treatment groups that enrolled a total of 4893 participants. Twenty five of the studies were case series or uncontrolled long-term trial continuations, the other was an RCT comparing two opioids. Opioids were administered orally (number of study treatments groups [abbreviated as "k"] = 12, n = 3040), transdermally (k = 5, n = 1628), or intrathecally (k = 10, n = 231). Many participants discontinued due to adverse effects (oral: 22.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.3% to 32.8%]; transdermal: 12.1% [95% CI: 4.9% to 27.0%]; intrathecal: 8.9% [95% CI: 4.0% to 26.1%]); or insufficient pain relief (oral: 10.3% [95% CI: 7.6% to 13.9%]; intrathecal: 7.6% [95% CI: 3.7% to 14.8%]; transdermal: 5.8% [95% CI: 4.2% to 7.9%]). Signs of opioid addiction were reported in 0.27% of participants in the studies that reported that outcome. All three modes of administration were associated with clinically significant reductions in pain, but the amount of pain relief varied among studies. Findings regarding quality of life and functional status were inconclusive due to an insufficient quantity of evidence for oral administration studies and inconclusive statistical findings for transdermal and intrathecal administration studies.
Authors' conclusions
Many patients discontinue long-term opioid therapy (especially oral opioids) due to adverse events or insufficient pain relief; however, weak evidence suggests that patients who are able to continue opioids long-term experience clinically significant pain relief. Whether quality of life or functioning improves is inconclusive. Many minor adverse events (like nausea and headache) occurred, but serious adverse events, including iatrogenic opioid addiction, were rare.
686 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: A general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies is presented and tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interob server agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics.
Abstract: This paper presents a general statistical methodology for the analysis of multivariate categorical data arising from observer reliability studies. The procedure essentially involves the construction of functions of the observed proportions which are directed at the extent to which the observers agree among themselves and the construction of test statistics for hypotheses involving these functions. Tests for interobserver bias are presented in terms of first-order marginal homogeneity and measures of interobserver agreement are developed as generalized kappa-type statistics. These procedures are illustrated with a clinical diagnosis example from the epidemiological literature.
64,109 citations
TL;DR: A new quantity is developed, I 2, which the authors believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis, which is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta- analysis.
Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice?
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis.
Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4
Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted?
A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …
45,105 citations
TL;DR: An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.
Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
25,711 citations
TL;DR: Two simple formulas are found that estimate the mean using the values of the median, low and high end of the range, and n (the sample size) and these hope to help meta-analysts use clinical trials in their analysis even when not all of the information is available and/or reported.
Abstract: Usually the researchers performing meta-analysis of continuous outcomes from clinical trials need their mean value and the variance (or standard deviation) in order to pool data. However, sometimes the published reports of clinical trials only report the median, range and the size of the trial. In this article we use simple and elementary inequalities and approximations in order to estimate the mean and the variance for such trials. Our estimation is distribution-free, i.e., it makes no assumption on the distribution of the underlying data. We found two simple formulas that estimate the mean using the values of the median (m), low and high end of the range (a and b, respectively), and n (the sample size). Using simulations, we show that median can be used to estimate mean when the sample size is larger than 25. For smaller samples our new formula, devised in this paper, should be used. We also estimated the variance of an unknown sample using the median, low and high end of the range, and the sample size. Our estimate is performing as the best estimate in our simulations for very small samples (n ≤ 15). For moderately sized samples (15 70), the formula range/6 gives the best estimator for the standard deviation (variance). We also include an illustrative example of the potential value of our method using reports from the Cochrane review on the role of erythropoietin in anemia due to malignancy. Using these formulas, we hope to help meta-analysts use clinical trials in their analysis even when not all of the information is available and/or reported.
6,384 citations
TL;DR: The approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies.
5,228 citations