Search

Women with criteria and non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) carry an increased risk of pregnancy complications, including fetal growth restriction (FGR). The management of obstetric APS traditionally involves clinicians, obstetricians and gynaecologists; however, the most appropriate prophylactic treatment strategy for FGR prevention in APS is still debated. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NetMA) to summarize current evidence on pharmacological treatments for the prevention of FGR in APS. We searched PubMed and Embase from inception until July 2020, for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies on pregnant women with criteria or non-criteria obstetric APS. NetMA using a frequentist framework were conducted for the primary outcome (FGR) and for secondary outcomes (fetal or neonatal death and preterm birth). Adverse events were narratively summarised. Out of 1124 citations, we included eight studies on 395 pregnant patients with obstetric APS treated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) + unfractionated heparin (UFH) (n = 132 patients), LDA (n = 115), LDA + low molecular weight heparin (n = 100), LDA + corticosteroids (n = 29), LDA + UFH + intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 7), or untreated (n = 12). No difference among treatments emerged in terms of FGR prevention, but estimates were largely imprecise, and most studies were at high/unclear risk of bias. An increased risk of fetal or neonatal death was found for LDA monotherapy as compared to LDA + heparin, and for no treatment as compared to LDA + corticosteroids. The risk of preterm birth was higher for LDA + UFH + IVIg as compared to LDA or LDA + heparin, and for LDA + corticosteroids as compared to LDA or LDA + LMWH. No treatment was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, thrombocytopenia or osteopenia., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Not much is known about how accurate and reproducible different thermometers are at diagnosing patients with suspected fever. The study aims at evaluating which peripheral thermometers are more accurate and reproducible. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, WOS, CENTRAL, and Cinahl to perform: (1) diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis (MA) using rectal mercury-in-glass or digital thermometry as reference, and bivariate models for pooling; (2) network MA to estimate differences in mean temperature between devices; (3) Bland-Altman method to estimate 95% coefficient of reproducibility. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020174996. We included 46 studies enrolling more than 12,000 patients. Using 38 °C (100.4 ℉) as cut-off temperature, temporal infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.65, 0.84; low certainty) and specificity of 0.96 (0.92, 0.98; moderate certainty); tympanic infrared thermometry had a sensitivity of 0.77 (0.60,  0.88; low certainty) and specificity of 0.98 (0.95, 0.99; moderate certainty). For all the other index devices, it was not possible to pool the estimates. Compared to the rectal mercury-in-glass thermometer, mean temperature differences were not statistically different from zero for temporal or tympanic infrared thermometry; the median coefficient of reproducibility ranged between 0.53 °C [0.95 ℉] for infrared temporal and 1.2 °C [2.16 ℉] for axillary digital thermometry. Several peripheral thermometers proved specific, but not sensitive for diagnosing fever with rectal thermometry as a reference standard, meaning that finding a temperature below 38 °C does not rule out fever. Fixed differences between temperatures together with random error means facing differences between measurements in the order of 2 °C [4.5 ℉]. This study informs practitioners of the limitations associated with different thermometers; peripheral ones are specific but not sensitive.

Background: The process of systematically reviewing research evidence is useful for collecting, assessing and summarizing results from multiple studies planned to answer the same clinical question. The term "systematic" implies that the process, besides being organized and complete, is transparent and fully reported to allow other independent researchers to replicate the results, and therefore come to the same conclusions. Hundreds of new systematic reviews are indexed every year. The growing number increases the likelihood of finding multiple and discordant results., Objectives: To clarify the impact of multiple and discordant systematic reviews, we designed a program aimed at finding out: (a) how often different systematic reviews are done on the same subject; (b) how often different systematic reviews on the same topic give different results or conclusions; (c) which methods or interpretation characteristics can explain the differences in results or conclusions., Methods: This paper outlines the method used to explore the frequency and the causes of discordance among multiple systematic reviews on the same topic. These methods were then applied to a few medical fields as case studies., Conclusion: This aim is particularly relevant for both clinicians and policy makers. Judgments about evidence and recommendation in health care are complex, and often rely on discordant results, especially when there are no empirical results to help serve as a guideline.