Search

Ezetimibe is widely used in combination with statins to reduce low-density lipoprotein. We sought to examine the impact of ezetimibe when added to statins on patient-important outcomes. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched through July, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ezetimibe combined with statins versus statins alone that followed patients for at least 6 months and reported on at least one of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarctions (MI), and non-fatal strokes were included. Pairs of reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We conducted a narrative review with complementary subgroup and sensitivity analyses. IMPROVE-IT study enrolled 93% of all patients enrolled in the 8 included trials. Our analysis of the IMPROVE-IT study results showed that in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, ezetimibe added to statins was associated with i) a likely reduction in non-fatal MI (17 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, moderate certainty in evidence); ii) a possible reduction in non-fatal stroke (6 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, low certainty); iii) no impact on myopathy (moderate certainty); iv) potentially no impact on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death (both moderate certainty); and v) possibly no impact on cancer (low certainty). Addition of ezetimibe to moderate-dose statins is likely to result in 17 fewer MIs and possibly 6 fewer strokes/1000 treated over 6 years but is unlikely to reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death. Patients who place a high value on a small absolute reduction in MI and are not adverse to use of an additional medication over a long duration may opt for ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy. Our analysis revealed no increased specific harms associated with addition of ezetimibe to statins., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: The importance of systematic reviews (SRs) as an aid to decision making in health care has led to an increasing interest in the development of this type of study. When selecting a target journal for publication, authors generally seek out higher impact factor journals. This study aimed to determine the percentage of scientific medical journals that publish SRs according to their impact factors (>2.63) and to determine whether those journals require tools that aim to improve SR reporting and meta-analyses., Methods: In our cross-sectional study showing how to choose the right journal for a SR, we selected and analysed scientific journals available in a digital library with a minimum Institute for Scientific Information impact factor of 2.63., Results: We analysed 622 scientific journals, 435 (69.94%) of which publish SRs. Of those 435 journals, 135 (21.60%) provide instructions for authors that mention SRs. Three hundred journals (48.34%) do not discuss criteria for article acceptance in the instructions for authors section, but do publish SRs. Only 118 (27.00%) scientific journals require items to be reported in accordance with the specific SR reporting forms., Conclusions: The majority of the journals do not mention the acceptance of SRs in the instructions for authors section. Only a few journals require that SRs meet specific reporting guidelines, making interpretation of their findings across studies challenging. There is no correlation between the impact factor of the journal and its acceptance of SRs for publication., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: A high-quality electronic search is essential in ensuring accuracy and completeness in retrieved records for the conducting of a systematic review., Objective: We analysed the available sample of search strategies to identify the best method for searching in Medline through PubMed, considering the use or not of parenthesis, double quotation marks, truncation and use of a simple search or search history., Methods: In our cross-sectional study of search strategies, we selected and analysed the available searches performed during evidence-based medicine classes and in systematic reviews conducted in the Botucatu Medical School, UNESP, Brazil., Results: We analysed 120 search strategies. With regard to the use of phrase searches with parenthesis, there was no difference between the results with and without parenthesis and simple searches or search history tools in 100% of the sample analysed (P = 1.0). The number of results retrieved by the searches analysed was smaller using double quotations marks and using truncation compared with the standard strategy (P = 0.04 and P = 0.08, respectively)., Conclusions: There is no need to use phrase-searching parenthesis to retrieve studies; however, we recommend the use of double quotation marks when an investigator attempts to retrieve articles in which a term appears to be exactly the same as what was proposed in the search form. Furthermore, we do not recommend the use of truncation in search strategies in the Medline via PubMed. Although the results of simple searches or search history tools were the same, we recommend using the latter.

Rationale and Aim: The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased., Methods: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups., Results: We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%., Conclusion: Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context., (© 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)