Search

Background: Systematic reviews should provide trustworthy guidance to decision-makers, but their credibility is challenged by the selective reporting of trial results and outcomes. Some trials are not published, and even among clinical trials that are published partially (e.g., as conference abstracts), many are never published in full. Although there are many potential sources of published and unpublished data for systematic reviews, there are no established methods for choosing among multiple reports or data sources about the same trial. Methods: We will conduct systematic reviews of the effectiveness and safety of two interventions following the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines: (1) gabapentin for neuropathic pain and (2) quetiapine for bipolar depression. For the review of gabapentin, we will include adult participants with neuropathic pain who do not require ventilator support. For the review of quetiapine, we will include adult participants with acute bipolar depression (excluding mixed or rapid cycling episodes). We will compare these drugs (used alone or in combination with other interventions) with placebo or with the same intervention alone; direct comparisons with other medications will be excluded. For each review, we will conduct highly sensitive electronic searches, and the results of the searches will be assessed by two independent reviewers. Outcomes, study characteristics, and risk of bias ratings will be extracted from multiple reports by two individuals working independently, stored in a publicly available database (Systematic Review Data Repository) and analyzed using commonly available statistical software. In each review, we will conduct a series of meta-analyses using data from different sources to determine how the results are affected by the inclusion of data from multiple published sources (e.g., journal articles and conference abstracts) as well as unpublished aggregate data (e.g., "clinical study reports") and individual participant data (IPD). We will identify patient-centered outcomes in each report and identify differences in the reporting of these outcomes across sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Glaucoma is an acquired degeneration of the optic nerve and a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Medical and surgical treatments that decrease intraocular pressure may prevent visual impairment and blindness. Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of medical, laser, and sur-gical treatments in adults with open-angle glaucoma with regard to decreasing intraocular pressure and preventing optic nerve damage, vision loss, and visual impairment. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and an existing database for systematic reviews (through 2 March 2011); MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL for primary studies (through 30 July 2012). Study Selection: English-language systematic reviews; randomized, controlled trials; and quasi-randomized, controlled trials for most outcomes and observational studies for quality of life and harms. Data Extraction: Two investigators abstracted or checked informa-tion about study design, participants, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. Data Synthesis: High-level evidence suggests that medical, laser, and surgical treatments decrease intraocular pressure and that medical treatment and trabeculectomy reduce the risk for optic nerve damage and visual field loss compared with no treatment. The direct effect of treatments on visual impairment and the compara-tive efficacy of different treatments are not clear. Harms of medical treatment are primarily local (ocular redness, irritation); surgical treatment carries a small risk for more serious complications. Limitation: Heterogeneous outcome definitions and measurements among the included studies; exclusion of many treatment studies that did not stratify results by glaucoma type. Conclusion: Medical and surgical treatments for open-angle glau-coma lower intraocular pressure and reduce the risk for optic nerve damage over the short to medium term. Which treatments best prevent visual disability and improve patient-reported outcomes is unclear. Primary Funding Source: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The correct title of the article [1] should be “Integrating multiple data sources (MUDS) for meta-analysis to improve patient-centered outcomes research: a protocol”. The article is a protocol for a methodological study, not a systematic review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is approved in the United States for the treatment of pediatric asthma and rhinitis; sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) does not have regulatory approval but is used in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of pediatric asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: Two independent reviewers selected articles for inclusion, extracted data, and graded the strength of evidence for each clinical outcome. All studies were randomized controlled trials of children with allergic asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis treated with SCIT or an aqueous formulation of SLIT. Data sources were Medline, Embase, LILACS, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through May 2012. RESULTS: In 13 trials, 920 children received SCIT or usual care; in 18 studies, 1583 children received SLIT or usual care. Three studies compared SCIT with SLIT head-to-head in 135 children. The strength of evidence is moderate that SCIT improves asthma and rhinitis symptoms and low that SCIT improves conjunctivitis symptoms and asthma medication scores. Strength of evidence is high that SLIT improves asthma symptoms and moderate that SLIT improves rhinitis and conjunctivitis symptoms and decreases medication usage. The evidence is low to support SCIT over SUT for improving asthma or rhinitis symptoms or medication usage. Local reactions were frequent with SCIT and SLIT. There was 1 report of anaphylaxis with SCIT. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence supports the efficacy of both SCIT and SLIT for the treatment of asthma and rhinitis in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]