Search

Guideline developers consider cost-effectiveness evidence in decision making to determine value for money. This consideration in the guideline development process can be informed either by formal and dedicated economic evaluations or by systematic reviews of existing studies. To inform the American Society of Hematology guideline on the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), we conducted a systematic review focused on the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for VTE within the guideline scope. We systematically searched Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cost-effectiveness Analysis Registry; summarized; and critically appraised the economic evidence on diagnostic strategies for VTE. We identified 49 studies that met our inclusion criteria, with 26 on pulmonary embolism (PE) and 24 on deep vein thrombosis (DVT). For the diagnosis of PE, strategies including d-dimer to exclude PE were cost-effective compared with strategies without d-dimer testing. The cost-effectiveness of computed tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) in relation to ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan was inconclusive. CTPA or V/Q scan following ultrasound or d-dimer results could be cost-effective or even cost saving. For DVT, studies supporting strategies with d-dimer and/or ultrasound were cost-effective, supporting the recommendation that for patients at low (unlikely) VTE risk, using d-dimer as the initial test reduces the need for diagnostic imaging. Our systematic review informed the American Society of Hematology guideline recommendations about d-dimer, V/Q scan and CTPA for PE diagnosis, and d-dimer and ultrasound for DVT diagnosis.

Objective The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies. Study design The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events. Results We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations. Conclusion Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, is a potentially fatal but preventable postoperative complication. Thoracic oncology patients undergoing surgical resection, often after multimodality induction therapy, represent among the highest risk groups for postoperative VTE. Currently there are no VTE prophylaxis guidelines specific to these thoracic surgery patients. Evidenced-based recommendations will help clinicians manage and mitigate risk of VTE in the postoperative period and inform best practice. Objective These joint evidence-based guidelines from The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons aim to inform clinicians and patients in decisions about prophylaxis to prevent VTE in patients undergoing surgical resection for lung or esophageal cancer. Methods The American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included broad membership to minimize potential bias when formulating recommendations. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, which were subject to public comment. Results The panel agreed on 24 recommendations focused on pharmacological and mechanical methods for prophylaxis in patients undergoing lobectomy and segmentectomy, pneumonectomy, and esophagectomy, as well as extended resections for lung cancer. Conclusions The certainty of the supporting evidence for the majority of recommendations was judged as low or very low, largely due to a lack of direct evidence for thoracic surgery. The panel made conditional recommendations for use of parenteral anticoagulation for VTE prevention, in combination with mechanical methods, over no prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing anatomic lung resection or esophagectomy. Other key recommendations include: conditional recommendations for using parenteral anticoagulants over direct oral anticoagulants, with use of direct oral anticoagulants suggested only in the context of clinical trials; conditional recommendation for using extended prophylaxis for 28 to 35 days over in-hospital prophylaxis only for patients at moderate or high risk of thrombosis; and conditional recommendations for VTE screening in patients undergoing pneumonectomy and esophagectomy. Future research priorities include the role of preoperative thromboprophylaxis and the role of risk stratification to guide use of extended prophylaxis. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2022;▪:1-31)

Background: COVID-19–related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process and performed systematic evidence reviews (through November 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. Results: The panel made one additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of therapeutic-intensity over prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19–related acute illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of risk of thrombosis and bleeding. The panel also noted that heparin (unfractionated or low molecular weight) may be preferred because of a preponderance of evidence with this class of anticoagulants. Conclusion: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19–related acute illness.

Background: COVID-19–related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to January 2022). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update to guidelines published in February 2021 and May 2021 as part of the living phase of these guidelines. Results: The panel made 1 additional recommendation: a conditional recommendation for the use of prophylactic-intensity over therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE. The panel emphasized the need for an individualized assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risk. Conclusions: This conditional recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for additional, high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations may be affected by flaws in the process, inappropriate panel member selection or conduct, conflicts of interest and other factors. To our knowledge, no validated tool exists to evaluate guideline development from the perspective of those directly involved in the process. Our objective was to develop and validate a universal tool, the PANELVIEW instrument, to assess guideline processes, methods and outcomes from the perspective of the participating guideline panellists and group members. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search and surveys of guideline groups (identified through contacting international organizations and convenience sampling of working panels) to inform item generation. Subsequent groups of guideline methodologists and panellists reviewed items for face validity and missing items. We used surveys, interviews and expert review for item reduction and phrasing. For reliability assessment and feedback, we tested the PANELVIEW tool in 8 international guideline groups. RESULTS: We surveyed 62 members from 13 guideline panels, contacted 19 organizations and reviewed 20 source documents to generate items. Fifty-three additional key informants provided feedback about phrasing of the items and response options. We reduced the number of items from 95 to 34 across domains that included administration, training, conflict of interest, group dynamics, chairing, evidence synthesis, formulating recommendations and publication. The tool takes about 10 minutes to complete and showed acceptable measurement properties. INTERPRETATION: The PANELVIEW instrument fills a gap by enabling guideline organizations to involve clinicians, patients and other participants in evaluating their guideline processes. The tool can inform quality improvement of existing or new guideline programs, focusing on insight into and transparency of the guideline development process, methods and outcomes.

IntroductionThe Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and similar Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks require its users to judge how substantial the effects of interventions are on desirable and undesirable people-important health outcomes. However, decision thresholds (DTs) that could help understand the magnitude of intervention effects and serve as reference for interpretation of findings are not yet available.The objective of this study is an approach to derive and use DTs for EtD judgments about the magnitude of health benefits and harms. We hypothesise that approximate DTs could have the ability to discriminate between the existing four categories of EtD judgments (Trivial, Small, Moderate, Large), support panels of decision-makers in their work, and promote consistency and transparency in judgments.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a methodological randomised controlled trial to collect the data that allow deriving the DTs. We will invite clinicians, epidemiologists, decision scientists, health research methodologists, experts in Health Technology Assessment (HTA), members of guideline development groups and the public to participate in the trial. Then, we will investigate the validity of our DTs by measuring the agreement between judgments that were made in the past by guideline panels and the judgments that our DTs approach would suggest if applied on the same guideline data.Ethics and disseminationThe Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this study as a quality improvement study and determined that it requires no further consent. Survey participants will be required to read a consent statement in order to participate in this study at the beginning of the trial. This statement reads: You are being invited to participate in a research project which aims to identify indicative DTs that could assist users of the GRADE EtD frameworks in making judgments. Your input will be used in determining these indicative thresholds. By completing this survey, you provide consent that the anonymised data collected will be used for the research study and to be summarised in aggregate in publication and electronic tools.PROTOCOL registration numberNCT05237635.

BackgroundCOVID-19–related acute illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).ObjectiveThese evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.MethodsASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel, including 3 patient representatives, and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.ResultsThe panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation against the use of outpatient anticoagulant prophylaxis in patients with COVID-19 who are discharged from the hospital and who do not have suspected or confirmed VTE or another indication for anticoagulation.ConclusionsThis recommendation was based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials assessing the role of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Other key research priorities include better evidence on assessing risk of thrombosis and bleeding outcomes in patients with COVID-19 after hospital discharge.

Background: COVID-19–related critical illness is associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in making decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis in patients with COVID-19–related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included 3 patient representatives and applied strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline development process by performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 5 March 2021). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the GRADE approach to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. This is an update on guidelines published in February 2021. Results: The panel agreed on 1 additional recommendation. The panel issued a conditional recommendation in favor of prophylactic-intensity over intermediate-intensity anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19–related critical illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Conclusions: This recommendation was based on low certainty in the evidence, which underscores the need for additional high-quality, randomized, controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation in critically ill patients. Other key research priorities include better evidence regarding predictors of thrombosis and bleeding risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and the impact of nonanticoagulant therapies (eg, antiviral agents, corticosteroids) on thrombotic risk.

Objective To quantify the risk of hip fracture, thromboembolism, stroke, myocardial infarction, pneumonia and sudden cardiac death associated with exposure to antipsychotics. Methods Systematic searches were conducted in Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from inception until 30/07/2018 for systematic reviews of observational studies. AMSTAR-2 was used for the quality assessment of systematic reviews, while the strength of associations was measured using GRADE and quantitative umbrella review criteria (URC). Results Sixty-eight observational studies from six systematic reviews were included. The association between antipsychotic exposure and pneumonia was the strongest [URC = class I; GRADE = low quality; odds ratio (OR) = 1.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.62-2.09; participants = 28 726; age = 76.2 ± 12.3 years], followed by the association with hip fracture (URC = class II; GRADE = low quality; OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.42-1.74; participants = 5 288 118; age = 55.4 ± 12.5 years), and thromboembolism (URC = class II; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.31-1.83; participants = 31 417 175; age = 55.5 ± 3.2 years). The association was weak for stroke (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.24-1.70; participants = 65 700; age = 68.7 ± 13.8 years), sudden cardiac death (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.45-3.46; participants = 77 488; age = 52.2 ± 6.2 years) and myocardial infarction (URC = class III; GRADE = very low quality; OR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.41-3.46; participants = 399 868; age = 74.1 ± 9.3 years). Conclusion The most robust results were found for the risk of pneumonia, followed by the risk of hip fracture and thromboembolism. For stroke, sudden cardiac death and myocardial infarction, the strength of association was weak. The observational nature of the primary studies may represent a source of bias.

Guideline panels must assess the magnitude of health benefits and harms to develop sensible recommendations. However, they rarely use explicit thresholds. In this paper we report on the piloting and the use thresholds for benefits and harms.We piloted the use of thresholds in a Chilean COVID-19 living guideline. For each of the critical outcomes, we asked panelists to suggest values of the thresholds for large, moderate, small, or trivial or no effect. We collected this information through a survey and an on-line discussion.Twelve panelists decided on thresholds for three critical outcomes (mortality, need for mechanical ventilation and serious adverse events). For all outcomes, an absolute risk reduction was considered larger with more than 50 events, moderate with less than 50 events, small with less than 25 events, and trivial with less than 10 events. Having these a priori thresholds in place significantly impacted on the development of recommendations.Explicit thresholds were a valuable addition to the judgment of the certainty in the evidence, to decide the direction and strength of the recommendation and to evaluate the need for update. We believe this is a line of research worth perusing.

Objective To discuss two alternative approaches for complementing the body of direct evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) when it is judged insufficient from a guideline panel making recommendations. The approaches included expanding the evidence's body to non-randomises studies on the population of interest or to RCTs on indirect populations. Study Design and Setting In this report, we adopt the perspective of an evidence review team developing guidelines following the GRADE approach. Our experience is based on the development of two evidence-based guidelines promoted by The Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) and focusing on diagnosis and treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in children/adolescents and adults. Results We left panel members deciding case by case whether the direct evidence from RCTs was sufficient or not and indicating which alternative to implement. This strategy presented unanticipated challenges both from an organizational and methodological standpoint. Conclusion We suggest an early-stage production of a research protocol to define the criteria for expanding the body of evidence. These criteria should be informed by considerations around the certainty in the evidence, the clinical applicability of the results, feasibility and conflict of interest.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Objective: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Methods: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. Results: The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE. Conclusions: These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available., Visual Abstract

IntroductionSome recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the efficacy and safety of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To optimally inform the Italian guideline for the management of ASD in children and adolescents, we reviewed the impact on equity, acceptability and feasibility for developing a pilot recommendation for PUFAs.MethodsWe performed a rapid systematic review of observational and experimental studies on PUFAs for children and adolescents with ASD, extracting data on resources required, equity, acceptability, and feasibility of PUFAs. We followed the framework provided by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and we assessed risk of bias and methodological quality of included studies. Results were synthesized both narratively and quantitatively to address clinically relevant questions on equity, acceptability, and feasibility.ResultsWe found 14 papers related to equity. PUFAs did not seem to impact equity importantly. We did not find variation in effectiveness across subgroups and in a base case scenario, the cost of a 12 weeks cycle of therapy with 1.155 g/day of PUFAs was €65.51 euro.The acceptability of PUFAs was evaluated in 17 studies, 9 of which were RCTs. PUFAs were widely used among children and adolescents with ASD (18 to 51%), and 50% of parents considered nutritional supplementation as useful. Difficulty in swallowing capsules and bad taste were identified as possible causes of poor compliance, but treatment adherence, when measured in included RCTs, was judged to be good to excellent. Discontinuation due to any cause for PUFAs could not differ from placebo (low certainty of evidence).The feasibility of using PUFAs was assessed in 12 studies. PUFAs were probably sustainable, and no particular critical issue emerged from the feasibility assessment. However, the evidence appeared scarce and indirect.ConclusionsWe found the administration of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD to be potentially equitable, acceptable and feasible. These results are limited by the limited number and quality of retrieved documents, and need to be viewed in light of efficacy and safety data to formulate clinical recommendations.

Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; pinteraction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; pinteraction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.

The impact of pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing neurosurgical intervention remains uncertain. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic compared with nonpharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in neurosurgical patients. Three databases were searched through April 2018, including those for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and for nonrandomized controlled studies (NRSs). Independent reviewers assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seven RCTs and 3 NRSs proved eligible. No studies reported on symptomatic proximal and distal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Two RCTs reported on screening-detected proximal and distal DVTs. We used the findings of these 2 RCTs as the closest surrogate outcomes to inform the proximal and distal DVT outcomes. These 2 RCTs suggest that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis may decrease the risk of developing asymptomatic proximal DVT (relative risk [RR], 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.84; low certainty). Findings were uncertain for mortality (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.57-2.86; low certainty), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.03-27.42; very low certainty), asymptomatic distal DVT (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27-1.08; very low certainty), and reoperation (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-2.84; very low certainty) outcomes. NRSs also reported uncertain findings for whether pharmacologic prophylaxis affects mortality (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.46-1.13; low certainty) and PE (RR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.01-3.76). For risk of bleeding, findings were uncertain in both RCTs (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.70-3.50; low certainty) and NRSs (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.30-7.12; very low certainty). In patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures, low certainty of evidence suggests that pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis confers benefit for preventing asymptomatic (screening-detected) proximal DVT with very low certainty regarding its impact on patient-important outcomes.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a relatively frequent complication in hospitalized patients, especially in those with risk factors. The benefit of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for prevention is controversial. This systematic review was performed as part of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, developed in partnership with McMaster University. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Epistemonikos were used as data sources from date of inception to November 2019. We included randomized trials in patients hospitalized for an acute medical disease, evaluating any DOACs vs other pharmacological prophylaxis, and included 3 trials with low risk of bias. We analyzed the effects of DOACs vs low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) at 2 different time points: at the end of the short-term treatment phase (both drugs given for the same period of time) and at the end of the extended prophylaxis period (extended DOACs vs a shorter course of LMWHs). We observed that the use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism or symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in comparison with LMWHs. However, the risk of major bleeding was slightly increased. Additionally, we observed that the benefit of DOACs previously reported was largely based on the reduction of asymptomatic DVT and was not apparent when only symptomatic events were considered. The use of DOACs in hospitalized medical patients slightly increases the risk of major bleeding with no appreciable benefit over LMWHs.

Background The net health benefit of using antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD is unclear. This review was performed to provide the evidence necessary to inform the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. Methods We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing antipsychotics versus placebo for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. For efficacy, acceptability and safety we considered outcomes evaluated by the guideline panel critical and important for decision-making. Continuous outcomes were analyzed by using standardized mean difference (SMD), and dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR), with their 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Cochrane tool to assess risk of bias of included studies. Certainty in the evidence of effects was assessed according to the GRADE approach. Results We included 21 RCTs with 1,309 participants, comparing antipsychotics to placebo. Antipsychotics were found effective on “restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors” (SMD − 0.21, 95% CI − 0.35 to − 0.07, moderate certainty), “hyperactivity, inattention, oppositional, disruptive behavior” (SMD − 0.67, 95% CI − 0.92 to − 0.42, moderate certainty), “social communication, social interaction” (SMD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.59 to − 0.16, moderate certainty), “emotional dysregulation/irritability” (SMD − 0.71, 95% CI − 0.98 to − 0.43, low certainty), “global functioning, global improvement” (SMD − 0.64, 95% CI − 0.96 to − 0.33, low certainty), “obsessions, compulsions” (SMD − 0.30, 95% CI − 0.55 to − 0.06, moderate certainty). Antipsychotics were not effective on “self-harm” (SMD − 0.14, 95% CI − 0.58 to 0.30, very low certainty), “anxiety” (SMD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.82 to 0.07, very low certainty). Antipsychotics were more acceptable in terms of dropout due to any cause (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, moderate certainty), but were less safe in terms of patients experiencing adverse events (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, moderate certainty), and serious adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.43, low certainty). Conclusions Our systematic review and meta-analysis found antipsychotics for children and adolescents with ASD more efficacious than placebo in reducing stereotypies, hyperactivity, irritability and obsessions, compulsions, and in increasing social communication and global functioning. Antipsychotics were also found to be more acceptable, but less safe than placebo.

ObjectiveTo systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021.Review methodsRandomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence.Results68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69).ConclusionsDirect oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018106181.

Background Prevalence of allergic diseases in infants is approximately 10% reaching 20 to 30% in those with an allergic first-degree relative. Prebiotics are selectively fermented food ingredients that allow specific changes in composition/activity of the gastrointestinal microflora. They modulate immune responses and their supplementation has been proposed as an intervention to prevent allergies. Objective To assess in pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and infants (populations) the effect of supplementing prebiotics (intervention) versus no prebiotics (comparison) on the development of allergic diseases and to inform the World Allergy Organization guidelines. Methods We performed a systematic review of studies assessing the effects of prebiotic supplementation with an intention to prevent the development of allergies. Results Of 446 unique records published until November 2016 in Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase, 22 studies fulfilled a priori specified criteria. We did not find any studies of prebiotics given to pregnant women or breastfeeding mothers. Prebiotic supplementation in infants, compared to placebo, had the following effects: risk of developing eczema (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.15), wheezing/asthma (RR, 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.80), and food allergy (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.00). There was no evidence of an increased risk of any adverse effects (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.10). Prebiotic supplementation had little influence growth rate (MD: 0.92 g/day faster with prebiotics, 95% CI: 0 to 1.84), and the final infant weight (MD: 0.10 kg higher with prebiotics, (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.29). The certainty of these estimates is very low due to risk of bias and imprecision of the results. Conclusions Currently available evidence on prebiotic supplementation to reduce the risk of developing allergies is very uncertain. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

We have updated the protocol of our living systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020178187). This most recent search update, which was done on 11 July 2020, identified 2756 citations. Of these, we included 3 observational cohort studies of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the updated quantitative synthesis (1–3). One of the new studies compared bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP) with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) (1), 1 compared high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula (HFNC) with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) (2), and the last compared noninvasive ventilation (NIV) with IMV (3) (Supplement Table 1).

Background It is unclear whether the administration of antipsychotics to children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is acceptable, equitable, and feasible. Methods We performed a systematic review to support a multidisciplinary panel in formulating a recommendation on antipsychotics, for the development of the Italian national guidelines for the management of ASD. A comprehensive search strategy was performed to find data related to intervention acceptability, health equity, and implementation feasibility. We used quantitative data from randomized controlled trials to perform a meta-analysis assessing the acceptability and tolerability of antipsychotics, and we estimated the certainty of the effect according to the GRADE approach. We extracted data from systematic reviews, primary studies, and grey literature, and we assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality of the published studies. Results Antipsychotics were acceptable (dropouts due to any cause: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48–0.78, moderate certainty of evidence) and well tolerated (dropouts due to adverse events: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55–1.79, low certainty of evidence) by children and adolescents with ASD. Parents and clinicians did not raise significant issues concerning acceptability. We did not find studies reporting evidence of reduced equity for antipsychotics in disadvantaged subgroups of children and adolescents with ASD. Workloads, cost barriers, and inadequate monitoring of metabolic adverse events were indirect evidence of concerns for feasibility. Conclusion Antipsychotics in children and adolescents with ASD were likely acceptable and possibly feasible. We did not find evidence of concern for equity.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spread person to person by virus through close contact The optimal person-person distance and use of facemas

BackgroundRecent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) claimed PUFAs to be effective for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but international guidelines have not considered yet this body of evidence. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of PUFAs in children and adolescents with ASD, for the Italian national guidelines on the management of ASD in children and adolescents.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing PUFAs versus placebo or a healthy diet for the treatment of ASD in children and adolescents. The outcomes considered were deemed by the guideline panel to be highly relevant to children and adolescents with ASD and to their caregivers. The outcomes included hyperactivity, quality of sleep, self-harm, aggression, irritability, anxiety, attention, adaptive functioning, social interaction, restricted and repetitive interests and behavior, communication, hyperactivity and disruptive behaviors coexistent with core symptoms. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and the rating of the confidence in the effect estimates according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsWe included 9 studies with 405 participants. The strength of evidence ranged from low to very low. Six studies included preschoolers and school-age children, three studies included both children and adolescents. The majority of participants were males (83.8%), with a mean age of 6.7 years. PUFAs were superior compared to placebo in reducing anxiety in individuals with ASD (SMD -1.01, 95% CI − 1.86 to − 0.17; very low certainty of evidence). Moreover, PUFAs worsened quality of sleep compared to a healthy diet (SMD 1.11, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.00; very low certainty of evidence). PUFAs were not better than placebo in reducing aggression, hyperactivity, adaptive functioning, irritability, restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors and communication. Effects on some critical outcomes such as sleep, self-harm and disruptive behavior are currently unknown. The main limitations were the small number of participants included in the RCTs and the dosage which varied greatly (from 200 mg/day to 1540 mg/day), making it difficult to address causal inference.ConclusionsPUFAs did not show evidence of effect in children and adolescents with ASD and the certainty of evidence as measured with the GRADE was low to very low. Further research is needed on this topic because the available evidence is inconclusive.

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020178187) Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization–specific and COVID-19–specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. Primary Funding Source: World Health Organization., This living systematic review examines evidence about the benefits and harms of alternative noninvasive and invasive ventilation strategies in acute hypoxic respiratory failure in patients infected with COVID-19. Indirect evidence related to other coronaviruses and evidence related to virus transmission to health care workers was also examined.

Background:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality.Objective:These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery.Methods:ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.Results:The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2).Conclusions:For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.

Background:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the third most common vascular disease. Medical inpatients, long-term care residents, persons with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers are at increased risk.Objective:These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support patients, clinicians, and others in decisions about preventing VTE in these groups.Methods:ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and adult patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.Results:The panel agreed on 19 recommendations for acutely ill and critically ill medical inpatients, people in long-term care facilities, outpatients with minor injuries, and long-distance travelers.Conclusions:Strong recommendations included provision of pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in acutely or critically ill inpatients at acceptable bleeding risk, use of mechanical prophylaxis when bleeding risk is unacceptable, against the use of direct oral anticoagulants during hospitalization, and against extending pharmacological prophylaxis after hospital discharge. Conditional recommendations included not to use VTE prophylaxis routinely in long-term care patients or outpatients with minor VTE risk factors. The panel conditionally recommended use of graduated compression stockings or low-molecular-weight heparin in long-distance travelers only if they are at high risk for VTE.

In the first article in this series we described the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks and their rationale for different types of decisions. In this second article, we describe the use of EtD frameworks for clinical recommendations and how it can help clinicians and patients who use those recommendations. EtD frameworks for clinical practice recommendations provide a structured and transparent approach for guideline panels. The framework helps ensure consideration of key criteria that determine whether an intervention should be recommended and that judgments are informed by the best available evidence. Frameworks are also a way for panels to make guideline users aware of the rationale (justification) for their recommendations.

Following the development of a unifying and transparent approach to grading the certainty of evidence and strength or recommendations, the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group has refined its process of moving from Evidence to Decisions. The purpose of its new Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks is to help people use evidence in a structured and transparent way to inform decisions in the context of clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations and decisions. EtD frameworks inform users about the judgments that were made and the evidence supporting those judgments by making the basis for decisions transparent to target audiences. EtD frameworks also facilitate dissemination of recommendations and enable decision makers in other jurisdictions to adopt recommendations or decisions, or adapt them to their context.

Background To date, a systematic review of the evidence regarding the association between vitamin D and allergic diseases development has not yet been undertaken. Objective To review the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation when compared to no supplementation in pregnant women, breastfeeding women, infants, and children for the prevention of allergies. Methods Three databases were searched through January 30, 2016, including randomized (RCT) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the certainty in the body of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results Among the 1932 articles identified, one RCT and four NRS were eligible. Very low certainty in the body of evidence across examined studies suggests that vitamin D supplementation for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants may not decrease the risk of developing allergic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (in pregnant women), allergic rhinitis (in pregnant women and infants), asthma and/or wheezing (in pregnant women, breastfeeding women, and infants), or food allergies (in pregnant women). We found no studies of primary prevention of allergic diseases in children. Conclusion Limited information is available addressing primary prevention of allergic diseases after vitamin D supplementation, and its potential impact remains uncertain.

BACKGROUND The time trade-off (TTO) task is a method of eliciting health utility scores, which range from 0 (equivalent to death) to 1 (equivalent to perfect health). These scores numerically represent a person’s health-related quality of life. Software apps exist to administer the TTO task; however, most of these apps are poorly documented and unavailable to researchers. OBJECTIVE To fill the void, we developed an online app to administer the TTO task for a research study that is examining general public proxy health-related quality of life estimates for persons with Alzheimer’s disease. This manuscript describes the development and pretest of the app. METHODS We used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to build the TTO app. The app’s modular structure and REDCap’s object-oriented environment facilitated development. After the TTO app was built, we recruited a purposive sample of 11 members of the general public to pretest its functionality and ease of use. RESULTS Feedback from the pretest group was positive. Minor modifications included clarity enhancements, such as rearranging some paragraph text into bullet points, labeling the app to delineate different question sections, and revising or deleting text. We also added a research question to enable the identification of respondents who know someone with Alzheimer’s disease. CONCLUSIONS We developed an online app to administer the TTO task. Other researchers may access and customize the app for their own research purposes.

The time trade-off (TTO) task is a method of eliciting health utility scores, which range from 0 (equivalent to death) to 1 (equivalent to perfect health). These scores numerically represent a person's health-related quality of life. Software apps exist to administer the TTO task; however, most of these apps are poorly documented and unavailable to researchers.To fill the void, we developed an online app to administer the TTO task for a research study that is examining general public proxy health-related quality of life estimates for persons with Alzheimer's disease. This manuscript describes the development and pretest of the app.We used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) to build the TTO app. The app's modular structure and REDCap's object-oriented environment facilitated development. After the TTO app was built, we recruited a purposive sample of 11 members of the general public to pretest its functionality and ease of use.Feedback from the pretest group was positive. Minor modifications included clarity enhancements, such as rearranging some paragraph text into bullet points, labeling the app to delineate different question sections, and revising or deleting text. We also added a research question to enable the identification of respondents who know someone with Alzheimer's disease.We developed an online app to administer the TTO task. Other researchers may access and customize the app for their own research purposes.

The comet assay can be useful in monitoring DNA damage in single cells caused by exposure to genotoxic agents, such as those causing air, water, and soil pollution (e.g., pesticides, dioxins, electromagnetic fields) and chemo- and radiotherapy in cancer patients, or in the assessment of genoprotective effects of chemopreventive molecules. Therefore, it has particular importance in the fields of pharmacology and toxicology, and in both environmental and human biomonitoring. It allows the detection of single strand breaks as well as double-strand breaks and can be used in both normal and cancer cells. Here we describe the alkali method for comet assay, which allows to detect both single- and double-strand DNA breaks.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T15:45:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2017-08-01 Objective: To assess analytic approaches randomized controlled trial (RCT) authors use to address missing participant data (MPD) for patient-important continuous outcomes. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic survey of RCTs published in 2014 in the core clinical journals that reported at least one patient-important outcome analyzed as a continuous variable. Results: Among 200 studies, 187 (93.5%) trials explicitly reported whether MPD occurred. In the 163 (81.5%) trials that reported the occurrence of MPD, the median and interquartile ranges of the percentage of participants with MPD were 11.4% (2.5%-22.6%).Among the 147 trials in which authors made clear their analytical approach to MPD, the approaches chosen included available data only (109, 67%); mixed-effect models (10, 6.1%); multiple imputation (9, 4.5%); and last observation carried forward (9, 4.5). Of the 163 studies reporting MPD, 16 (9.8%) conducted sensitivity analyses examining the impact of the MPD and (18, 11.1%) discussed the risk of bias associated with MPD. Conclusion: RCTs reporting continuous outcomes typically have over 10% of participant data missing. Most RCTs failed to use optimal analytic methods, and very few conducted sensitivity analyses addressing the possible impact of MPD or commented on how MPD might influence risk of bias. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada China Acad Chinese Med Sci, Guanganmen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Univ Antioquia, Dept Pediat, Medellin, Colombia Hosp Angeles del Carmen, Dept Crit Care, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico Singapore Gen Hosp, Nursing Div, Singapore, Singapore Univ Toronto, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Toronto, ON, Canada Michael G DeGroote Natl Pain Ctr, Dept Anesthesiol, Hamilton, ON, Canada GSK, Med Affairs, Hlth Econ & Outcomes Res, Mississauga, ON, Canada Univ Toronto, Fac Med, Toronto, ON, Canada Univ Sorocaba, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, Brazil McMaster Univ, Dept Family Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Ctr Evidence Based Chinese Med, Chaoyang Qu, Peoples R China Univ Chile, Evidence Based Dent Unit, Santiago, Region Metropol, Chile Univ Chile, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Santiago, Region Metropol, Chile Amer Univ Beirut, Dept Internal Med, Beirut, Lebanon Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Made available in DSpace on 2018-11-26T15:45:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2017-08-01 Objective: To conduct (1) a systematic survey of the reporting quality of simulation studies dealing with how to handle missing participant data (MPD) in randomized control trials and (2) summarize the findings of these studies. Study Design and Setting: We included simulation studies comparing statistical methods dealing with continuous MPD in randomized controlled trials addressing bias, precision, coverage, accuracy, power, type-I error, and overall ranking. For the reporting of simulation studies, we adapted previously developed criteria for reporting quality and applied them to eligible studies. Results: Of 16,446 identified citations, the 60 eligible generally had important limitations in reporting, particularly in reporting simulation procedures. Of the 60 studies, 47 addressed ignorable and 32 addressed nonignorable data. For ignorable missing data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (9 times best, 34.6% of times tested) and bias (10, 55.6%). Multiple imputation was also performed well. For nonignorable data, mixed model was most frequently the best on overall ranking (7, 46.7%) and bias (8, 57.1%). Mixed model performance varied on other criteria. Last observation carried forward (LOCF) was very seldom the best performing, and for nonignorable MPD frequently the worst. Conclusion: Simulation studies addressing methods to deal with MPD suffered from serious limitations. The mixed model approach was superior to other methods in terms of overall performance and bias. LOCF performed worst. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada China Acad Chinese Med Sci, Guanganmen Hosp, Beijing, Peoples R China Kerman Univ Med Sci, Reg Knowledge Hub, Kerman, Iran Kerman Univ Med Sci, WHO, Collaborating Ctr HIV Surveillance, Inst Futures Studies Hlth, Kerman, Iran Univ Antioquia, Dept Pediat, Medellin, Colombia Univ Toronto, Dept Diagnost Radiol, Toronto, ON, Canada McMaster Univ, Dept Math & Stat, Hamilton, ON, Canada Hosp Angeles Carmen, Dept Crit Care, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico Singapore Gen Hosp, Nursing Div, Singapore, Singapore Univ Sorocaba, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, Brazil Beijing Univ Chinese Med, Ctr Evidence Based Chinese Med, Chaoyang Qu, Peoples R China Michael G DeGroote Natl Pain Ctr, Dept Anesthesiol, Hamilton, ON, Canada Amer Univ Beirut, Dept Internal Med, Beirut, Lebanon McMaster Univ, Dept Pathol & Mol Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada Amer Univ Beirut, Clin Epidemiol Unit, Beirut, Lebanon Amer Univ Beirut, Ctr Systemat Reviews Hlth Policy & Syst Res SPARK, Beirut, Lebanon Dept Med, Hamilton, ON, Canada Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Pharmaceut Sci, Sao Paulo, Brazil