Search

Primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) represent the two most common malignant neoplasms of the liver. The objective of this study was to assess outcomes of surgical approaches to liver ablation comparing laparoscopic versus percutaneous microwave ablation (MWA), and MWA versus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with HCC or CRLM lesions smaller than 5 cm.A systematic review was conducted across seven databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, to identify all comparative studies between 1937 and 2021. Two independent reviewers screened for eligibility, extracted data for selected studies, and assessed study bias using the modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Random effects meta-analyses were subsequently performed on all available comparative data.From 1066 records screened, 11 studies were deemed relevant to the study and warranted inclusion. Eight of the 11 studies were at high or uncertain risk for bias. Our meta-analyses of two studies revealed that laparoscopic MW ablation had significantly higher complication rates compared to a percutaneous approach (risk ratio = 4.66; 95% confidence interval = [1.23, 17.22]), but otherwise similar incomplete ablation rates, local recurrence, and oncologic outcomes. The remaining nine studies demonstrated similar efficacy of MWA and RFA, as measured by incomplete ablation, complication rates, local/regional recurrence, and oncologic outcomes, for both HCC and CRLM lesions less than 5 cm (p 0.05 for all outcomes). There was no statistical subgroup interaction in the analysis of tumors 3 cm.The available comparative evidence regarding both laparoscopic versus percutaneous MWA and MWA versus RFA is limited, evident by the few studies that suffer from high/uncertain risk of bias. Additional high-quality randomized trials or statistically matched cohort studies with sufficient granularity of patient variables, institutional experience, and physician specialty/training will be useful in informing clinical decision making for the ablative treatment of HCC or CRLM.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD.Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/mThe consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss.Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients.

Osteoid osteoma is one of the commonest benign bone tumour of adolescence. Diagnosis is based upon the typical clinical features, site of occurrence and imaging findings. Occurrence of this lesion in an atypical site is associated with delay in diagnosis and challenges in management. We present a rare case of osteoid osteoma in scaphoid in a 14-year-old girl. Comprehensive work-up using radiograph, computerized tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging and Tc99-multidetector methylene diphosphonate (MDP) bone scan was used to make the correct diagnosis over other conditions with similar presentation like de Quervain tenosynovitis, intersection syndrome and inflammatory arthropathies. We also describe the treatment using CT-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of this lesion and a brief literature review regarding the incidence of this lesion and treatment options available. Level of Evidence: Level V (Therapeutic)

Background Minimally invasive splenectomy (MIS) is increasingly favored for the treatment of benign and malignant diseases of the spleen over open access approaches. While many studies cite the superiority of MIS in terms of decreased morbidity and length of stay over a traditional open approach, the comparative effectiveness of specific technical and peri-operative approaches to MIS is unclear. Objective To develop evidence-based guidelines that support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions on the peri-operative performance of MIS. Methods A guidelines committee panel of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) including methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to grade the certainty of evidence and formulate recommendations. Results Informed by a systematic review of the evidence, the panel agreed on eight recommendations for the peri-operative performance of MIS for adults and children in elective situations addressing six key questions. Conclusions Conditional recommendations were made in favor of lateral positioning for non-hematologic disease, intra-operative platelet administration for patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura instead of preoperative administration, and the use of mechanical devices to control the splenic hilum. Further, a conditional recommendation was made against routine intra-operative drain placement.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques. Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed. The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon–patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication. These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

Background The Cochrane Bias Methods Group recently developed the “Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool to assess ROB for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability of the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods Reviewers from four participating centers will appraise the ROB of a sample of NRSI publications using the ROBINS-I tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSI publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSI publications using both the New-castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure the evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply the ROBINS-I (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4 to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRS depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the ROBINS-I tool and how best to use it.

"Biological plausibility" is a concept frequently referred to in environmental and public health when researchers are evaluating how confident they are in the results and inferences of a study or evidence review. Biological plausibility is not, however, a domain of one of the most widely-used approaches for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) which underpins the findings of a systematic review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) CoE Framework. Whether the omission of biological plausibility is a potential limitation of the GRADE CoE Framework is a topic that is regularly discussed, especially in the context of environmental health systematic reviews. We analyse how the concept of "biological plausibility", as applied in the context of assessing certainty of the evidence that supports the findings of a systematic review, is accommodated under the processes of systematic review and the existing GRADE domains. We argue that "biological plausibility" is a concept which primarily comes into play when direct evidence about the effects of an exposure on a population of concern (usually humans) is absent, at high risk of bias, is inconsistent, or limited in other ways. In such circumstances, researchers look toward evidence from other study designs in order to draw conclusions. In this respect, we can consider experimental animal and in vitro evidence as "surrogates" for the target populations, exposures, comparators and outcomes of actual interest. Through discussion of 10 examples of experimental surrogates, we propose that the concept of biological plausibility consists of two principal aspects: a "generalisability aspect" and a "mechanistic aspect". The "generalisability aspect" concerns the validity of inferences from experimental models to human scenarios, and asks the same question as does the assessment of external validity or indirectness in systematic reviews. The "mechanistic aspect" concerns certainty in knowledge of biological mechanisms and would inform judgements of indirectness under GRADE, and thus the overall CoE. While both aspects are accommodated under the indirectness domain of the GRADE CoE Framework, further research is needed to determine how to use knowledge of biological mechanisms in the assessment of indirectness of the evidence in systematic reviews.

While surgical resection has a demonstrated utility for patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), it is unclear whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or an open approach should be used. This review sought to assess the efficacy and safety of MIS versus open hepatectomy for isolated, resectable CRLM when performed separately from (Key Question (KQ) 1) or simultaneously with (KQ2) the resection of the primary tumor.PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched to identify both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies published during January 2000-September 2020. Two independent reviewers screened literature for eligibility, extracted data from included studies, and assessed internal validity using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD).From 2304 publications, 35 studies were included for meta-analysis. For staged resections, three RCTs and 20 observational studies were included. Data from RCTs indicated MIS having similar disease-free survival (DFS) at 1-year (RR 1.03, 95%CI 0.70-1.50), overall survival (OS) at 5-years (RR 1.04, 95%CI 0.84-1.28), fewer complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III (RR 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.00), and shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (MD -6.6 days, 95%CI -10.2, -3.0). For simultaneous resections, 12 observational studies were included. There was no evidence of a difference between MIS and the open group for DFS-1-year, OS-5-year, complications, R0 resections, blood transfusions, along with lower blood loss (MD -177.35 mL, 95%CI -273.17, -81.53) and shorter LOS (MD -3.0 days, 95%CI -3.82, -2.17).Current evidence regarding the optimal approach for CRLM resection demonstrates similar oncologic outcomes between MIS and open techniques, however MIS hepatectomy had a shorter LOS, lower blood loss and complication rate, for both staged and simultaneous resections.

Objective: The objective of the study was to clarify how the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) concept of certainty of evidence applies to certainty ratings of test accuracy. Study Design and Setting: After initial brainstorming with GRADE Working Group members, we iteratively refined and clarified the approaches for defining ranges when assessing the certainty of evidence for test accuracy within a systematic review, health technology assessment, or guideline. Results: Ranges can be defined both for single test accuracy and for comparative accuracy of multiple tests. For systematic reviews and health technology assessments, approaches for defining ranges include some that do not require value judgments regarding downstream health outcomes. Key challenges arise in the context of a guideline that requires ranges for sensitivity and specificity that are set considering possible effects on all critical outcomes. We illustrate possible approaches and provide an example from a systematic review of a direct comparison between two test strategies. Conclusions: This GRADE concept paper provides a framework for assessing, presenting, and making decisions based on the certainty of evidence for test accuracy. More empirical research is needed to support future GRADE guidance on how to best operationalize the candidate approaches.

Objectives: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article. Study Design and Setting: We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance. Results: Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations. Conclusions: Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

SARS-CoV-2 has changed global healthcare since the pandemic began in 2020. The safety of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) utilizing insufflation from the standpoint of safety to the operating room personnel is currently being explored. The aims of this guideline are to examine the existing evidence to provide guidance regarding MIS for the patient with, or suspecting of having, the SARS-CoV-2 as well as the healthcare team involved.Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 2 key questions (KQ) regarding the safety of MIS in the setting of COVID-19 pandemic. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using a narrative synthesis of the literature by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.In KQ1, a total of 1361 articles were reviewed, with 2 articles meeting inclusion. In KQ2, a total of 977 articles were reviewed, with 4 articles met inclusions criteria, of which 2 studies reported on the SARS-CoV2 virus specifically. Despite many publications in the field, very little well-controlled and unbiased data exist to inform the recommendations. Of that which is available, it shows that both laparoscopic and open operations in Covid-positive patients had similar rates of OR staff positivity rates; however, patients who underwent laparoscopic procedures had a lower perioperative mortality than open procedures. Also, SARS-CoV-2 particles have been detected in the surgical plume at laparoscopy.With demonstrated equivalence of operating room staff exposure, and noninferiority of laparoscopic access with respect to mortality, either laparoscopic or open approaches to abdominal operations may be used in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Measures should be employed for all laparoscopic or open cases to prevent exposure of operating room staff to the surgical plume, as virus can be present in this plume.

The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new instrument to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in non-randomized studies (NRS) dealing with effects of environmental exposures on health outcomes. This instrument is modeled on the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument. The RoB instrument for NRS of exposures assesses RoB along a standardized comparison to a randomized target experiment, instead of the study-design directed RoB approach. We provide specific guidance for the integral steps of developing a research question and target experiment, distinguishing issues of indirectness from RoB, making individual-study judgments, and performing and interpreting sensitivity analyses for RoB judgments across a body of evidence. Also, we present an approach for integrating the RoB assessments within the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence in the systematic review. Finally, we guide the reader through an overall assessment to support the rating of all domains that determine the certainty of a body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Keywords: Risk of bias, Environmental health, GRADE, Non-randomized studies, Study limitations, ROBINS

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) is an extremely common condition with several medical and surgical treatment options. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians, patients, and others in decisions regarding the treatment of GERD with an emphasis on evaluating different surgical techniques.Literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical treatment of GERD in both adults and children: surgical vs. medical treatment, robotic vs. laparoscopic fundoplication, partial vs. complete fundoplication, and division vs. preservation of short gastric vessels in adults or maximal versus minimal dissection in pediatric patients. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed.The panel provided seven recommendations for adults and children with GERD. All recommendations were conditional due to very low, low, or moderate certainty of evidence. The panel conditionally recommended surgical treatment over medical management for adults with chronic or chronic refractory GERD. There was insufficient evidence for the panel to make a recommendation regarding surgical versus medical treatment in children. The panel suggested that once the decision to pursue surgical therapy is made, adults and children with GERD may be treated with either a robotic or a laparoscopic approach, and either partial or complete fundoplication based on surgeon-patient shared decision-making and patient values. In adults, the panel suggested either division or non-division of the short gastric vessels is appropriate, and that children should undergo minimal dissection during fundoplication.These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to surgical decision-making in the treatment of GERD and highlight the importance of shared decision-making and patient values to optimize patient outcomes. Pursuing the identified research needs may improve future versions of guidelines for the treatment of GERD.

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly used as primary treatment for esophageal achalasia, in place of the options such as Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD) Objective: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) intend to support clinicians, patients and others in decisions about the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia. Results: The panel agreed on 4 recommendations for adults and children with achalasia. Conclusions: Strong recommendation for the use of POEM over PD was issued unless the concern of continued postoperative PPI use remains a key decision-making concern to the patient. Conditional recommendations included the option of using either POEM or HM with fundoplication to treat achalasia, and favored POEM over HM for achalasia subtype III.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly used as primary treatment for esophageal achalasia, in place of the options such as Heller myotomy (HM) and pneumatic dilatation (PD) OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) intend to support clinicians, patients and others in decisions about the use of POEM for treatment of achalasia.The panel agreed on 4 recommendations for adults and children with achalasia.Strong recommendation for the use of POEM over PD was issued unless the concern of continued postoperative PPI use remains a key decision-making concern to the patient. Conditional recommendations included the option of using either POEM or HM with fundoplication to treat achalasia, and favored POEM over HM for achalasia subtype III.

Objectives To evaluate the impact of guidance and training on the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR) and evaluator burden of the Risk of Bias (RoB) in Non-randomized Studies (NRS) of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, and the RoB instrument for NRS of Exposures (ROB-NRSE). Study design and Setting In a before-and-after study, seven reviewers appraised the RoB using ROBINS-I (n = 44) and ROB-NRSE (n = 44), before and after guidance and training. We used Gwet's AC1 statistic to calculate IRR and ICR. Results After guidance and training, the IRR and ICR of the overall bias domain of ROBINS-I and ROB-NRSE improved significantly; with many individual domains showing either a significant (IRR and ICR of ROB-NRSE; ICR of ROBINS-I), or nonsignificant improvement (IRR of ROBINS-I). Evaluator burden significantly decreased after guidance and training for ROBINS-I, whereas for ROB-NRSE there was a slight nonsignificant increase. Conclusion Overall, there was benefit for guidance and training for both tools. We highly recommend guidance and training to reviewers prior to RoB assessments and that future research investigate aspects of guidance and training that are most effective.

Objective To propose an approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 weeks) in the clinical, public health, and health systems fields. Study design and setting We conducted a review of the literature, outlined a draft approach, refined the concept through iterative discussions, a workshop by the GRADE Rapid Guidelines project group, and obtained feedback from the larger GRADE working group. Results A request for developing recommendations within two weeks is the usual trigger for an urgent response. While the approach builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development, we highlight the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) assess feasibility; (3) set up the organizational logistics; (4) specify the question(s); (5) collect the information needed; (6) assess the adequacy of identified information; (7) develop the recommendations using one of four potential approaches: adopt existing recommendations; adapt existing recommendations; develop new recommendations using existing adequate systematic review; or develop new recommendations using expert panel input; and (8) consider an updating plan. Conclusion An urgent response for developing recommendations requires building a cohesive, skilled and highly motivated multidisciplinary team with the necessary clinical, scientific, and methodological expertise, adapting to shifting needs, complying with the principles of transparency and properly managing conflicts of interest., Highlights • The proposed approach for developing trustworthy recommendations as part of urgent responses (1-2 weeks) builds on the general principles of trustworthy guideline development; • The approach proposes the following steps: (1) assess the level of urgency; (2) clarify and focus the scope of question(s); (3) prioritize and collect the information needed; (4) assess the adequacy of identified information; and then (5) develop recommendations; • Developing recommendations can consist of a) adopting existing recommendations; (b) adapting existing recommendations; c) developing new recommendations using existing systematic reviews; or d) developing new recommendations using identified information and panel input.

BACKGROUND: BDI is the most common serious complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To address this problem, a multi-society consensus conference was held to develop evidenced-based recommendations for safe cholecystectomy and prevention of BDI. METHODS: Literature reviews were conducted for 18 key questions across 6 broad topics around cholecystectomy directed by a steering group and subject experts from 5 surgical societies (Society of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, and European Association for Endoscopic Surgery). Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation methodology. When evidence-based recommendations could not be made, expert opinion was documented. A number of recommendations for future research were also documented. Recommendations were presented at a consensus meeting in October 2018 and were voted on by an international panel of 25 experts with greater than 80% agreement considered consensus. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 17 of 18 questions by the guideline development group and expert panel with high concordance from audience participation. Most recommendations were conditional due to low certainty of evidence. Strong recommendations were made for (1) use of intraoperative biliary imaging for uncertainty of anatomy or suspicion of biliary injury; and (2) referral of patients with confirmed or suspected BDI to an experienced surgeon/multispecialty hepatobiliary team. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations should provide guidance to surgeons, training programs, hospitals, and professional societies for strategies that have the potential to reduce BDIs and positively impact patient outcomes. Development of clinical and educational research initiatives based on these recommendations may drive further improvement in the quality of surgical care for patients undergoing cholecystectomy.

Objective To assess the real-world interrater reliability (IRR), interconsensus reliability (ICR), and evaluator burden of the Risk of Bias (RoB) in Nonrandomized Studies (NRS) of Interventions (ROBINS-I), and the ROB Instrument for NRS of Exposures (ROB-NRSE) tools. Study Design and Setting A six-center cross-sectional study with seven reviewers (2 reviewer pairs) assessing the RoB using ROBINS-I (n = 44 NRS) or ROB-NRSE (n = 44 NRS). We used Gwet’s AC1 statistic to calculate the IRR and ICR. To measure the evaluator burden, we assessed the total time taken to apply the tool and reach a consensus. Results For ROBINS-I, both IRR and ICR for individual domains ranged from poor to substantial agreement. IRR and ICR on overall RoB were poor. The evaluator burden was 48.45 min (95% CI 45.61 to 51.29). For ROB-NRSE, the IRR and ICR for the majority of domains were poor, while the rest ranged from fair to perfect agreement. IRR and ICR on overall RoB were slight and poor, respectively. The evaluator burden was 36.98 min (95% CI 34.80 to 39.16). Conclusions We found both tools to have low reliability, although ROBINS-I was slightly higher. Measures to increase agreement between raters (e.g., detailed training, supportive guidance material) may improve reliability and decrease evaluator burden.

BackgroundBile duct injury (BDI) is the most common serious complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. To address this problem, a multi-society consensus conference was held to develop evidenced-based recommendations for safe cholecystectomy and prevention of BDI.MethodsLiterature reviews were conducted for 18 key questions across six broad topics around cholecystectomy directed by a steering group and subject experts from five surgical societies (SAGES, AHPBA IHPBA, SSAT, and EAES). Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology. When evidence-based recommendations could not be made, expert opinion was documented. A number of recommendations for future research were also documented. Recommendations were presented at a consensus meeting in October 2018 and were voted on by an international panel of 25 experts with greater than 80% agreement considered consensus.ResultsConsensus was reached on 17 of 18 questions by the Guideline Development Group (GDG) and expert panel with high concordance from audience participation. Most recommendations were conditional due to low certainty of evidence. Strong recommendations were made for (1) use of intraoperative biliary imaging for uncertainty of anatomy or suspicion of biliary injury; and (2) referral of patients with confirmed or suspected BDI to an experienced surgeon/multispecialty hepatobiliary team.ConclusionThese consensus recommendations should provide guidance to surgeons, training programs, hospitals, and professional societies for strategies that have the potential to reduce BDIs and positively impact patient outcomes. Development of clinical and educational research initiatives based on these recommendations may drive further improvement in the quality of surgical care for patients undergoing cholecystectomy.

Background A new tool, “risk of bias (ROB) instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures (ROB-NRSE),” was recently developed. It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability in the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of the new ROB-NRSE tool. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods Reviewers from four participating centers will apprise the ROB of a sample of NRSE publications using ROB-NRSE tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSE publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSE publications using both the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROB-NRSE tool. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply ROB-NRSE tool (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4, to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRSE depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of ROB-NRSE and how best to use it.

Intraoperative use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) has become commonplace in high-risk noncardiac surgeries but the balance of benefits and harms remains unclear. This systematic review investigated the comparative effectiveness and harms of intraoperative TEE in noncardiac surgery. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1946 to March 2017. Two reviewers independently screened the literature for eligibility. Studies were assessed for the risk of selection bias, confounding, measurement bias, and reporting bias. Three comparative and 13 noncomparative studies were included. Intraoperative TEE was employed in a total of 1912 of 3837 patients. Studies had important design limitations. Data were not amenable to quantitative synthesis due to clinical and methodological diversity. Reported incidence of TEE complications ranged from 0% to 1.7% in patients undergoing various procedures (5 studies, 540 patients). No serious adverse events were observed for mixed surgeries (2 studies, 197 patients). Changes in surgical or medical management attributable to the use of TEE were noted in 17% to 81% of patients (7 studies, 558 patients). The only randomized trial of intraoperative TEE was grossly underpowered to detect meaningful differences in 30-day postoperative outcomes. There is lack of high-quality evidence of effectiveness and harms of intraoperative TEE in the management of non-cardiac surgeries. Evidence, however, indicates timely evaluation of cardiac function and structure, and hemodynamics. Future studies should be comparative evaluating confounder-adjusted impact on both intraoperative and 30-day postoperative clinical outcomes.

Background Once a proposed topic has been identified for a systematic review and has undergone a question formulation stage, a protocol must be developed that specifies the scope and research questions in detail and outlines the methodology for conducting the systematic review. Rationale Framework modifications are often needed to accommodate increased complexity. We describe and give examples of adaptations and alternatives to traditional analytic frameworks. Discussion This article identifies and describes elements of frameworks and how they can be adapted to inform the protocol and conduct of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Modifications may be needed to adapt the population, intervention, comparators, and outcomes normally used in protocol development to successfully describe complex interventions; in some instances, alternative frameworks may be better suited. Possible approaches to analytic frameworks for complex interventions that illustrate causal and associative linkages are outlined, including time elements, which systematic reviews of complex interventions may need to address. The need for and specifics of the accommodations vary with details of a specific systematic review. This in turn helps determine whether traditional frameworks are sufficient, can be refined, or if alternate frameworks must be adopted.

Objectives\ud This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can assess the results and the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA).\ud Study Design and Setting\ud We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overiew of the domains and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically.\ud Results\ud Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies.\ud Conclusions\ud Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests.

Objectives This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTA) and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Study Design and Setting We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Results Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies. Conclusions Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. While several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far.

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology is used to assess and report certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. This GRADE concept article is not GRADE guidance but introduces certainty of net benefit, defined as the certainty that the balance between desirable and undesirable health effects is favourable. Determining certainty of net benefit requires considering certainty of effect estimates, the expected importance of outcomes and variability in importance, and the interaction of these concepts. Certainty of net harm is the certainty that the net effect is unfavourable. Guideline panels using or testing this approach might limit strong recommendations to actions with a high certainty of net benefit or against actions with a moderate or high certainty of net harm. Recommendations may differ in direction or strength from that suggested by the certainty of net benefit or harm when influenced by cost, equity, acceptability or feasibility.

© 2018 The Authors Context: Based on the clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care (PC), a published analytic framework (AF) formulated research questions in key domains and recommended a scoping review to identify evidence gaps. Objectives: To produce a literature map for key domains of the published AF: screening, prognosis and diagnosis, management, and the health-related outcomes. Methods: A standard scoping review framework was used by an interdisciplinary study team of nurse- and physician-delirium researchers, an information specialist, and review methodologists to conduct the review. Knowledge user engagement provided context in refining 19 AF questions. A peer-reviewed search strategy identified citations in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL databases between 1980 and 2018. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion using explicit study eligibility criteria for the population, design, delirium diagnosis, and investigational intent. Results: Of 104 studies reporting empirical data and meeting eligibility criteria, most were conducted in patients with cancer (73.1%) and in inpatient PC units (52%). The most frequent study design was a one or more group, nonrandomized trial or cohort (67.3%). Evidence gaps were identified: delirium risk prediction; comparative effectiveness and harms of prevention, variability in delirium management across PC settings, advanced directive and substitute decision-maker input, and transition of care location; and estimating delirium reversibility. Future rigorous primary studies are required to address these gaps and preliminary concerns regarding the quality of extant literature. Conclusion: Substantial evidence gaps exist, providing opportunities for future research regarding the assessment, prognosis, and management of delirium in PC settings.

BackgroundThe prognostic value of perioperative diastolic dysfunction (PDD) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery remains uncertain, and the current guidelines do not recognize PDD as a perioperative risk factor. This systematic review aimed to investigate whether existing evidence supports PDD as an independent predictor of adverse events after noncardiac surgery.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google search engine were searched for English-language citations in April 2015 investigating PDD as a risk factor for perioperative adverse events in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed the study risk of bias. Extracted data were verified. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and reviewers’ certainty was graded.ResultsSeventeen studies met eligibility criteria; however, 13 contributed to evidence synthesis. The entire body of evidence addressing the research question was based on a total of 3,876 patients. PDD was significantly associated with pulmonary edema/congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; 95% CI, 2.23 to 6.83; 3 studies; 996 patients), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.67; 3 studies; 717 patients), and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.24 to 3.32; 4 studies; 1,814 patients). Evidence addressing other outcomes had low statistical power, but higher long-term cardiovascular mortality was observed in patients undergoing open vascular repair (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.50 to 6.00). Reviewers’ overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.ConclusionEvidence of moderate certainty indicates that PDD is an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery.

Objectives To revise 2010 guidance on grading the strength of evidence (SOE) of the effectiveness of drugs, devices, and other preventive and therapeutic interventions in systematic reviews produced by the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program, established by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Study Design and Setting A cross-EPC working group reviewed authoritative systems for grading SOE [primarily the approach from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group] and conducted extensive discussions with GRADE and other experts. Results Updated guidance continues to be conceptually similar to GRADE. Reviewers are to evaluate SOE separately for each major treatment comparison for each major outcome. We added reporting bias as a required domain and retained study limitations (risk of bias), consistency, directness, and precision (and three optional domains). Additional guidance covers scoring consistency, precision, and reporting bias, grading bodies of evidence with randomized controlled trials and observational studies, evaluating single study bodies of evidence, using studies with high risk of bias, and presenting findings with greater clarity and transparency. SOE is graded high, moderate, low, or insufficient, reflecting reviewers' confidence in the findings for a specific treatment comparison and outcome. Conclusion No single approach for grading SOE suits all reviews, but a more consistent and transparent approach to reporting summary information will make reviews more useful to the broad range of audiences that AHRQ's work aims to reach. EPC working groups will consider ongoing challenges and modify guidance as needed, on issues such as combining trials and observational studies in bodies of evidence, weighting domains, and combining qualitative and quantitative syntheses.

Evidence supporting postoperative pain management using pregabalin as an adjunct intervention across various surgical pain models is lacking. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate "model-specific" comparative effectiveness and harms of pregabalin following a previously published systematic review protocol. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through August 2013. Data were screened and single extraction with independent verification and dual risk of bias assessment was performed. Quality of evidence (QoE) was rated using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain relief at rest and on movement and reduction in postoperative analgesic consumption. A total of 1423 records were screened, and 43 studies were included. Perioperative pregabalin resulted in: 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9%-21%) reduction in analgesic consumption (moderate QoE, 24 trials) and a small reduction in the magnitude of pain in surgeries associated with pronociceptive pain. Per 1000 patients, 10 more will experience blurred vision (95% CI, 5-20 more; moderate QoE, 17 trials) and 41 more sedation (95% CI, 13-77 more, 17 trials). To prevent 1 case of perioperative nausea and vomiting, the number needed to treat is 11 (95% CI: 7-28, 25 trials). Inadequate evidence addressed outcomes of enhanced recovery and serious harms. Pregabalin analgesic effectiveness is largely restricted to surgical procedures associated with pronociceptive mechanisms. The clinical significance of observed pregabalin benefits must be weighed against the uncertainties about serious harms and enhanced recovery to inform the careful selection of surgical patients. Recommendations for future research are proposed.

Objective: To clarify the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) definition of certainty of evidence and suggest possible approaches to rating certainty of the evidence for systematic reviews, health technology assessments, and guidelines. Study Design and Setting: This work was carried out by a project group within the GRADE Working Group, through brainstorming and iterative refinement of ideas, using input from workshops, presentations, and discussions at GRADE Working Group meetings to produce this document, which constitutes official GRADE guidance. Results: Certainty of evidence is best considered as the certainty that a true effect lies on one side of a specified threshold or within a chosen range. We define possible approaches for choosing threshold or range. For guidelines, what we call a fully contextualized approach requires simultaneously considering all critical outcomes and their relative value. Less-contextualized approaches, more appropriate for systematic reviews and health technology assessments, include using specified ranges of magnitude of effect, for example, ranges of what we might consider no effect, trivial, small, moderate, or large effects. Conclusion: It is desirable for systematic review authors, guideline panelists, and health technology assessors to specify the threshold or ranges they are using when rating the certainty in evidence. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Objectives The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program conducts systematic reviews of health-care topics nominated by stakeholders. Topics undergo refinement to ensure relevant questions of appropriate scope and useful reviews. Input from key informants, experts, and a literature scan informs changes in the nominated topic. AHRQ convened a work group to assess approaches and develop recommendations for topic refinement. Study Design and Setting Work group members experienced in topic refinement generated a list of questions and guiding principles relevant to the refinement process. They discussed each issue and reached agreement on recommendations. Results Topics should address important health-care questions or dilemmas, consider stakeholder priorities and values, reflect the state of the science, and be consistent with systematic review research methods. Guiding principles of topic refinement are fidelity to the nomination, relevance, research feasibility, responsiveness to stakeholder inputs, reduced investigator bias, transparency, and suitable scope. Suggestions for stakeholder engagement, synthesis of input, and reporting are discussed. Refinement decisions require judgment and balancing guiding principles. Variability in topics precludes a prescriptive approach. Conclusion Accurate, rigorous, and useful systematic reviews require well-refined topics. These guiding principles and methodological recommendations may help investigators refine topics for reviews.

Introduction Rapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR. Methods Review of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3). Results Across all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases. Conclusion RR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

Non-randomized studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of health care evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomization to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomized studies.

Objectives: The aim of this paper is to describe a conceptual framework for how to consider health equity in the Grading Recommendations Assessment and Development Evidence (GRADE) guideline development process. Study Design and Setting: Consensus-based guidance developed by the GRADE working group members and other methodologists. Results: We developed consensus-based guidance to help address health equity when rating the certainty of synthesized evidence (i.e., quality of evidence). When health inequity is determined to be a concern by stakeholders, we propose five methods for explicitly assessing health equity: (1) include health equity as an 'outcome; (2) consider patient-important outcomes relevant to health equity; (3) assess differences in the relative effect size of the treatment; (4) assess differences in baseline risk and the differing impacts on absolute effects; and (5) assess indirectness of evidence to disadvantaged populations and/or settings. Conclusion: The most important priority for research on health inequity and guidelines is to identify and document examples where health equity has been considered explicitly in guidelines. Although there is a weak scientific evidence base for assessing health equity, this should not discourage the explicit consideration of how guidelines and recommendations affect the most vulnerable members of society. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Objectives This article introduces the rationale and methods for explicitly considering health equity in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology for development of clinical, public health, and health system guidelines. Study Design and Setting We searched for guideline methodology articles, conceptual articles about health equity, and examples of guidelines that considered health equity explicitly. We held three meetings with GRADE Working Group members and invited comments from the GRADE Working Group listserve. Results We developed three articles on incorporating equity considerations into the overall approach to guideline development, rating certainty, and assembling the evidence base and evidence to decision and/or recommendation. Conclusion Clinical and public health guidelines have a role to play in promoting health equity by explicitly considering equity in the process of guideline development.

The prognostic value of perioperative diastolic dysfunction (PDD) in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery remains uncertain, and the current guidelines do not recognize PDD as a perioperative risk factor. This systematic review aimed to investigate whether existing evidence supports PDD as an independent predictor of adverse events after noncardiac surgery.Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Google search engine were searched for English-language citations in April 2015 investigating PDD as a risk factor for perioperative adverse events in adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Two reviewers independently assessed the study risk of bias. Extracted data were verified. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and reviewers' certainty was graded.Seventeen studies met eligibility criteria; however, 13 contributed to evidence synthesis. The entire body of evidence addressing the research question was based on a total of 3,876 patients. PDD was significantly associated with pulmonary edema/congestive heart failure (odds ratio [OR], 3.90; 95% CI, 2.23 to 6.83; 3 studies; 996 patients), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.67; 3 studies; 717 patients), and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.24 to 3.32; 4 studies; 1,814 patients). Evidence addressing other outcomes had low statistical power, but higher long-term cardiovascular mortality was observed in patients undergoing open vascular repair (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.50 to 6.00). Reviewers' overall certainty of the evidence was moderate.Evidence of moderate certainty indicates that PDD is an independent risk factor for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after noncardiac surgery.

Impaired glucose tolerance and impaired fasting glucose, referred to as prediabetes, are predisease states that may progress to type 2 diabetes mellitus. The value of intervening in these states, especially with respect to cardiovascular outcomes, is unclear. The purpose of this study was to develop a broad synopsis of the available literature through an evidence map of systematic reviews about interventions in adults with prediabetes. The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2011, Ovid MEDLINE (1946–January 4, 2012) and grey literature were searched. Studies were selected according to defined eligibility criteria. Fourteen relevant systematic reviews, of mostly high quality, were retrieved. The majority of reviews evaluated pharmacotherapeutic interventions or diet/exercise/lifestyle. A few reviews assessed complementary alternative medicine, behavioural strategies, standard prevention education or gastric bypass surgery. Very few reviews reported data on clinical cardiovascular endpoints. Most reviews reported either shorter-term surrogate markers of cardiovascular outcomes or progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus. Based on an assessment of authors’ overall conclusions, the value of pharmacotherapeutic interventions and diet/exercise/lifestyle ranged from beneficial to inconclusive, behavioural strategies were beneficial, and gastric bypass surgery was probably beneficial. The value of complementary alternative medicine was inconclusive. A considerable amount of evidence pertaining to interventions in prediabetes exists. Future research should synthesize the available systematic review evidence base in an overview of reviews. In addition, more primary research should be conducted to assess clinical cardiovascular endpoints.

Apply and compare two methods that identify signals for the need to update systematic reviews, using three Evidence-based Practice Center reports on omega-3 fatty acids as test cases.We applied the RAND method, which uses domain (subject matter) expert guidance, and a modified Ottawa method, which uses quantitative and qualitative signals. For both methods, we conducted focused electronic literature searches of recent studies using the key terms from the original reports. We assessed the agreement between the methods and qualitatively assessed the merits of each system.Agreement between the two methods was "substantial" or better (kappa0.62) in three of the four systematic reviews. Overall agreement between the methods was "substantial" (kappa=0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.83).The RAND and modified Ottawa methods appear to provide similar signals for the possible need to update systematic reviews in this pilot study. Future evaluation with a broader range of clinical topics and eventual comparisons between signals to update reports and the results of full evidence review updates will be needed. We propose a hybrid approach combining the best features of both methods, which should allow efficient review and assessment of the need to update.

Introduction Preterm birth (PTB) at

Objective This article reports on literature surveillance methods to identify new evidence eligible for updating systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting Five surveillance search approaches are tested in the context of identifying studies that would signal major or invalidating new evidence for existing systematic reviews of health care interventions. Recall for each search approach was assessed as proportion of a composite yield of relevant studies across all search approaches that were identified by that approach. Screening burden was the number of studies that would need to be reviewed to identify the evidence that would necessitate updating. Results Searches were tested in a cohort of 77 systematic reviews. No one method yielded consistently high recall of relevant new evidence, so combinations of the strategies were examined. A search algorithm based on PubMed's related article search in combination with a subject searching using clinical queries was the most effective combination, retrieving all relevant new records in 68 cases. Screening burden was a median of 71 new records per review (inter-quartile range: 42–161). Conclusion Surveillance for emerging evidence that signals the need to update systematic reviews is feasible using a combination of subject searching and searching based on the PubMed's related article function.

The intrathecal drug-delivery system (IDDS) is one mode of infusing analgesic medications directly into the cerebrospinal fluid in close proximity to their site of action. This modality has been employed in patients with refractory pain either due to malignant or non-malignant causes for over 30 years. Unfortunately, and despite the number of years it has been in use, there is still a scarcity of rigorous evidence to guide its integration into clinical practice. Current best evidence is inconclusive as to the comparative effectiveness and harms of the IDDS relative to routine medical care of patients. There are far more systematic reviews than high-quality primary comparative studies of the IDDS vs. conventional pain treatment. Existing clinical practice recommendations are best viewed as expert opinion with competing interests. This article will review the existing literature for indications, contraindications, consensus statements, different technologies, and complications of the IDDS. Although approved analgesics for IDDS delivery are limited to morphine and ziconotide, many other analgesics, alone or in combination, are routinely used in this setting. This review will also focus on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy, and safety of intrathecal medications extensively used in clinical practice; including agents approved, unapproved, and under development.