Search

Objectives: Minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change or difference that patients perceive as important, aids interpretation of change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores. A credibility instrument that assesses the methodological rigor of an anchor-based MID includes one core item addressing the correlation between the PROM and the anchor. However, the majority of MID studies in the literature fail to report the correlation. To address this issue, we extended the anchor-based MID credibility instrument by adding an item addressing construct proximity as an alternative to the correlation item. Study Design and Setting: Informed by an MID methodological survey, we added an alternative item—a subjective assessment of similarity of the constructs (i.e., construct proximity) between PROM and anchor—to the correlation item and generated principles for the assessment. We sampled 101 MIDs and analyzed the assessments performed by each pair of raters. By calculating weighted Cohen's kappa, we assessed the reliability of the assessments. Results: Construct proximity assessment is based on the anticipated association between the anchor and PROM constructs: the closer the anticipated association, the higher the rating. Our detailed principles address the most frequently used anchors: transition ratings, measures of satisfaction, other PROMs, and clinical measures. The assessments showed acceptable agreement (weighted kappa 0.74, 95% CI 0.55–0.94) between raters. Conclusion: In the absence of a reported correlation coefficient, construct proximity assessment provides a useful alternative in the credibility assessment of anchor-based MID estimates.

To evaluate reporting of minimal important difference (MID) estimates using anchor-based methods for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and the association with reporting deficiencies on their credibility.Systematic survey of primary studies empirically estimating MIDs. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database until October 2018. We evaluated study reporting, focusing on participants' demographics, intervention(s), characteristics of PROMs and anchors, and MID estimation method(s). We assessed the impact of reporting issues on credibility of MID estimates.In 585 studies reporting on 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs, authors frequently failed to adequately report key characteristics of PROMs and MIDs, including minimum and maximum values of PROM scale, measure of variability accompanying the MID estimate and number of participants included in the MID calculation. Across MID estimates (n = 5,324), the most serious reporting issues impacting credibility included infrequent reporting of the correlation between the anchor and PROM (66%), inadequate details to judge precision of MID point estimate (13%), and insufficient information about the threshold used to ascertain MIDs (16%).Serious issues of incomplete reporting in the MID literature threaten the optimal use of MID estimates to inform the magnitude of effects of interventions on PROMs.

[Objectives] This study aims to describe the distribution of anchor-based minimal important change (MIC) estimates in standard deviation (SD) units and examine if the robustness of such estimates depends on the specific SD used or on the methodological credibility of the anchor-based estimates. [Design and Setting] We included all anchor-based MIC estimates from studies published in MEDLINE and relevant literature databases upto October 2018. Each MIC was converted to SD units using baseline, endpoint, and change from baseline SDs. We performed a descriptive analysis of MICs in SD units and checked how the distribution would change if MICs with low methodological credibility were excluded from the analysis. [Results] We included 1, 009 MIC estimates from 182 studies. The medians and interquartile ranges of MICs in SD units were 0.43 (0.25 to 0.69), 0.42 (0.22 to 0.70), and 0.51 (0.28 to 0.78) for baseline, endpoint, and change SD units, respectively. Some MICs were extremely large or small. The distribution did not change significantly after excluding MICs estimated by less credible methods. [Conclusions] The size of the universally applicable MIC in SD units could not be determined. Anchor-based MICs in SD units were widely distributed, with more than half in the range of 0.2 to 0.8.

Researchers have proposed that the minimal important difference (MID), the smallest change or difference that patients perceive as important, could aid the interpretation of patient reported outcomes measure (PROM) scores. When multiple MIDs for a given PROM differ substantially, the selection of an optimal MID to aid interpretation could prove challenging. This article describes a systematic, step-by-step selection approach developed to resolve this problem. An optimal MID, at least, should be methodologically sound and should, as far as possible, match the intended application contexts. Therefore, this approach is geared to explaining the variability of the MIDs for the PROM of interest by the methodological rigor and contextualised factors influencing the MID application, and where appropriate, provides one optimal MID (ie, the median of the selected estimates in a relatively narrow range).

Background Effects of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRI) for symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or comorbid conditions are uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses to determine the efficacy and safety of SSRIs in children with ASD on restricted repetitive behaviors, obsessive-compulsive, anxiety and depressive symptoms, disruptive behaviors, global functioning, and quality of life. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, WHO ICTRP, Clinical.Trials.gov. to retrieve RCT of SSRIs versus placebo in children with ASD that evaluated the outcomes of interest with a validated measurement instrument. Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated the certainty of evidence. Results Seven RCTs with a total of 606 participants were included. The evidence is very uncertain on the effect of SSRIs on restricted-repetitive behaviors and anxiety symptoms in children with ASD, there is low certainty of the evidence suggesting that SSRIs result in little to no effect on obsessive-compulsive symptoms and disruptive behaviors and there is moderate certainty of the evidence that SSRIs likely result in little to no difference in global functioning and a slight increase in adverse events. No studies evaluated depressive symptoms. Conclusions The number of studies on this population remains limited, and there is a lack of commonly accepted outcome measures able to identify relevant changes for patients and families. Protocol registration number:PROSPERO-CRD42020169836

Objective To provide practical principles and examples to help GRADE users make optimal choices regarding their ratings of certainty of evidence using a minimally or partially contextualized approach. Study Design and Setting Based on the GRADE clarification of certainty of evidence in 2017, a project group within the GRADE Working Group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE Working Group meetings to refine this construct and produce practical guidance. Results Systematic review and health technology assessment authors need to clarify what it is in which they are rating their certainty of evidence (i.e., the target of their certainty rating). The decision depends on the degree of contextualization (partially or minimally contextualized), thresholds (null, small, moderate or large effect threshold), and where the point estimate lies in relation to the chosen threshold(s). When the 95% confidence interval crosses multiple possible thresholds (i.e., including both large benefit and large harm), it is not worthwhile for authors to determine the target of certainty rating. Conclusion GRADE provides practical principles to help systematic review and health technology assessment authors specify the target of their certainty of evidence rating.

Objectives The objective of the study was to develop an inventory summarizing all anchor-based minimal important difference (MID) estimates for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the medical literature. Study Design and Setting We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database internal library (January 1989–October 2018). We included primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adults and adolescents. Pairs of reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the credibility of the MIDs. Results We identified 585 eligible studies, the majority conducted in Europe (n = 211) and North America (n = 179), reporting 5,324 MID estimates for 526 distinct PROMs. Investigators conducted their studies in the context of patients receiving surgical (n = 105, 18%), pharmacological (n = 85, 15%), rehabilitation (n = 65, 11%), or a combination of interventions (n = 194, 33%). Of all MID estimates, 59% (n = 3,131) used a global rating of change anchor. Major credibility limitations included weak correlation (n = 1,246, 23%) or no information regarding the correlation (n = 3,498, 66%) between the PROM and anchor and imprecision in the MID estimate (n = 2,513, 47%). Conclusion A large number of MIDs for assisting in the interpretation of PROMs exist. The MID inventory will facilitate the use of MID estimates to inform the interpretation of the magnitude of treatment effects in clinical research and guideline development.

ObjectiveClinical trialists, meta-analysts and clinical guideline developers are increasingly using minimal important differences (MIDs) to enhance the interpretability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Here, we elucidate three critical issues of which MID users should be aware. Improved understanding of MID concepts and awareness of common pitfalls in methodology and reporting will better inform the application of MIDs in clinical research and decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to inform the development of an inventory of anchor-based MID estimates for PROMs. We searched four electronic databases to identify primary studies empirically calculating an anchor-based MID estimate for any PROM in adolescent or adult populations across all clinical areas. Our findings are based on information from 338 studies reporting 3389 MIDs for 358 PROMs published between 1989 and 2015.ResultsWe identified three key issues in the MID literature that demand attention. (1) The profusion of terms representing the MID concept adds unnecessary complexity to users’ task in identifying relevant MIDs, requiring meticulous inspection of methodology to ensure estimates offered truly reflect the MID. (2) A multitude of diverse methods for MID estimation that will yield different estimates exist, and whether there are superior options remains unresolved. (3) There are serious issues of incomplete presentation and reporting of key aspects of the design, methodology and results of studies providing anchor-based MIDs, which threatens the optimal use of these estimates for interpretation of intervention effects on PROMs.ConclusionsAlthough the MID represents a powerful tool for enhancing the interpretability of PROMs, realising its full value will require improved understanding and reporting of its measurement fundamentals.

Background Hip fractures are a leading cause of disability worldwide, with displaced femoral neck fractures being of particular concern. A recent meta-analysis reported that total hip arthroplasty (THA) was superior to hemiarthroplasty (HA) in terms of reoperations, but inferior in terms of dislocations. However, publication of 4 additional randomized controlled trials that enrolled nearly 1,780 additional patients merits an updated meta-analysis. Methods We conducted a literature search of 4 databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing THA and HA in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. For patient-reported outcomes, the minimally important difference informed calculation of risk differences. We performed a subgroup analysis to address the possible impact of risk of bias and performed meta-regression to assess the possible impact of duration of follow-up. Results Sixteen studies that enrolled 3,084 patients randomized to undergo THA (n = 1,521) or HA (n = 1,563) proved eligible. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of the revision rate at up to 5 years of follow-up or functional outcome at up to 3 years. Health-related quality of life was superior in the THA group (mean difference [MD] = 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.02 to 0.07, minimally important difference, 0.145). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of dislocation or periprosthetic fracture incidence. Operative time was significantly shorter in the HA group (MD = 22 minutes, 95% CI = 9 to 35 minutes). Analyses addressing risk of bias and length of follow-up did not reveal subgroup differences. Certainty of evidence for all outcomes was rated as moderate. Conclusions The best evidence showed, with moderate certainty, that HA and THA likely result in similar revision rate, function, mortality, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation at up to 5 years, with a small, possibly unimportant benefit in health-related quality of life with THA. More specifically, the improvements are well below established cutoffs for clinical importance. Almost half of all patients were from a single large randomized controlled trial, although the results were consistent across the studies. In addition, HA likely results in a clinically unimportant reduction in operative time. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

COVID-19 is a global pandemic that has currently infected >300,000 globally. Fever and cough are the most common symptoms of the disease, and it is important to remember that the virus can even be transmitted by individuals who test positive for the disease but do not have any symptoms. Currently reported mortality rates vary because of the rapid spread of the disease and different approaches to calculating this estimate, but it is clear that the risk of death is associated with age and the presence of underlying conditions. Risk mitigation techniques (i.e., hand washing, social distancing, and self-isolation) have already been emphasized across major news outlets. It is essential that we continue these practices, as the outbreak is currently expected to last for many more months and we must be mindful of the lessons learned from past pandemics to prevent a second wave from occurring.

Objective : To systematically survey the literature addressing the reporting of studies estimating anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) and choice of optimal MIDs. Study design and Setting : We searched Medline, Embase and PsycINFO from 1987 to March 2020. Teams of two reviewers independently identified eligible publications and extracted quotations addressing relevant issues for reporting and/or selecting anchor-based MIDs. Using a coding list, we assigned the same code to quotations capturing similar or related issues. For each code, we generated an ‘item’, i.e. a specific phrase or sentence capturing the underlying concept. When multiple concepts existed under a single code, the team created multiple items for that code. We clustered codes addressing a broader methodological issue into a ‘category’ and classified items as relevant for reporting, relevant for selecting an anchor-based MID, or both. Results : We identified 136 eligible publications that provided 6 categories (MID definition, anchors, patient-reported outcome measures, generalizability and statistics) and 24 codes. These codes contained 34 items related to reporting MID studies, of which 29 were also related to selecting MIDs. Conclusion : The systematic survey identified items related to reporting of anchor-based MID studies and selecting optimal MIDs. These provide a conceptual framework to inform the design of studies related to MIDs, and a basis for developing a reporting standard and a selection approach for MIDs.

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021).Review methodsTrials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis.ResultsOf 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death.ConclusionThese findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.

Background and objective The prognostic value of age and other non-hematological factors in predicting outcomes in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) undergoing antileukemic therapy is not well understood. We performed a systematic review to determine the association between these factors and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue among these patients. Methods We searched Medline and Embase through October 2021 for studies in which researchers quantified the relationship between age, comorbidities, frailty, performance status, or functional status; and mortality and health-related quality of life or fatigue in older patients with AML receiving antileukemic therapy. We assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool, conducted random-effects meta-analyses, and assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results We included 90 studies. Meta-analysis showed that age (per 5-year increase, HR 1.16 95% CI 1.11–1.21, high-quality evidence), comorbidities (Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 1.60 95% CI 1.31–1.95, high-quality evidence), and performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/ World Health Organization (ECOG/WHO): 2+ VS less than 2, HR 1.63 95% CI 1.43–1.86, high-quality evidence; ECOG/WHO: 3+ VS less than 3, HR 2.00 95% CI 1.52–2.63, moderate-quality evidence) were associated with long-term mortality. These studies provided inconsistent and non-informative results on short-term mortality (within 90 days) and quality of life. Conclusion High-quality or moderate-quality evidence support that age, comorbidities, performance status predicts the long-term prognosis of older patients with AML undergoing antileukemic treatment.

PurposeThere are a number of developments in intra-articular therapies that have been determined to be differentiating factors within the classes of treatments. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of intra-articular treatments of primary knee osteoarthritis in the short term (3 months follow-up), using a network meta-analysis design, while taking within-class differentiating factors into consideration.MethodsA literature search of MEDLINE (through OVID), EMBASE (through OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all trials comparing intra-articular therapies was conducted on November 12, 2018. The treatments assessed were high molecular weight and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid injections, extended-release corticosteroids, standard-release corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, and saline. A frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome.ResultsSixty-four articles (9710 patients) met the inclusion criteria. High molecular weight hyaluronic acid (− 0.53, 95% CI − 0.81 to − 0.25) and PRP (− 0.79, 95% CI − 1.32 to − 0.26) were the only treatments with a confidence interval that lay completely above the MID threshold; however, PRP results varied within sensitivity analyses. For the function analysis, high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (SMD − 0.76, 95% CI − 1.30 to − 0.22) was the only treatment with a confidence interval entirely above the MID. Extended-release corticosteroid demonstrated a possible benefit in functional improvement (SMD − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.79 to − 0.17) compared to that of standard-release corticosteroid (SMD − 0.14, 95% CI − 0.72 to 0.44).ConclusionHigh molecular weight HA was the only treatment to surpass the MID for both pain and function outcomes. Extended-release corticosteroids may provide additional clinical benefit over standard-release corticosteroids. Platelet-rich plasma demonstrated possibly beneficial results; however, wide confidence intervals and sensitivity analyses made the conclusions of efficacy uncertain.Level of evidenceLevel 1. Systematic review of level 1 evidence.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have deleterious effects. It has been suggested that the administration of opioid analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. This can be done in two ways. We defined 'preventive opioids' as opioids administered before incision and continued postoperatively, and 'pre‐emptive opioids' as opioids given before incision but not continued postoperatively. Both pre‐emptive and preventive analgesia involve the initiation of an analgesic agent prior to surgical incision with the aim of reducing intraoperative nociception and therefore postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre‐emptive opioids for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, and CINAHL (up to 18 March 2018). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel‐group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included participants aged over 15 years old undergoing any type of surgery. We defined postincision opioids as the same intervention administered after incision whether single dose (as comparator with pre‐emptive analgesia) or continued postoperatively (as comparator with preventive analgesia) (control group). We considered studies that did and did not use a double‐dummy placebo (e.g. intervention group received active drug before incision and placebo after incision; control group received placebo before incision and active drug after incision). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were: early acute postoperative pain (measured within six hours and reported on a 0‐to‐10 scale) and respiratory depression. Our secondary outcomes included: late acute postoperative pain (24 to 48 hours and reported on a 0‐to‐10 scale), 24‐hour morphine consumption, and adverse events (intraoperative bradycardia and hypotension). We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, including one unpublished study with 1343 participants. Two studies were awaiting classification as the full text for these studies was not available. One study evaluated pre‐emptive opioids, and 19 studies evaluated preventive opioids. We considered only one study to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The surgeries and opioids used varied, although roughly half of the included studies were conducted in abdominal hysterectomy, and around a quarter used morphine as the intervention. All studies were conducted in secondary care. Pre‐emptive opioids compared to postincision opioids For pre‐emptive opioids in dental surgery, there may be a reduction in early acute postoperative pain (mean difference (MD) ‐1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐1.75 to ‐0.65; 40 participants; 1 study; low‐quality evidence). This study did not report on adverse events (respiratory depression, bradycardia, or hypotension). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD ‐2.10, 95% CI ‐2.57 to ‐1.63; 40 participants; 1 study; low‐quality evidence). This study did not report 24‐hour morphine consumption. Preventive opioids compared to postincision opioids For preventive opioids, there was probably no reduction in early acute postoperative pain (MD 0.11, 95% CI ‐0.32 to 0.53; 706 participants; 10 studies; I(2) = 61%; moderate‐quality evidence). There were no events of respiratory depression in four studies (433 participants). There was no important reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD ‐0.06, 95% CI ‐0.13 to 0.01; 668 participants; 9 studies; I(2) = 0%; moderate‐quality evidence). There may be a small reduction in 24‐hour morphine consumption (MD ‐4.91 mg, 95% CI ‐9.39 mg to ‐0.44 mg; 526 participants; 11 studies; I(2) = 82%; very low‐quality evidence). There may be similar rates of bradycardia (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.88; 112 participants; 2 studies; I(2) = 0%; low‐quality evidence) and hypotension (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.25 to 4.73; 88 participants; 2 studies; I(2) = 0%; low‐quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are uncertain whether pre‐emptive opioids reduce postoperative pain. Based on the trials conducted thus far, there was no clear evidence that preventive opioids result in reductions in pain scores. It was unclear if there was a reduction in morphine consumption due to very low‐quality of evidence. Too few studies reported adverse events to be able to draw any definitive conclusions. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review.

We produced, through a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence, a synthesis of the issues of importance (values and preferences) to adult patients with type 1 diabetes regarding treatment with automated insulin delivery systems.We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO from the inception of each database through September 2018. We included studies examining patient values and preferences for outcomes related to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion or artificial pancreas treatment. We compiled structured summaries of the results and assessed the relative importance of each outcome. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluation) and CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approaches provided the structure for the evaluation of the quality of evidence and confidence in the findings. A mixed-methods result-based convergent design provided the structure for integration and presentation of results.We reviewed 1665 unique citations; 19 studies (8 quantitative and 11 qualitative) proved eligible. Glycemic control is the key attribute that drives patients' preference. Reduction of glycemic variability and decreased incidence of hypoglycemia and chronic complications proved of intermediate importance and were ranked similarly to components of treatment burden, including the size and appearance of devices, cost, ease of use, and the embarrassment of public use.Clinician guidance may play a crucial role in determining patient values and preferences (for instance, patients' priority in glucose control rather than avoiding diabetic complications). Our results provide guidance for clinicians in discussing preferred insulin delivery systems with patients with type 1 diabetes.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). Study selection Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. Results As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) −4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD −4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD −3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD −4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. Conclusion In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. Funding This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website ( www.covid19lnma.com ).

To investigate the effect of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy on intraocular pressure (IOP) 12 and 24 months after initiation.It is unclear whether serial anti-VEGF injections result in sustained IOP increases.Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anti-VEGF agents with each other or with controls for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration, retinal vein occlusions, or diabetic macular edema were included. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis examined the proportion of patients whose IOP (1) increased 5 mmHg or more from baseline on consecutive visits, (2) increased 10 mmHg or more from baseline at any visit, (3) was 21 mmHg or more on consecutive visits, (4) was 25 mmHg or more at any visit, (5) was 30 mmHg or more at any visit, (6) prompted initiation of IOP-lowering medications, or (7) increased as per the clinicians' discretion. Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluations methodology informed the certainty of evidence.Twenty-six RCTs of 12 522 eyes were included. Aflibercept, bevacizumab, ranibizumab (0.3 mg and 0.5 mg), and noninjection controls were analyzed. Eighty-three of 84 network estimates for comparisons between anti-VEGF agents demonstrated no statistically significant difference (low to moderate certainty of evidence). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg showed higher rates than bevacizumab of IOP measurements of 30 mmHg or more at 12 months (low certainty of evidence). Fifty-three of 56 network estimates for comparisons between anti-VEGF agents and controls demonstrated no statistically significant difference (low to moderate certainty of evidence). Ranibizumab 0.5 mg showed higher rates of consecutive IOP increases of 5 mmHg or more at 24 months (low certainty of evidence) and higher rates of IOP increases as per the clinicians' discretion at 12 and 24 months (low and very low certainty of evidence, respectively). The 95% credible intervals in comparisons without statistically significant effects did not rule out important clinical effects. The certainty of evidence in these comparisons is limited by imprecision.This network meta-analysis does not show any clear difference in IOP increases 12 and 24 months after treatment initiation between anti-VEGF agents and controls. Imprecision precludes definitive conclusions.

ObjectiveTo compare the effects of interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor blockers, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with COVID-19.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysisData sourcesWHO COVID-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analysesStudy selectionTrials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed COVID-19 were randomized to IL-6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care.ResultsWe assessed the risk of bias of included trials using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed a Bayesian fixed effect network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.We identified 45 eligible trials (20,650 patients), 36 (19,350 patients) of which could be included in the network meta-analysis. 27 of 36 trials were rated at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab (20 more per 1000, 15 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty) alone may not reduce the risk of death. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (35 fewer per 1000, 52 fewer to 18 more; moderate certainty) and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, may reduce the risk of death compared to corticosteroids alone (43 fewer, 73 fewer to 12 more; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, both in combination with corticosteroids, may have similar effects (8 more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty).ConclusionIL-6 receptor blockers, when added to standard care that includes corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, probably reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab may have similar effectiveness.Systematic review registrationNAWhat is already known on this topic?IL-6 receptor blockers have immunosuppressive effects that may be important in COVID-19 patients with immune system dysfunction and inflammationCorticosteroids reduce the risk of death in patients with severe or critical COVID-19What this study addsOur systematic review and network meta-analysis provides a comprehensive review of the evidence addressing the effects of IL-6 receptor blockers, alone or in combination with corticosteroids, in COVID-19IL-6 receptor blockers when added to a standard care that includes corticosteroids, in patients with severe or critical COVID-19, probably reduce mortality.Tocilizumab and sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids may have similar effectiveness for reducing mortality.

BackgroundCough severity represents an important subjective endpoint in assessing the effectiveness of therapies for patients with chronic cough. Although cough-specific quality of life questionnaires exist, a widely available cough severity instrument with established measurement properties remains unavailable.AimsTo identify and summarise the results of studies reporting on the experience of patients with chronic cough and, in the process, develop a conceptual framework to inform development of a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) addressing cough severity.ResultsWe identified 61 eligible studies reporting on patient experience with chronic cough. Studies provided 82 potential items, of which 43 proved unique and relevant to cough severity. The urge-to-cough sensation and the cough symptom itself represented broad domains of cough severity. Two subdomains under urge-to-cough included frequency (1 item) and intensity (1 item). Five subdomains under cough symptoms included control (2 items), frequency (6 items), bout duration (1 item), intensity (8 items), and associated features/sequelae (24 items).ConclusionsOur systematic survey and conceptual framework identified items and domains of cough severity in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough. The results support item generation and content validity for a PROM assessing cough severity.

ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021.Study selectionRandomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials – six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision – and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain.ConclusionHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Objective To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. Study selection Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. Results 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. Conclusion Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 ( BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Background: For patients with chronic, non-cancer pain, traditional pain-relieving medications include opioids, which have shown benefits but are associated with increased risks of addiction and adverse effects. Medical cannabis has emerged as a treatment alternative for managing these patients and there has been a rise in the number of randomized clinical trials in recent years; therefore, a systematic review of the evidence was warranted. Objective: To analyze the evidence surrounding the benefits and harms of medical cannabinoids in the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Databases. Eligibility criteria: English language randomized clinical trials of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic, non-cancer-related pain. Data extraction and synthesis: Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. All stages were conducted independently by a team of 6 reviewers. Data were pooled through meta-analysis with different durations of treatment (2 weeks, 2 months, 6 months) and stratified by route of administration (smoked, oromucosal, oral), conditions, and type of cannabinoids. Main outcomes and measures: Patient-reported pain and adverse events (AEs). Results: Thirty-six trials (4006 participants) were included, examining smoked cannabis (4 trials), oromucosal cannabis sprays (14 trials), and oral cannabinoids (18 trials). Compared with placebo, cannabinoids showed a significant reduction in pain which was greatest with treatment duration of 2 to 8 weeks (weighted mean difference on a 0-10 pain visual analogue scale −0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.96 to −0.40, I2 = 8%, P .05 in all the 3 durations of treatment); cannabinoids had a smaller reduction in pain due to multiple sclerosis compared with placebo relative to other neuropathic pain ( P[interaction] = .05) within 2 weeks and the difference was not significant relative to pain due to rheumatic arthritis; nabilone had a greater reduction in pain compared with placebo relative to other types of cannabinoids longer than 2 weeks of treatment but the difference was not significant ( P[interaction] > .05). Serious AEs were rare, and similar across the cannabinoid (74 out of 2176, 3.4%) and placebo groups (53 out of 1640, 3.2%). There was an increased risk of non-serious AEs with cannabinoids compared with placebo. Conclusions: There was moderate evidence to support cannabinoids in treating chronic, non-cancer pain at 2 weeks. Similar results were observed at later time points, but the confidence in effect is low. There is little evidence that cannabinoids increase the risk of experiencing serious AEs, although non-serious AEs may be common in the short-term period following use.

Objective To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. Design Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. Study selection Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. Methods Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials—six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. Conclusions Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Systematic review registration This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. Readers’ note This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Objective To develop an instrument to evaluate the credibility of anchor based minimal important differences (MIDs) for outcome measures reported by patients, and to assess the reliability of the instrument. Design Instrument development and reliability study. Data sources Initial criteria were developed for evaluating the credibility of anchor based MIDs based on a literature review (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases) and the experience of the authors in the methodology for estimation of MIDs. Iterative discussions by the team and pilot testing with experts and potential users facilitated the development of the final instrument. Participants With the newly developed instrument, pairs of masters, doctoral, or postdoctoral students with a background in health research methodology independently evaluated the credibility of a sample of MID estimates. Main outcome measures Core credibility criteria applicable to all anchor types, additional criteria for transition rating anchors, and inter-rater reliability coefficients were determined. Results The credibility instrument has five core criteria: the anchor is rated by the patient; the anchor is interpretable and relevant to the patient; the MID estimate is precise; the correlation between the anchor and the outcome measure reported by the patient is satisfactory; and the authors select a threshold on the anchor that reflects a small but important difference. The additional criteria for transition rating anchors are: the time elapsed between baseline and follow-up measurement for estimation of the MID is optimal; and the correlations of the transition rating with the baseline, follow-up, and change score in the patient reported outcome measures are satisfactory. Inter-rater reliability coefficients (ĸ) for the core criteria and for one item from the additional criteria ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Reporting issues prevented the evaluation of the reliability of the three other additional criteria for the transition rating anchors. Conclusions Researchers, clinicians, and healthcare policy decision makers can consider using this instrument to evaluate the design, conduct, and analysis of studies estimating anchor based minimal important differences.

Objectives To identify credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to a BMJ Rapid Recommendations addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain. Design Systematic review. Outcome measures Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for PROMs judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as important for informing their recommendation (pain, function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)). Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018. Study selection and review methods We included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool. Results We identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain. Conclusions Our review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018106531.

ObjectivesTo identify credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relevant to aBMJRapid Recommendations addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain.DesignSystematic review.Outcome measuresEstimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for PROMs judged by the parallelBMJRapid Recommendations panel as important for informing their recommendation (pain, function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to August 2018.Study selection and review methodsWe included original studies of any intervention for shoulder conditions reporting estimates of anchor-based MIDs for relevant PROMs. Two reviewers independently evaluated potentially eligible studies according to predefined selection criteria. Six reviewers, working in pairs, independently extracted data from eligible studies using a predesigned, standardised, pilot-tested extraction form and independently assessed the credibility of included studies using an MID credibility tool.ResultsWe identified 22 studies involving 5562 patients that reported 74 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 10 candidate instruments to assess shoulder pain, function and HRQoL. We identified MIDs of high credibility for pain and function outcomes and of low credibility for HRQoL. We offered median estimates for the systematic review team who applied these MIDs in Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence summaries and in their interpretations of results in the linked systematic review addressing the effectiveness of surgery for shoulder pain.ConclusionsOur review provides anchor-based MID estimates, as well as a rating of their credibility, for PROMs for patients with shoulder conditions. The MID estimates inform the interpretation for a linked systematic review and guideline addressing subacromial decompression surgery for shoulder pain, and could also prove useful for authors addressing other interventions for shoulder problems.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018106531.

Objective The objective of the study was to systematically survey the methodological literature and collect suggested criteria for assessing the credibility of effect modification and associated rationales. Study Design and Setting We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and WorldCat up to March 2018 for publications providing guidance for assessing the credibility of effect modification identified in randomized trials or meta-analyses. Teams of two investigators independently identified eligible publications and extracted credibility criteria and authors’ rationale, reaching consensus through discussion. We created a taxonomy of criteria that we iteratively refined during data abstraction. Results We identified 150 eligible publications that provided 36 criteria and associated rationales. Frequent criteria included significant test for interaction (n = 54), a priori hypothesis (n = 49), providing a causal explanation (n = 47), accounting for multiplicity (n = 45), testing a small number of effect modifiers (n = 38), and prespecification of analytic details (n = 39). For some criteria, we found more than one rationale; some criteria were connected through a common rationale. For some criteria, experts disagreed regarding their suitability (e.g., added value of stratified randomization; trustworthiness of biologic rationales). Conclusion Methodologists have expended substantial intellectual energy providing criteria for critical appraisal of apparent effect modification. Our survey highlights popular criteria, expert agreement and disagreement, and where more work is needed, including testing criteria in practice.

Objectives We conducted a survey to explore practice patterns regarding the assessment of hypovitaminosis D and the prescription of vitamin D in acute fracture patients. Our secondary objective was to determine whether practice patterns differed between fragility and nonfragility fracture patients. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting All surveys were completed using SurveyMonkey. Patients/participants We surveyed surgeon members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. Intervention Survey. Main outcome measurements The proportion of surgeons who routinely prescribe vitamin D to fracture patients. Results A total of 397 surveys were completed. Of total, 65.8% of surgeons indicated that they routinely prescribe vitamin D to fragility fracture patients and 25.7% routinely prescribe vitamin D to nonfragility fracture patients. We identified considerable variability in dosing regimens, as 45 different dosing regimens were prescribed in fragility fracture patients and 29 in nonfragility fracture patients. They ranged from daily doses of 400 IU to loading doses of 600,000 IU. The most frequently prescribed doses were 1000 IU daily (14.6%), 2000 IU daily (13.4%), and 50,000 IU weekly (8.7%). Respondents indicated that they heavily relied on clinical experience to guide their decisions to prescribe vitamin D to fracture patients. Conclusions The results of this survey demonstrate multiple areas of uncertainty and a lack of consensus in the prescription of vitamin D to fracture patients. Fragility patients frequently receive vitamin D supplementation, whereas most surgeons do not prescribe vitamin D to young fracture patients. High-quality clinical research is needed to determine whether vitamin D supplementation is beneficial to fracture patients. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

E-cigarettes are increasingly popular as smoking cessation aids. This review assessed the efficacy of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation as well as desire to smoke, withdrawal symptoms, and adverse events in adult smokers. A systematic review was conducted. Studies comparing e-cigarettes to other nicotine replacement therapies or placebo were included. Data were pooled using meta-analysis. Of 569 articles, 5 were eligible. Study participants were more likely to stop smoking when using nicotine e-cigarettes (43/489, 9 %) versus placebo e-cigarettes (8/173, 5 %); however, this difference was not statistically significant (RR 2.02; 95 % CI 0.97, 4.22). The pooled effect estimates for the desire to smoke (RR −0.22; 95 % CI −0.80, 0.36), irritability (RR −0.03; 95% CI −0.38, 0.31), restlessness (RR −0.03; 95 % CI −0.42, 0.35), poor concentration (RR −0.01; 95 % CI −0.35, 0.32), depression (RR −0.01; 95 % CI −0.22, 0.20), hunger (RR −0.01; 95 % CI −0.32, 0.30), and average number of non-serious adverse events (RR −0.09; 95 % CI −0.28, 0.46) were not statistically significantly different. Only one study reported serious adverse events with no apparent association with e-cigarette use. Limited low-quality evidence of a non-statistically significant trend toward smoking cessation in adults using nicotine e-cigarettes exists compared with other therapies or placebo. Larger, high-quality studies are needed to inform policy decisions.

Background The spectrum of treatment options for patients with metastatic BRAF-mutated melanoma is broad, spanning multiple treatment classes. However, there is a lack of head-to-head evidence comparing targeted and immunotherapies. The purpose of this study is to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) in previously untreated, BRAF-mutated melanoma patients and estimate the relative efficacy of systemic therapies for this patient population at the treatment level. Methods The literature review included searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to November 2018. Randomized controlled trials of previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma were eligible if at least one intervention was either a targeted or immune therapy. Relative treatment effects were estimated by fixed effect Bayesian NMAs on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), based on the hazard ratio. Results Combination dabrafenib with trametinib (HR 0.22 [95% CrI 0.17, 0.28] vs dacarbazine) and combination vemurafenib with cobimetinib (HR 0.22 [95% CrI 0.17, 0.29] vs dacarbazine) were likely to rank as the most favorable treatment options for PFS, while combination nivolumab with ipilimumab was likely to be the most efficacious in terms of OS (HR 0.33 [0.24, 0.47] vs dacarbazine). Conclusions and relevance The findings highlight the efficacy of combination PD-1 with CTLA-4 inhibitors and combination BRAF with MEK inhibitors in the treatment of advanced melanoma. However, as few trials informed each treatment comparison, research is needed to further refine our understanding of this complex and rapidly evolving treatment landscape.

BACKGROUND. Oral squamous cell carcinoma is the most common manifestation of malignancy in the oral cavity. Adjuncts are available for clinicians to evaluate lesions that seem potentially malignant. In this systematic review, the authors summarized the available evidence on patient-important outcomes, diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), and patients, values and preferences (PVPs) when using adjuncts for the evaluation of clinically evident lesions in the oral cavity. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED. The authors searched for preexisting systematic reviews and assessed their quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool. The authors updated the selected reviews and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and DTA and PVPs studies. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS. The authors identified 4 existing reviews. DTA reviews included 37 studies. The authors retrieved 7,534 records, of which 9 DTA and 10 PVPs studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of adjuncts ranged from 0.39 to 0.96 for the evaluation of innocuous lesions and from 0.31 to 0.95 for the evaluation of suspicious lesions. Cytologic testing used in suspicious lesions appears to have the highest accuracy among adjuncts (sensitivity, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.98; specificity, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS. Cytologic testing appears to be the most accurate adjunct among those included in this review. The main concerns are the high rate of false-positive results and serious issues of risk of bias and indirectness of the evidence. Clinicians should remain skeptical about the potential benefit of any adjunct in clinical practice.