RESUMEN

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) and abdominal surgery (AS) in ectopic pregnancy surgery. Methods: A computer-based search was conducted in several databases such as CNKI, Wanfang data, VIP data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM disc), PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and others to gather domestic and foreign literature on treating ectopic pregnancy. This search was carried out from the inception of each database to July 2022. The literature review was performed using Endnote X9 software, and the data were analyzed using STATA 15.1 software for the meta-analysis. Results: Eight articles that met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. The meta-analysis showed that the laparoscopic group had shorter operation time than AS group [SMD = -1.28, 95%CI (-2.02, 0.54), p = 0.001], had less intraoperative bleeding [SMD = -3.06, 95%CI (-3.82, -2.31), p < 0.01], shorter postoperative anus exhaust time [SMD = -2.60, 95%CI (-3.26, -1.93), p < 0.01], and shorter hospital stay [SMD = -1.74, 95%CI (-2.09, -1.39), p < 0.01] with few complications [RR = 0.22, 95%CI (0.08, 0.55), p = 0.001]. Conclusion: LS has more evident advantages in the treatment of patients with ectopic pregnancy. However, due to the lack of English literature that meets the inclusion criteria, further studies are needed to determine if LS has the same efficacy for European and American populations.

RESUMEN

AIMS: To summarise systematic reviews on tobacco addiction published by the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (CTAG) from 2021 to 2023. METHODS: We identified all new and updated Cochrane Reviews published by CTAG between 2021 and 2023. We present key results from these reviews and discuss promising avenues for future research. RESULTS: CTAG published five new reviews and one overview of reviews, and updated eight reviews. Review evidence showed that all main pharmacotherapies (varenicline, cytisine, bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy [NRT], especially when patches are combined with fast acting forms like gum) are effective for smoking cessation, as are nicotine e-cigarettes. Evidence suggested similar magnitude of effects of varenicline, cytisine, and nicotine e-cigarettes; these emerged as the most effective treatments. Evidence also supported behavioural counselling and financial incentives for smoking cessation. Secondary analyses of the Cochrane review of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation showed over half of participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions were still using them at six months or longer, that biomarkers of potential harm significantly reduced in people switching from smoking to vaping or to dual use, and that there was insufficient evidence to draw associations between e-liquid flavours and smoking cessation. Findings on mindfulness-based interventions, interventions delivered by dental and primary care professionals, interventions to prevent weight gain after smoking cessation, and interventions for waterpipe cessation were less certain. Reviews of observational evidence showed that smoking cessation reduced cardiovascular events and mortality in people living with cardiovascular disease, and improved mental health. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine replacement therapy (especially patches combined with fast acting forms), varenicline, cytisine, bupropion, nicotine e-cigarettes, behavioural counselling, and financial incentives are all effective ways to help people quit smoking. Quitting smoking improves mental health and reduces cardiovascular events and mortality in people living with cardiovascular disease.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SR) are regularly updated to reflect new evidence. However, updates are time-consuming and costly, and therefore should ideally be informed by new high-quality research. The purpose of this study is to assess trends in the quantity, quality, and recency of evidence intervening updates of orthodontic SR. METHODS: SR relevant to orthodontics with at least two versions were identified from the Cochrane Database. The number, risk of bias, and year of publication of included trials were recorded for each update. Multivariate regression was conducted to assess factors affecting the risk of bias in trials, and the proportions within SR. RESULTS: Forty-five SR inclusive of updates were included. The median number of trials was three per review and this increased across subsequent versions. Seven reviews (15.6%) included no evidence, and 40.74% of updates included no new evidence. Most of the primary research was considered high risk of bias (57.3%), although this was reduced marginally across updates. The proportion of studies considered low risk did not improve significantly between updates. There was no impact of publication year of clinical trials on the risk of bias (P = 0.349). However, average age of trials included in a systematic review significantly affected the proportion of low risk-of-bias studies (P = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: SR are frequently updated without including new evidence. New evidence that is included is commonly deemed to be at high risk of bias. Targeted strategies to improve the efficient use of resources and improve research quality should be considered.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinical care pathways help guide and provide structure to clinicians and providers to improve healthcare delivery and quality. The Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Committee (QIPS) of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) has previously published care pathways for the performance of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and pre-operative care of patients undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). OBJECTIVE: This current RYGB care pathway was created to address intraoperative care, defined as care occurring on the day of surgery from the preoperative holding area, through the operating room, and into the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: PubMed queries were performed from January 2001 to December 2019 and reviewed according to Level of Evidence regarding specific key questions developed by the committee. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations are made for care of patients undergoing RYGB including the pre-operative holding area, intra-operative management and performance of RYGB, and concurrent procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This document may provide guidance based on recent evidence to bariatric surgeons and providers for the intra-operative care for minimally invasive RYGB.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In sparse data meta-analyses (with few trials or zero events), conventional methods may distort results. Although better-performing one-stage methods have become available in recent years, their implementation remains limited in practice. This study examines the impact of using conventional methods compared to one-stage models by re-analysing meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in scenarios with zero event trials and few trials. For each scenario, we computed one-stage methods (Generalised linear mixed model [GLMM], Beta-binomial model [BBM], Bayesian binomial-normal hierarchical model using a weakly informative prior [BNHM-WIP]) and compared them with conventional methods (Peto-Odds-ratio [PETO], DerSimonian-Laird method [DL] for zero event trials; DL, Paule-Mandel [PM], Restricted maximum likelihood [REML] method for few trials). While all methods showed similar treatment effect estimates, substantial variability in statistical precision emerged. Conventional methods generally resulted in smaller confidence intervals (CIs) compared to one-stage models in the zero event situation. In the few trials scenario, the CI lengths were widest for the BBM on average and significance often changed compared to the PM and REML, despite the relatively wide CIs of the latter. In agreement with simulations and guidelines for meta-analyses with zero event trials, our results suggest that one-stage models are preferable. The best model can be either selected based on the data situation or, using a method that can be used in various situations. In the few trial situation, using BBM and additionally PM or REML for sensitivity analyses appears reasonable when conservative results are desired. Overall, our results encourage careful method selection.

RESUMEN

Background and Aims: Critical appraisal or risk of bias assessment is a fundamental part of systematic reviews that clarifies the degree to which included research articles are qualified and reliable. Version 2 of the Cochrane tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials (RoB 2), the updated version of the first tool, was released in 2019. Here, we have compared these two versions of Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools and highlighted the pros and cons of RoB 2. Methods: Statistical analysis and methodology is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. Results: The overall approach in RoB 2 is that by answering some signaling questions after the specification of results, effects of interest, and sources of information, an overall judgment for the quality of each study is reached. Accordingly, in the original version of the Cochrane RoB tool, the judgment can be in three different conclusions, including low, unclear, and high risk of bias. The most prominent difference in bias domains is the removal of "other bias" domain being replaced by "overall bias" judgment. Also, the most common presentation types of Cochrane risk of bias assessments are the "summary" and "graph" which are generated by Review Manager, web-based applications, or packages in R software. Conclusion: The RoB 2 tool, compared to the original RoB, has improved and is the recommended version by the Cochrane Collaboration for quality assessment of randomized controlled trials. It is recommended to consider funding source, duration of follow-up, declaration of data availability, the status of baseline characteristics between groups, and sample size calculation methods in further revisions of the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tools.

RESUMEN

Surgical site infections (SSIs) pose a significant clinical challenge, with heightened risks and severe consequences for diabetic patients undergoing surgical procedures. This systematic review aims to synthesize the current evidence on effective prevention strategies for mitigating SSI risk in this vulnerable population. From inception to March 2024, we comprehensively searched multiple electronic databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL) to identify relevant studies evaluating SSI prevention strategies in diabetic surgical patients. Our search strategy followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, utilizing a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to diabetes, surgical site infections, prevention strategies, and surgical procedures. Inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and meta-analyses published in English. The search yielded three studies meeting the eligibility criteria, subject to data extraction and qualitative synthesis. Key findings highlighted the efficacy of interventions such as optimized perioperative glycemic control, timely prophylactic antibiotic administration, and meticulous preoperative skin antisepsis in reducing SSI rates among diabetic surgical patients. The potential for personalized prevention approaches based on individual patient factors, such as diabetes type and surgical complexity, was explored. This systematic review underscores the importance of a multifaceted, evidence-based approach to SSI prevention in diabetic surgical patients, integrating strategies like glycemic control, antibiotic prophylaxis, and preoperative skin antisepsis. Furthermore, our findings suggest the potential benefits of personalized care pathways tailored to individual patient characteristics. Implementing these interventions requires interdisciplinary collaboration, adaptation to diverse healthcare settings, and patient engagement through culturally sensitive education initiatives. This comprehensive analysis informs clinical practice, fosters patient safety, and contributes to the global efforts to enhance surgical outcomes for this high-risk population.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The inter-reviewer reliability of the risk of bias (RoB) assessment lacked agreement in previous studies. It is important to analyse these disagreements to improve the repeatability of RoB assessment. The objective of the study was to evaluate the frequency and reasons for disagreements in RoB assessments for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were included in multiple Cochrane reviews in the field of hypertension. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was employed. We retrieved any RCTs that had been included in multiple Cochrane reviews in the field of hypertension from ARCHIE. The results of the RoB assessments were extracted, and the distributions of agreements and possible reasons for disagreement were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-six Cochrane reviews were included in this study. A total of 78 RCTs appeared in more than one Cochrane review. The level of agreement ranged from domain to domain. "Blinding of outcome assessment" showed a reasonably high level of agreement (94.9%), while "incomplete outcome data", "selective outcome reporting" and "other sources of bias" showed moderate levels of agreement (74.6%, 79.2% and 75.6%, respectively). However, the domains of "allocation concealment", "random sequence generation" and "blinding of participants and personnel" showed low levels of agreement (24.4%, 23.5%, and 47.4%, respectively). In the domains of "allocation concealment" and "blinding of participants and personnel", the agreement group had higher proportion of publication year ≤ 1996 than the disagreement group (P = 0.008 and P < 0.001, respectively). In the "blinding of participants and personnel", the impact factor was higher in the agreement group (P < 0.001). By analyzing the support text, we found that the most likely reason for disagreement was extracting different information from the same RCT. CONCLUSION: For Cochrane reviews in the field of hypertension using the 2011 version of the RoB tool, there was a large disagreement in the RoB assessment. It is suggested that the results of RoB assessments in systematic reviews that used the 2011 version of the RoB tool need to be interpreted with caution. More accurate information from RCTs needs to be collected when we synthesize clinical evidence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Rapid reviews (RRs) offer a less rigorous and methodical approach to the process of reviewing literature in comparison to systematic reviews (SRs), which are currently a gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different, expedited strategies of the review process were designed in the different scopes, already reviewed in Cochrane's SRs. Then, the results of our literature searches and the study selection process were compared to the ones from SRs. The final step was assessing the impact of losing some studies on the final results of meta-analyses. RESULTS: In RR1, the initial number of references to be reviewed was reduced by half, and the inclusion list was recreated with 84% efficiency. Three out of 19 studies were missed, all having high risk of bias. Studies missed in RR1 were included in Cochrane's meta-analyses for 23 separate outcomes, and their lack impacted significantly the final results, or the possibility to run meta-analyses, in four cases. In RR2, 89% of trials included in the SR were captured (24/27); missing the three studies did not impact the final results of the meta-analyses. In RR3, the list of included studies overlapped completely with Cochrane's, despite a significantly lower workload. CONCLUSIONS: A prompt and cost-effective methodology may lead to the identification of pertinent evidence in support of healthcare policy; however, it is essential to conscientiously account for potential biases in the analysis.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Meta-analysts often use standardized mean differences (SMD) to combine mean effects from studies in which the dependent variable has been measured with different instruments or scales. In this tutorial we show how the SMD is properly calculated as the difference in means divided by a between-subject reference-group, control-group, or pooled pre-intervention SD, usually free of measurement error. When combining mean effects from controlled trials and crossovers, most meta-analysts have divided by either the pooled SD of change scores, the pooled SD of post-intervention scores, or the pooled SD of pre- and post-intervention scores, resulting in SMDs that are biased and difficult to interpret. The frequent use of such inappropriate standardizing SDs by meta-analysts in three medical journals we surveyed is due to misleading advice in peer-reviewed publications and meta-analysis packages. Even with an appropriate standardizing SD, meta-analysis of SMDs increases heterogeneity artifactually via differences in the standardizing SD between settings. Furthermore, the usual magnitude thresholds for standardized mean effects are not thresholds for clinically important differences. We therefore explain how to use other approaches to combining mean effects of disparate measures: log transformation of factor effects (response ratios) and of percent effects converted to factors; rescaling of psychometrics to percent of maximum range; and rescaling with minimum clinically important differences. In the absence of clinically important differences, we explain how standardization after meta-analysis with appropriately transformed or rescaled pre-intervention SDs can be used to assess magnitudes of a meta-analyzed mean effect in different settings.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period. METHODS: This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%. RESULTS: We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: This cross-sectional study investigated the online dissemination of Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception up to May 2023. Cochrane reviews with any population (P), intervention or concept supported by any digital technology (I), any or no comparison (C), and any health outcome (O) were included. Data on review characteristics (bibliographic information, PICO, and evidence quality) and dissemination strategies were extracted and processed. Dissemination was assessed using review information on the Cochrane website and Altmetric data that trace the mentions of academic publications in nonacademic online channels. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Out of 170 records identified in the search, 100 Cochrane reviews, published between 2005 and 2023, were included. The reviews focused on consumers (e.g. patients, n = 86), people of any age (n = 44), and clinical populations (n = 68). All reviews addressed interventions or concepts supported by digital technologies with any devices (n = 73), mobile devices (n = 17), or computers (n = 10). The outcomes focused on disease treatment (n = 56), health promotion and disease prevention (n = 27), or management of care delivery (n = 17). All reviews included 1-132 studies, and half included 1-10 studies. Meta-analysis was performed in 69 reviews, and certainty of evidence was rated as high or moderate for at least one outcome in 46 reviews. In agreement with the Cochrane guidelines, all reviews had a plain language summary (PLS) that was available in 3-14 languages. The reviews were disseminated (i.e. mentioned online) predominantly via X/Twitter (n = 99) and Facebook (n = 69). Overall, 51 reviews were mentioned in up to 25% and 49 reviews in 5% of all research outputs traced by Altmetric data. Dissemination (i.e. higher Altmetric scores) was associated with bibliographic review characteristics (i.e. earlier publication year and PLS available in more languages), but not with evidence quality (i.e. certainty of evidence rating, number of studies, or meta-analysis performed in review). CONCLUSIONS: Online attention towards Cochrane reviews on digital health technologies is high. Dissemination is higher for older reviews and reviews with more PLS translations. Measures are required to improve dissemination of Cochrane reviews based on evidence quality. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/mpw8u/ ).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: This study aimed to assess the conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) in oncology nursing. Methods: We searched systematically for all CRs published in the Cochrane Library in the oncology nursing field between January 2014 and April 2023. We analyzed the difference between conclusive and inconclusive outcomes using the χ2 and Mann-Whitney U-tests and identified 430 articles. However, we excluded 385 articles after reviewing their titles and abstracts. We assessed 45 full-text articles for eligibility and identified 32 articles. Of the 32 articles, we extracted 19 interventions. Results: The overall outcomes were 182 cases, with 51.6% (n = 94) and 48.4% (n = 88) demonstrating conclusiveness and inconclusiveness, respectively. Regarding conclusiveness, 28.0% (n = 51) and 23.6% (n = 43) reported that the studied interventions were effective and ineffective, respectively. We found that studies on interventions related to physical activity and yoga had significantly high rates of conclusive. Compared with inconclusiveness outcomes, conclusive outcomes involved significantly more studies (p < 0.001) and patients (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Ultimately, these findings reveal that in the oncology nursing field, only 51% of the main outcomes of each nursing intervention in CRs were conclusive.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity of the conclusion from Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses that treatment with calcium supplementation during pregnancy reduces the risk for pre-eclampsia by 55%, which has been influential in international guidelines and future research. DESIGN: Sensitivity analysis of data from Cochrane reviews of trials evaluating high-dose calcium supplementation (of at least 1 g/day) for reduction of pre-eclampsia risk. SETTING: Systematic review and meta-analysis. POPULATION: The Cochrane reviews and meta-analyses included 13 trials enrolling a total of 15 730 women. Random-effects meta-analysis of these studies resulted in a mean risk ratio (RR, calcium/placebo) of 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.65; p < 0.0001). METHODS: We carried out a sensitivity analysis of evidence from the relevant Cochrane review, to examine the impact of study size. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: pre-eclampsia. RESULTS: In the three largest studies, accounting for 13 815 (88%) of total recruitment, mean RR was 0.92 (95% CI 0.80-1.06) and there was no evidence of heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 0). With inclusion of the smaller studies, mean RR decreased to 0.45 and I2 increased to 70%. CONCLUSIONS: In assessment of the effect of calcium supplementation on pre-eclampsia risk, the naive focus on the mean of the random-effects meta-analysis in the presence of substantial heterogeneity is highly misleading.

RESUMEN

Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential to the systematic review methodology. The new version of the Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was published in 2019 to address limitations identified since the first version of the tool was published in 2008 and to increase the reliability of assessments. This study analyzed the frequency of usage of the RoB 2 and the adequacy of reporting the RoB 2 assessments in non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020. This meta-research study included non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020. For the reviews that used the RoB 2 tool, we analyzed the reporting of the RoB 2 assessment. Among 3880 included reviews, the Cochrane RoB 1 tool was the most frequently used (N = 2228; 57.4%), followed by the Cochrane RoB 2 tool (N = 267; 6.9%). From 267 reviews that reported using the RoB 2 tool, 213 (79.8%) actually used it. In 26 (12.2%) reviews, erroneous statements were used to indicate the RoB 2 assessment. Only 20 (9.4%) reviews presented a complete RoB 2 assessment with a detailed table of answers to all signaling questions. The judgment of risk of bias by the RoB 2 tool was not justified by a comment in 158 (74.2%) reviews. Only in 33 (14.5%) of reviews the judgment in all domains was justified in the accompanying comment. In most reviews (81.7%), the RoB was inadequately assessed at the study level. In conclusion, the majority of non-Cochrane reviews published in 2020 still used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool. Many reviews used the RoB 2 tool inadequately. Further studies about the uptake and the use of the RoB 2 tool are needed.

Asunto(s)