A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers over 5 and 10 years

PURPOSE: This systematic review reports on the survival of feldspathic porcelain veneers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Web of Knowledge, selected journals, clinical trials registers, and conference proceedings were searched independently by two reviewers. Academic colleagues were also contacted to identify relevant research. Inclusion criteria were human cohort studies (prospective and retrospective) and controlled trials assessing outcomes of feldspathic porcelain veneers in more than 15 patients and with at least some of the veneers in situ for 5 years. Of 4,294 articles identified, 116 studies underwent full-text screenings and 69 were further reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 11 were included in the qualitative analysis and 6 (5 cohorts) were included in meta-analyses. Estimated cumulative survival and standard error for each study were assessed and used for meta-, sensitivity, and post hoc analyses. The I2 statistic and the Cochran Q test and its associated P value were used to evaluate statistical heterogeneity, with a random-effects meta-analysis used when the P value for heterogeneity was less than .1. Galbraith, forest, and funnel plots explored heterogeneity, publication patterns, and small study biases.

RESULTS: The estimated cumulative survival for feldspathic porcelain veneers was 95.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.9% to 98.4%) at 5 years and ranged from 64% to 95% at 10 years across three studies. A post hoc meta-analysis indicated that the 10-year best estimate may approach 95.6% (95% CI: 93.8% to 97.5%). High levels of statistical heterogeneity were found.

CONCLUSIONS: When bonded to enamel substrate, feldspathic porcelain veneers have a very high 10-year survival rate that may approach 95%. Clinical heterogeneity is associated with differences in reported survival rates. Use of clinically relevant survival definitions and careful reporting of tooth characteristics, censorship, clustering, and precise results in future research would improve metaanalytic estimates and aid treatment decisions.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources

BACKGROUND: "Cumulative meta-analysis" describes a statistical procedure to calculate, retrospectively, summary estimates from the results of similar trials every time the results of a further trial in the series had become available. In the early 1990 s, comparisons of cumulative meta-analyses of treatments for myocardial infarction with advice promulgated through medical textbooks showed that research had continued long after robust estimates of treatment effects had accumulated, and that medical textbooks had overlooked strong, existing evidence from trials. Cumulative meta-analyses have subsequently been used to assess what could have been known had new studies been informed by systematic reviews of relevant existing evidence and how waste might have been reduced.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a systematic approach to identify and summarise the findings of cumulative meta-analyses of studies of the effects of clinical interventions, published from 1992 to 2012. Searches were done of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Science Citation Index. A total of 50 eligible reports were identified, including more than 1,500 cumulative meta-analyses. A variety of themes are illustrated with specific examples. The studies showed that initially positive results became null or negative in meta-analyses as more trials were done; that early null or negative results were over-turned; that stable results (beneficial, harmful and neutral) would have been seen had a meta-analysis been done before the new trial; and that additional trials had been much too small to resolve the remaining uncertainties.

CONCLUSIONS: This large, unique collection of cumulative meta-analyses highlights how a review of the existing evidence might have helped researchers, practitioners, patients and funders make more informed decisions and choices about new trials over decades of research. This would have led to earlier uptake of effective interventions in practice, less exposure of trial participants to less effective treatments, and reduced waste resulting from unjustified research.

Medication Reconciliation at Discharge from Hospital: A Systematic Review of the Quantitative Literature

Medicines reconciliation is a way to identify and act on discrepancies in patients’ medical histories and it is found to play a key role in patient safety. This review focuses on discrepancies and medical errors that occurred at point of discharge from hospital. Studies were identified through the following electronic databases: PubMed, Sciences Direct, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Reviews and CINAHL. Each of the six databases was screened from inception to end of January 2014. To determine eligibility of the studies; the title, abstract and full manuscript were screened to find 15 articles that meet the inclusion criteria. The median number of discrepancies across the articles was found to be 60%. In average patient had between 1.2–5.3 discrepancies when leaving the hospital. More studies also found a relation between the numbers of drugs a patient was on and the number of discrepancies. The variation in the number of discrepancies found in the 15 studies could be due to the fact that some studies excluded patient taking more than 5 drugs at admission. Medication reconciliation would be a way to avoid the high number of discrepancies that was found in this literature review and thereby increase patient safety.

Findings from a systematic review: ‘Cancer and people with Serious Mental Illness.’

Seasonality of Plasmodium falciparum transmission: a systematic review

Background: Although Plasmodium falciparum transmission frequently exhibits seasonal patterns, the drivers of malaria seasonality are often unclear. Given the massive variation in the landscape upon which transmission acts, intra-annual fluctuations are likely influenced by different factors in different settings. Further, the presence of potentially substantial inter-annual variation can mask seasonal patterns; it may be that a location has "strongly seasonal" transmission and yet no single season ever matches the mean, or synoptic, curve. Accurate accounting of seasonality can inform efficient malaria control and treatment strategies. In spite of the demonstrable importance of accurately capturing the seasonality of malaria, data required to describe these patterns is not universally accessible and as such localized and regional efforts at quantifying malaria seasonality are disjointed and not easily generalized. 

Methods: The purpose of this review was to audit the literature on seasonality of P. falciparum and quantitatively summarize the collective findings. Six search terms were selected to systematically compile a list of papers relevant to the seasonality of P. falciparum transmission, and a questionnaire was developed to catalogue the manuscripts. 

Results and discussion: 152 manuscripts were identified as relating to the seasonality of malaria transmission, deaths due to malaria or the population dynamics of mosquito vectors of malaria. Among these, there were 126 statistical analyses and 31 mechanistic analyses (some manuscripts did both). 

Discussion: Identified relationships between temporal patterns in malaria and climatological drivers of malaria varied greatly across the globe, with different drivers appearing important in different locations. Although commonly studied drivers of malaria such as temperature and rainfall were often found to significantly influence transmission, the lags between a weather event and a resulting change in malaria transmission also varied greatly by location. 

Conclusions: The contradicting results of studies using similar data and modelling approaches from similar locations as well as the confounding nature of climatological covariates underlines the importance of a multi-faceted modelling approach that attempts to capture seasonal patterns at both small and large spatial scales.

Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery (i.e. within the intensive care unit (ICU) and following ICU and hospital discharge): an overview of systematic reviews

Background
Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with critical illness often experience significant physical impairments, which typically persist for many years following resolution of the original illness. Physical rehabilitation interventions that enhance restoration of physical function have been evaluated across the continuum of recovery following critical illness including within the intensive care unit, following discharge to the ward and beyond hospital discharge. Multiple systematic reviews have been published appraising the expanding evidence investigating these physical rehabilitation interventions, although there appears to be variability in review methodology and quality. We aim to conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews of physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery.

Methods/design
This protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will search the Cochrane Systematic Review Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of adult patients, admitted to the intensive care unit and who have received physical rehabilitation interventions at any time point during their recovery. Data extraction will include systematic review aims and rationale, study types, populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and quality appraisal method. Primary outcomes of interest will focus on findings reflecting recovery of physical function. Quality of reporting and methodological quality will be appraised using the PRISMA checklist and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool.

Discussion
We anticipate the findings from this novel overview of systematic reviews will contribute to the synthesis and interpretation of existing evidence regarding physical rehabilitation interventions and physical recovery in post-critical illness patients across the continuum of recovery.

Evidence-based practice: the relevance of systematic reviews.

Aim:
To demonstrate how systematic reviews provide robust evidence to inform clinical decision making in practice.

Background
Systematic reviews collate findings from a number of research studies in order to provide a comprehensive and reliable summary of the best available evidence. The use of systematic reviews to inform practice based decisions has increased as a result of the overwhelming amount of research literature available, poor quality of research evidence and the need to ensure practice is based upon the best available evidence. Systematic reviews are an efficient way of coping with large volumes of data to answer focused research questions. They differ from traditional literature reviews as they adhere to an explicit scientific process. The use of explicit and rigorous methods to identify, appraise and synthesise relevant studies minimises bias and provides a reliable basis for decision making. As a result systematic reviews provide clear evidence on the effectiveness of a healthcare intervention to inform policy and decision making across healthcare systems. An example of how the findings from systematic reviews can provide reliable evidence to inform healthcare decisions will be provided in this presentation1. This will demonstrate how focused clinical questions can be answered by systematic reviews and translated into practice.

Reference:
1. McGaughey J, Alderdice F, Fowler R, Kapila A, Moutray M. (2007) Outreach and Early Warning Systems (EWS) for the prevention of Intensive Care admission admission and death of critically ill adult patients on general hospital wards (REVIEW). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 3. art no CD005529

Pan-retinal photocoagulation and other forms of laser treatment and drug therapies for non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy is an important cause of visual loss. Laser photocoagulation preserves vision in diabetic retinopathy but is currently used at the stage of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR).

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pan-retinal photocoagulation (PRP) given at the non-proliferative stage of diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) compared with waiting until the high-risk PDR (HR-PDR) stage was reached. There have been recent advances in laser photocoagulation techniques, and in the use of laser treatments combined with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs or injected steroids. Our secondary questions were: (1) If PRP were to be used in NPDR, which form of laser treatment should be used? and (2) Is adjuvant therapy with intravitreal drugs clinically effective and cost-effective in PRP?

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for efficacy but other designs also used.

REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review and economic modelling.

RESULTS: The Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), published in 1991, was the only trial designed to determine the best time to initiate PRP. It randomised one eye of 3711 patients with mild-to-severe NPDR or early PDR to early photocoagulation, and the other to deferral of PRP until HR-PDR developed. The risk of severe visual loss after 5 years for eyes assigned to PRP for NPDR or early PDR compared with deferral of PRP was reduced by 23% (relative risk 0.77, 99% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06). However, the ETDRS did not provide results separately for NPDR and early PDR. In economic modelling, the base case found that early PRP could be more effective and less costly than deferred PRP. Sensitivity analyses gave similar results, with early PRP continuing to dominate or having low incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. However, there are substantial uncertainties. For our secondary aims we found 12 trials of lasers in DR, with 982 patients in total, ranging from 40 to 150. Most were in PDR but five included some patients with severe NPDR. Three compared multi-spot pattern lasers against argon laser. RCTs comparing laser applied in a lighter manner (less-intensive burns) with conventional methods (more intense burns) reported little difference in efficacy but fewer adverse effects. One RCT suggested that selective laser treatment targeting only ischaemic areas was effective. Observational studies showed that the most important adverse effect of PRP was macular oedema (MO), which can cause visual impairment, usually temporary. Ten trials of laser and anti-VEGF or steroid drug combinations were consistent in reporting a reduction in risk of PRP-induced MO.

LIMITATION: The current evidence is insufficient to recommend PRP for severe NPDR.

CONCLUSIONS: There is, as yet, no convincing evidence that modern laser systems are more effective than the argon laser used in ETDRS, but they appear to have fewer adverse effects. We recommend a trial of PRP for severe NPDR and early PDR compared with deferring PRP till the HR-PDR stage. The trial would use modern laser technologies, and investigate the value adjuvant prophylactic anti-VEGF or steroid drugs.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005408.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Traumatic brain injury and co-occurring problems in prison populations: a systematic review.

Background: A growing body of epidemiological research suggests high rates of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in prisoners. The aim of this review is to systematically explore the literature surrounding the rates of TBI and their co-occurrences in a prison population.
Methods: Six electronic databases were systematically searched for articles published between 1980 and 2014. Studies were screened for inclusion based on predetermined criteria by two researchers who independently performed data extraction. Study quality was appraised based on a modified quality assessment tool.
Results: Twenty six studies were included in this review. Quality assessment ranged from 20% (poor) to 80% (good) with an overall average of 60%. Twenty four papers included TBI prevalence rates, which ranged from 5.69%-88%. Seventeen studies explored co-occurring factors including rates of aggression (n=7), substance abuse (n=9), anxiety and depression (n=5), neurocognitive deficits (n=4), and psychiatric conditions (n=3).
Conclusions: The high degree of variation in TBI rates may be attributed to the inconsistent way in which TBI was measured with only seven studies using valid and reliable screening tools. Additionally, gaps in the literature surrounding personality outcomes in prisoners with TBI, female prisoners with TBI, and qualitative outcomes were found.