Adjuvant ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND Suppression of ovarian estrogen production reduces the recurrence of hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer in premenopausal women, but its value when added to tamoxifen is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 3066 premenopausal women, stratified according to prior receipt or nonreceipt of chemotherapy, to receive 5 years of tamoxifen, tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, or exemestane plus ovarian suppression. The primary analysis tested the hypothesis that tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression would improve disease-free survival, as compared with tamoxifen alone. In the primary analysis, 46.7% of the patients had not received chemotherapy previously, and 53.3% had received chemotherapy and remained premenopausal. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 67 months, the estimated disease-free survival rate at 5 years was 86.6% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group and 84.7% in the tamoxifen group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 1.04; P=0.10). Multivariable allowance for prognostic factors suggested a greater treatment effect with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression than with tamoxifen alone (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.98). Most recurrences occurred in patients who had received prior chemotherapy, among whom the rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 82.5% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group and 78.0% in the tamoxifen group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.02). At 5 years, the rate of freedom from breast cancer was 85.7% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence vs. tamoxifen, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS Adding ovarian suppression to tamoxifen did not provide a significant benefit in the overall study population. However, for women who were at sufficient risk for recurrence to warrant adjuvant chemotherapy and who remained premenopausal, the addition of ovarian suppression improved disease outcomes. Further improvement was seen with the use of exemestane plus ovarian suppression. (Funded by Pfizer and others; SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00066690.).

Adjuvant exemestane with ovarian suppression in premenopausal breast cancer.

BACKGROUND Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

Ästhetische Meerfahrt. Erkundungen zur Beziehung zwischen Literatur und Natur in der Neuzeit

Die Beziehungen zwischen Mensch und Natur durchziehen sämtliche Christian von Zimmermann Kulturräume und werden in den verschiedensten kulturellen Praktiken gestaltet. Dies gilt besonders auch für die Literatur. Sprachliches und besonders auch ästhetisch gestaltetes sprachliches Handeln wird getragen von historisch sich wandelnden Einstellungen zum Meer (Mentalitätsgeschichte), prägt die Beziehung zwischen Mensch und Naturraum (literarische Anthropologie) und kulminiert in der Anforderung an eine ‘rechte Rede’ im Umgang mit der Natur (Naturethik). Unter dem Titel Ästhetische Meerfahrt werden Schlaglichter auf diese Aspekte der Geschichte der Mensch-Meer- Beziehungen im Medium der Literatur geworfen. Dabei stellt die Studie selbst eine Meerfahrt (Essay) dar, die Land- und Seemarken benennt, einzelne Häfen ansteuert, sich aber der offenen Weite des Gewässers bewusst bleibt. Eigene Erkundungen anzuregen, ein naturethisches Denken in die Literaturwissenschaft einzubeziehen, ist Anliegen dieses Buches. Wichtige, teils ausführlich dargelegte Stationen des Buches sind Werke von Olearius, Fleming, Brockes, Gessner, Herder, Goethe, Kosegarten, Heine, Ibsen, Storm, Hauptmann, Keyserling, Kellermann, Fock, Andersch, Cibulka, Theobaldy.

Clinical and inflammatory characteristics of the European U-BIOPRED adult severe asthma cohort

U-BIOPRED is a European Union consortium of 20 academic institutions, 11 pharmaceutical companies and six patient organisations with the objective of improving the understanding of asthma disease mechanisms using a systems biology approach.This cross-sectional assessment of adults with severe asthma, mild/moderate asthma and healthy controls from 11 European countries consisted of analyses of patient-reported outcomes, lung function, blood and airway inflammatory measurements.Patients with severe asthma (nonsmokers, n=311; smokers/ex-smokers, n=110) had more symptoms and exacerbations compared to patients with mild/moderate disease (n=88) (2.5 exacerbations versus 0.4 in the preceding 12 months; p<0.001), with worse quality of life, and higher levels of anxiety and depression. They also had a higher incidence of nasal polyps and gastro-oesophageal reflux with lower lung function. Sputum eosinophil count was higher in severe asthma compared to mild/moderate asthma (median count 2.99% versus 1.05%; p=0.004) despite treatment with higher doses of inhaled and/or oral corticosteroids.Consistent with other severe asthma cohorts, U-BIOPRED is characterised by poor symptom control, increased comorbidity and airway inflammation, despite high levels of treatment. It is well suited to identify asthma phenotypes using the array of "omic" datasets that are at the core of this systems medicine approach.

Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES To assess discrepancies in the analyzed outcomes between protocols and published reviews within Cochrane oral health systematic reviews (COHG) on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING All COHG systematic reviews on the CDSR and the corresponding protocols were retrieved in November 2014 and information on the reported outcomes was recorded. Data was collected at the systematic review level by two reviewers independently. RESULTS One hundred and fifty two reviews were included. In relation to primary outcomes, 11.2% were downgraded to secondary outcomes, 9.9% were omitted altogether in the final publication and new primary outcomes were identified in 18.4% of publications. For secondary outcomes, 2% were upgraded to primary, 12.5% were omitted and 30.9% were newly introduced in the publication. Overall, 45.4% of reviews had at least one discrepancy when compared to the protocol; these were reported in 14.5% reviews. The number of review updates appears to be associated with discrepancies between final review and protocol (OR: 3.18, 95% CI: 1.77, 5.74, p<0.001). The risk of reporting significant results was lower for both downgraded outcomes [RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.17, 1.58, p = 0.24] and upgraded or newly introduced outcomes [RR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.36, 1.64, p = 0.50] compared to outcomes with no discrepancies. The risk of reporting significant results was higher for upgraded or newly introduced outcomes compared to downgraded outcomes (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 0.65, 2.16, p = 0.57). None of the comparisons reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION While no evidence of selective outcome reporting was found in this study, based on the present analysis of SRs published within COHG systematic reviews, discrepancies between outcomes in pre-published protocols and final reviews continue to be common. Solutions such as the use of standardized outcomes to reduce the prevalence of this issue may need to be explored.

The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES The main objective was to assess the credibility of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in oral health systematic reviews on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and elsewhere. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic Reviews or meta-analyses (January 2008-December 2013) from 14 high impact general dental and specialty dental journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened for meta-analyses. Data was collected at the systematic review, meta-analysis and trial level. Two reviewers applied and agreed on the GRADE rating for the selected meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 510 systematic reviews initially identified 91 reviews (41 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was high in 2% and moderate in 18% of the included meta-analyses with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, journal impact factor or year of publication. The most common domains prompting downgrading of the evidence were study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision (risk of play of chance). CONCLUSION The quality of the evidence in oral health assessed using GRADE is predominantly low or very low suggesting a pressing need for more randomised clinical trials and other studies of higher quality in order to inform clinical decisions thereby reducing the risk of instituting potentially ineffective and/or harmful therapies.

Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent

OBJECTIVES To assess the use of quality assessment tools among a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) and to further evaluate whether quality was used as a parameter in the decision to include primary studies within subsequent meta-analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for SRs (interventional, observational, and diagnostic) published in Core Clinical Journals between January 1 and March 31, 2014. RESULTS Three hundred nine SRs were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken in 222 (71.8%) with isolated use of the Cochrane risk of bias tool (26.1%, n = 58) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (15.3%, n = 34) most common. A threshold level of primary study quality for subsequent meta-analysis was used in 12.9% (40 of 309) of reviews. Overall, fifty-four combinations of quality assessment tools were identified with a similar preponderance of tools used among observational and interventional reviews. Multiple tools were used in 11.7% (n = 36) of SRs overall. CONCLUSION We found that quality assessment tools were used in a majority of SRs; however, a threshold level of quality for meta-analysis was stipulated in just 12.9% (n = 40). This cross-sectional analysis provides further evidence of the need for more active or intuitive editorial processes to enhance the reporting of SRs.

Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment

BACKGROUND A range of surgical and non-surgical techniques have received increasing attention in recent years in an effort to reduce the duration of a course of orthodontic treatment. Various surgical techniques have been used; however, uncertainty exists in relation to the effectiveness of these procedures and the possible adverse effects related to them. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of surgically assisted orthodontics on the duration and outcome of orthodontic treatment. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 10 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 10 September 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 10 September 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1980 to 10 September 2014), metaRegister of Controlled Trials (to 10 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (to 10 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 10 September 2014). We checked the reference lists of all trials identified for further studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating tooth movement compared with conventional treatment (no surgical adjunctive procedure). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and extracted data. We used the fixed-effect model and expressed results as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We investigated heterogeneity with reference to both clinical and methodological factors. MAIN RESULTS We included four RCTs involving a total of 57 participants ranging in age from 11 to 33 years. The interventions evaluated were corticotomies to facilitate orthodontic space closure or alignment of an ectopic maxillary canine, with the effect of repeated surgical procedures assessed in one of these studies. The studies did not report directly on the primary outcome as prespecified in our protocol: duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active treatment (scheduled and unscheduled) and duration of visits. The main outcome assessed within the trials was the rate of tooth movement, with periodontal effects assessed in one trial and pain assessed in one trial. A maximum of just three trials with small sample sizes were available for each comparison and outcome. We assessed all of the studies as being at unclear risk of bias.Tooth movement was found to be slightly quicker with surgically assisted orthodontics in comparison with conventional treatment over periods of one month (MD 0.61 mm; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72; P value < 0.001) and three months (MD 2.03 mm, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.54; P value < 0.001). Our results and conclusions should be interpreted with caution given the small number of included studies. Information on adverse events was sought; however, no data were reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review found that there is limited research concerning the effectiveness of surgical interventions to accelerate orthodontic treatment, with no studies directly assessing our prespecified primary outcome. The available evidence is of low quality, which indicates that further research is likely to change the estimate of the effect. Based on measured outcomes in the short-term, these procedures do appear to show promise as a means of accelerating tooth movement. It is therefore possible that these procedures may prove useful; however, further prospective research comprising assessment of the entirety of treatment with longer follow-up is required to confirm any possible benefit.

The CONSORT Statement: Application within and adaptations for orthodontic trials

High-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an integral part of evidence-based medicine. RCTs are the bricks and mortar of high-quality systematic reviews, which are important determinants of health care policy and clinical practice. For published research to be used most effectively, investigators and authors should follow the guidelines for accurate and transparent reporting of RCTs. The consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) statement and its extensions are among the most widely used reporting guidelines in biomedical research. CONSORT was adopted by the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics in 2004. Since 2011, this Journal has been actively implementing compliance with the CONSORT reporting guidelines. The objective of this explanatory article is to highlight the relevance and implications of the various CONSORT items to help authors to achieve CONSORT compliance in their research submissions of RCTs to this and other orthodontic journals.

Outcome discrepancies and selective reporting: impacting the leading journals?

BACKGROUND Selective outcome reporting of either interesting or positive research findings is problematic, running the risk of poorly-informed treatment decisions. We aimed to assess the extent of outcome and other discrepancies and possible selective reporting between registry entries and published reports among leading medical journals. METHODS Randomized controlled trials published over a 6-month period from July to December 31st, 2013, were identified in five high impact medical journals: The Lancet, British Medical Journal, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and Journal of American Medical Association were obtained. Discrepancies between published studies and registry entries were identified and related to factors including registration timing, source of funding and presence of statistically significant results. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 137 RCTs were found. Of these, 18% (n = 25) had discrepancies related to primary outcomes with the primary outcome changed in 15% (n = 20). Moreover, differences relating to non-primary outcomes were found in 64% (n = 87) with both omission of pre-specified non-primary outcomes (39%) and introduction of new non-primary outcomes (44%) common. No relationship between primary or non-primary outcome change and registration timing (prospective or retrospective; P = 0.11), source of funding (P = 0.92) and presence of statistically significant results (P = 0.92) was found. CONCLUSIONS Discrepancies between registry entries and published articles for primary and non-primary outcomes were common among trials published in leading medical journals. Novel approaches are required to address this problem.

Addressing missing participant outcome data in dental clinical trials

Missing outcome data are common in clinical trials and despite a well-designed study protocol, some of the randomized participants may leave the trial early without providing any or all of the data, or may be excluded after randomization. Premature discontinuation causes loss of information, potentially resulting in attrition bias leading to problems during interpretation of trial findings. The causes of information loss in a trial, known as mechanisms of missingness, may influence the credibility of the trial results. Analysis of trials with missing outcome data should ideally be handled with intention to treat (ITT) rather than per protocol (PP) analysis. However, true ITT analysis requires appropriate assumptions and imputation of missing data. Using a worked example from a published dental study, we highlight the key issues associated with missing outcome data in clinical trials, describe the most recognized approaches to handling missing outcome data, and explain the principles of ITT and PP analysis.

The evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthodontic literature. Where do we stand?

AIM To analyse meta-analyses included in systematic reviews (SRs) published in leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) focusing on orthodontic literature and to assess the quality of the existing evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Electronic searching was undertaken to identify SRs published in five major orthodontic journals and the CDSR between January 2000 and June 2014. Quality assessment of the overall body of evidence from meta-analyses was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE) tool. RESULTS One hundred and fifty-seven SRs were identified; meta-analysis was present in 43 of these (27.4 per cent). The highest proportion of SRs that included a meta-analysis was found in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (6/13; 46.1 per cent), followed by the CDSR (12/33; 36.4 per cent) and the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics (15/44; 34.1 per cent). Class II treatment was the most commonly addressed topic within SRs in orthodontics (n = 18/157; 11.5 per cent). The number of trials combined to produce a summary estimate was small for most meta-analyses with a median of 4 (range: 2-52). Only 21 per cent (n = 9) of included meta-analyses were considered to have a high/moderate quality of evidence according to GRADE, while the majority were of low or very low quality (n = 34; 79.0 per cent). CONCLUSIONS Overall, approximately one quarter of orthodontic SRs included quantitative synthesis, with a median of four trials per meta-analysis. The overall quality of evidence from the selected orthodontic SRs was predominantly low to very low indicating the relative lack of high quality of evidence from SRs to inform clinical practice guidelines.

Statistical testing against baseline was common in dental research

OBJECTIVES To assess the presence of within-group comparisons with baseline in a subset of leading dental journals and to explore possible associations with a range of study characteristics including journal and study design. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Thirty consecutive issues of five leading dental journals were electronically searched. The conduct and reporting of statistical analysis in respect of comparisons against baseline or otherwise along with the manner of interpretation of the results were assessed. Descriptive statistics were obtained, and chi-square test and Fisher's exact were undertaken to test the association between trial characteristics and overall study interpretation. RESULTS A total of 184 studies were included with the highest proportion published in Journal of Endodontics (n = 84, 46%) and most involving a single center (n = 157, 85%). Overall, 43 studies (23%) presented interpretation of their outcomes based solely on comparisons against baseline. Inappropriate use of baseline testing was found to be less likely in interventional studies (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Use of comparisons with baseline appears to be common among both observational and interventional research studies in dentistry. Enhanced conduct and reporting of statistical tests are required to ensure that inferences from research studies are appropriate and informative.