Using the contribution matrix to evaluate complex study limitations in a network meta-analysis: a case study of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy review.

BACKGROUND Limitations in the primary studies constitute one important factor to be considered in the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) system of rating quality of evidence. However, in the network meta-analysis (NMA), such evaluation poses a special challenge because each network estimate receives different amounts of contributions from various studies via direct as well as indirect routes and because some biases have directions whose repercussion in the network can be complicated. FINDINGS In this report we use the NMA of maintenance pharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder (17 interventions, 33 studies) and demonstrate how to quantitatively evaluate the impact of study limitations using netweight, a STATA command for NMA. For each network estimate, the percentage of contributions from direct comparisons at high, moderate or low risk of bias were quantified, respectively. This method has proven flexible enough to accommodate complex biases with direction, such as the one due to the enrichment design seen in some trials of bipolar maintenance pharmacotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Using netweight, therefore, we can evaluate in a transparent and quantitative manner how study limitations of individual studies in the NMA impact on the quality of evidence of each network estimate, even when such limitations have clear directions.

Lichtheimia Infection in a Lymphoma Patient: Case Report and a Brief Review of the Available Diagnostic Tools

We describe the case of a patient with a T-lymphoblastic lymphoma whose disseminated mucormycosis was diagnosed with delay, and we address the diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making process and review the diagnostic workup of patients with potential IFD. The diagnosis was delayed despite a suggestive radiological presentation of the patient's pulmonary lesion. The uncommon risk profile (T-lymphoblastic lymphoma, short neutropenic phases) wrongly led to a low level of suspicion. The diagnosis was also hampered by the lack of indirect markers for infections caused by Mucorales, the low sensitivity of both fungal culture and panfungal PCR, and the limited availability of species-specific PCR. A high level of suspicion of IFD is needed, and aggressive diagnostic procedures should be promptly initiated even in apparently low-risk patients with uncommon presentations. The extent of the analytical workup should be decided on a case-by-case base. Diagnostic tests such as the galactomannan and β-D-glucan test and/or PCR on biological material followed by sequencing should be chosen according to their availability and after evaluation of their specificity and sensitivity. In high-risk patients, preemptive therapy with a broad-spectrum mould-active antifungal agent should be started before definitive diagnostic findings become available.