Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2012

This paper is meant to provide guidance to anyone wishing to write a neurological guideline for diagnosis or treatment, and is directed at the Scientist Panels and task forces of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS). It substitutes the previous guidance paper from 2004. It contains several new aspects: the guidance is now based on a change of the grading system for evidence and for the resulting recommendations, and has adopted The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). The process of grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations can now be improved and made more transparent. The task forces embarking on the development of a guideline must now make clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant when searching the literature and evaluating their findings. Thus, the outcomes chosen will be more critical, more patient-oriented and easier to translate into simple recommendations. This paper also provides updated practical recommendations for planning a guideline task force within the framework of the EFNS. Finally, this paper hopes to find the approval also by the relevant bodies of our future organization, the European Academy of Neurology.

Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality.

OBJECTIVES To compare the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) published in high- and low-impact factor (IF) Core Clinical Journals. In addition, we aimed to record the implementation of aspects of reporting, including Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram, reasons for study exclusion, and use of recommendations for interventions such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in Core Clinical Journals between July 1 and December 31, 2012. We evaluated the methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. RESULTS Over the 6-month period, 327 interventional systematic reviews were identified with a mean AMSTAR score of 63.3% (standard deviation, 17.1%), when converted to a percentage scale. We identified deficiencies in relation to a number of quality criteria including delineation of excluded studies and assessment of publication bias. We found that SRs published in higher impact journals were undertaken more rigorously with higher percentage AMSTAR scores (per IF unit: β = 0.68%; 95% confidence interval: 0.32, 1.04; P < 0.001), a discrepancy likely to be particularly relevant when differences in IF are large. CONCLUSION Methodological quality of SRs appears to be better in higher impact journals. The overall quality of SRs published in many Core Clinical Journals remains suboptimal.

Effectiveness of Personal Protective Equipment for Healthcare Workers Caring for Patients with Filovirus Disease: A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND A rapid review, guided by a protocol, was conducted to inform development of the World Health Organization's guideline on personal protective equipment in the context of the ongoing (2013-present) Western African filovirus disease outbreak, with a focus on health care workers directly caring for patients with Ebola or Marburg virus diseases. METHODS Electronic databases and grey literature sources were searched. Eligibility criteria initially included comparative studies on Ebola and Marburg virus diseases reported in English or French, but criteria were expanded to studies on other viral hemorrhagic fevers and non-comparative designs due to the paucity of studies. After title and abstract screening (two people to exclude), full-text reports of potentially relevant articles were assessed in duplicate. Fifty-seven percent of extraction information was verified. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to inform the quality of evidence assessments. RESULTS Thirty non-comparative studies (8 related to Ebola virus disease) were located, and 27 provided data on viral transmission. Reporting of personal protective equipment components and infection prevention and control protocols was generally poor. CONCLUSIONS Insufficient evidence exists to draw conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of various types of personal protective equipment. Additional research is urgently needed to determine optimal PPE for health care workers caring for patients with filovirus.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of cartilage histopathology assessment systems on human knee joints at all stages of osteoarthritis development

To compare the MANKIN and OARSI cartilage histopathology assessment systems using human articular cartilage from a large number of donors across the adult age spectrum representing all levels of cartilage degradation.

A pain assessment scale for population-based studies: Development and validation of the Pain Module of the Standard Evaluation Questionnaire

The objectives of this study were to develop and validate a tool for assessing pain in population-based observational studies and to develop three subscales for back/neck, upper extremity and lower extremity pain. Based on a literature review, items were extracted from validated questionnaires and reviewed by an expert panel. The initial questionnaire consisted of a pain manikin and 34 items relating to (i) intensity of pain in different body regions (7 items), (ii) pain during activities of daily living (18 items) and (iii) various pain modalities (9 items). Psychometric validation of the initial questionnaire was performed in a random sample of the German-speaking Swiss population. Analyses included tests for reliability, correlation analysis, principal components factor analysis, tests for internal consistency and validity. Overall, 16,634 of 23,763 eligible individuals participated (70%). Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.32 to 0.97, but only three coefficients were below 0.60. Subscales were constructed combining four items for each of the subscales. Item-total coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.86 and Cronbach's alpha were 0.75 or higher for all subscales. Correlation coefficients between subscales and three validated instruments (WOMAC, SPADI and Oswestry) ranged from 0.62 to 0.79. The final Pain Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (SEQ Pain) included 28 items and the pain manikin and accounted for the multidimensionality of pain by assessing pain location and intensity, pain during activity, triggers and time of onset of pain and frequency of pain medication. It was found to be reliable and valid for the assessment of pain in population-based observational studies.