Inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

To assess the effects of inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients compared with usual care on functional status, admissions to nursing homes, and mortality.

Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background There is concern that non-inferiority trials might be deliberately designed to conceal that a new treatment is less effective than a standard treatment. In order to test this hypothesis we performed a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials to assess the average effect of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments. Methods One hundred and seventy non-inferiority treatment trials published in 121 core clinical journals were included. The trials were identified through a search of PubMed (1991 to 20 February 2009). Combined relative risk (RR) from meta-analysis comparing experimental with standard treatments was the main outcome measure. Results The 170 trials contributed a total of 175 independent comparisons of experimental with standard treatments. The combined RR for all 175 comparisons was 0.994 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.978–1.010] using a random-effects model and 1.002 (95% CI 0.996–1.008) using a fixed-effects model. Of the 175 comparisons, experimental treatment was considered to be non-inferior in 130 (74%). The combined RR for these 130 comparisons was 0.995 (95% CI 0.983–1.006) and the point estimate favoured the experimental treatment in 58% (n = 76) and standard treatment in 42% (n = 54). The median non-inferiority margin (RR) pre-specified by trialists was 1.31 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 1.18–1.59]. Conclusion In this meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials the average RR comparing experimental with standard treatments was close to 1. The experimental treatments that gain a verdict of non-inferiority in published trials do not appear to be systematically less effective than the standard treatments. Importantly, publication bias and bias in the design and reporting of the studies cannot be ruled out and may have skewed the study results in favour of the experimental treatments. Further studies are required to examine the importance of such bias.

Long-term antibiotic treatment for Crohn's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials

We investigated the effectiveness of long-term antibiotic treatment in patients with Crohn's disease.

Does land-based exercise reduce pain and disability associated with hip osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine if clinical guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) are supported by rigorous scientific evidence. Methods A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based exercise program (as opposed to exercises conducted in the water) with a non-exercise group in terms of hip pain and/or self-reported physical function. Results Thirty-two RCTs were identified, but only five met the inclusion criteria. Only one of the five included RCTs restricted recruitment to people with hip OA, the other four RCTs also recruiting participants with knee OA. The five included studies provided data on 204 and 187 hip OA participants for pain and physical function, respectively. Combining the results of the five included RCTs using a fixed-effects model demonstrated a small treatment effect for pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to −0.09). No significant benefit in terms of improved self-reported physical function was detected (SMD −0.02; 95% CI −0.31 to 0.28). Conclusion Currently there is only silver level evidence (one small RCT) supporting the benefit of land-based therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip OA in terms of reduced pain and improved physical function. The limited number and small sample size of the included RCTs restricts the confidence that can be attributed to these results.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials

Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.

Reporting of consistency of blood pressure control in randomized controlled trials of antihypertensive drugs: a systematic review of 1372 trial reports

Hypertension is a powerful treatable risk factor for stroke. Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antihypertensive drugs rightly concentrate on clinical outcomes, but control of blood pressure (BP) during follow-up is also important, particularly given that inconsistent control is associated with a high risk of stroke and that antihypertensive drug classes differ in this regard.

Reporting quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in leading orthodontic journals from 2006 to 2011

Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals.

Completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials of 3 vaccines: a review of adherence to the CONSORT checklist

Clear reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of vaccines is important for understanding results and assessing their validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement provides guidance to help authors reporting RCTs. The objective was to assess the completeness of reporting of RCTs of vaccines based on the CONSORT 2010 checklist.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials

Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies

The design of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should incorporate characteristics (such as concealment of randomised allocation and blinding of participants and personnel) that avoid biases resulting from lack of comparability of the intervention and control groups. Empirical evidence suggests that the absence of such characteristics leads to biased intervention effect estimates, but the findings of different studies are not consistent.