How Comprehensible, Interesting and Relevant is Current Research in Traditional Chinese Medicine for Practitioners?

Purpose: In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as in other fields of complementary medicine, research does not necessarily follow the sequence from in vitro studies via phase I to phase IV clinical trials, but all steps are being investigated simultaneously. Here, we aimed to investigate which kinds of studies were interesting and relevant for practitioners. Methods: Thirty abstracts from articles on TCM published between April and June 2012 were randomly chosen, including 5 abstracts each of in vitro studies, animal studies, case reports or series, studies with healthy volunteers, trials with patients, or reviews and meta-analyses. Six TCM practitioners (2 female, 5 non-medical, average age 46 years, average practical TCM experience 9 years) rated 10 abstracts each on a 5 point Likert scale (1=very poor to 5=very good) regarding comprehensibility, interest, relevance to practice, information for patients, and promoting reputation of TCM. Average ratings for each group of abstracts were calculated. Results: Comprehensibility of the abstracts was generally rated as good. Case reports/series, studies in healthy volunteers and trials with patients were rated interesting by the practitioners (average rating = 3.7, 3.8 and 3.7, respectively). Relevance to practice was mediocre for all types (2.5 to 3.5). In vitro studies and reviews/meta-analyses were not rated useful as information for patients (2.0). Reviews/Meta-analyses were considered negative for the reputation of TCM (2.2). Conclusions: Practitioners of TCM find abstracts of study results generally comprehensible and interesting. Case reports/series were rated in a similar way as trials with patients. Although TCM is commonly taught by means of case reports, practitioners seemed to value clinical trials. Abstracts of reviews/meta-analyses were rated rather uninformative, which was possibly due to several inconclusive results and the lack of detailed information in these abstracts.

Metamizole-associated adverse events: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Metamizole is used to treat pain in many parts of the world. Information on the safety profile of metamizole is scarce; no conclusive summary of the literature exists. OBJECTIVE To determine whether metamizole is clinically safe compared to placebo and other analgesics. METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and several clinical trial registries. We screened the reference lists of included trials and previous systematic reviews. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of metamizole, administered to adults in any form and for any indication, to other analgesics or to placebo. Two authors extracted data regarding trial design and size, indications for pain medication, patient characteristics, treatment regimens, and methodological characteristics. Adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), and dropouts were assessed. We conducted separate meta-analyses for each metamizole comparator, using standard inverse-variance random effects meta-analysis to pool the estimates across trials, reported as risk ratios (RRs). We calculated the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimate T2 to measure heterogeneity between trials. The pre-specified primary end point was any AE during the trial period. RESULTS Of the 696 potentially eligible trials, 79 trials including almost 4000 patients with short-term metamizole use of less than two weeks met our inclusion criteria. Fewer AEs were reported for metamizole compared to opioids, RR = 0.79 (confidence interval 0.79 to 0.96). We found no differences between metamizole and placebo, paracetamol and NSAIDs. Only a few SAEs were reported, with no difference between metamizole and other analgesics. No agranulocytosis or deaths were reported. Our results were limited by the mediocre overall quality of the reports. CONCLUSION For short-term use in the hospital setting, metamizole seems to be a safe choice when compared to other widely used analgesics. High-quality, adequately sized trials assessing the intermediate- and long-term safety of metamizole are needed.

Minimally invasive surgery when treating endometriosis has a positive effect on health and on quality of work life of affected women

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of the minimally invasive surgical treatment of endometriosis on health and on quality of work life (e.g. working performance) of affected women? SUMMARY ANSWER: Absence from work, performance loss and the general negative impact of endometriosis on the job are reduced significantly by the laparoscopic surgery. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The benefits of surgery overall and of the laparoscopic method in particular for treating endometriosis have been described before. However, previous studies focus on medical benchmarks without including the patient's perspective in a quantitative manner. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective questionnaire-based survey covering 211 women with endometriosis and a history of specific laparoscopic surgery in a Swiss university hospital, tertiary care center. Data were returned anonymously and were collected from the beginning of 2012 until March 2013. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women diagnosed with endometriosis and with at least one specific laparoscopic surgery in the past were enrolled in the study. The study investigated the effect of the minimally invasive surgery on health and on quality of work life of affected women. Questions used were obtained from the World Endometriosis Research Foundation (WERF) Global Study on Women's Health (GSWH) instrument. The questionnaire was shortened and adapted for the purpose of the present study. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 587 women invited to participate in the study, 232 (232/587 = 40%) returned the questionnaires. Twenty-one questionnaires were excluded due to incomplete data and 211 sets (211/587 = 36%) were included in the study. Our data show that 62% (n = 130) of the study population declared endometriosis as influencing the job during the period prior to surgery, compared with 28% after surgery (P < 0.001). The mean (maximal) absence from work due to endometriosis was reduced from 2.0 (4.9) to 0.5 (1.4) hours per week (P < 0.001). The mean (maximal) loss in working performance after the surgery averaged out at 5.7% (12.6%) compared with 17.5% (30.5%) before this treatment (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The mediocre response rate of the study weakens the representativeness of the investigated population. Considering the anonymous setting a non-responder investigation was not performed. A bias due to selection, information and negativity effects within a retrospective survey cannot be excluded, although study-sensitive questions were provided in multiple ways. The absence of a control group (sham group; e.g. patients undergoing specific diagnostic laparoscopy without treatment) is a further limitation of the study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study shows that indicated minimally invasive surgery has a clear positive effect on the wellbeing and working performance of women suffering from moderate to severe endometriosis. Furthermore, national net savings in indirect costs with the present number of surgeries is estimated to be €10.7 million per year. In an idealized setting (i.e. without any diagnosis delay) this figure could be more than doubled. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was performed on behalf of the University Hospital of Bern (Inselspital) as one of the leading Swiss tertiary care centers. The authors do not declare any competing interests.