Updated method guidelines for cochrane musculoskeletal group systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip.

BACKGROUND Current international treatment guidelines recommending therapeutic exercise for people with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA) report are based on limited evidence. OBJECTIVES To determine whether land-based therapeutic exercise is beneficial for people with hip OA in terms of reduced joint pain and improved physical function and quality of life. SEARCH METHODS We searched five databases from inception up to February 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting people with hip OA and comparing some form of land-based therapeutic exercise (as opposed to exercises conducted in water) with a non-exercise group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Four review authors independently selected studies for inclusion. We resolved disagreements through consensus. Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. We conducted analyses on continuous outcomes (pain, physical function and quality of life) and dichotomous outcomes (proportion of study withdrawals). MAIN RESULTS We considered that seven of the 10 included RCTs had a low risk of bias. However, the results may be vulnerable to performance and detection bias as none of the RCTs were able to blind participants to treatment allocation and, while most RCTs reported blinded outcome assessment, pain, physical function and quality of life were participant self reported. One of the 10 RCTs was only reported as a conference abstract and did not provide sufficient data for the evaluation of bias risk.High-quality evidence from nine trials (549 participants) indicated that exercise reduced pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.55 to -0.20) and improved physical function (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.05) immediately after treatment. Pain and physical function were estimated to be 29 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no pain or loss of physical function) in the control group; exercise reduced pain by an equivalent of 8 points (95% CI 4 to 11 points; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and improved physical function by an equivalent of 7 points (95% CI 1 to 12 points; NNTB 6). Only three small studies (183 participants) evaluated quality of life, with overall low quality evidence, with no benefit of exercise demonstrated (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.36). Quality of life was estimated to be 50 points on a norm-based mean (standard deviation (SD)) score of 50 (10) in the general population in the control group; exercise improved quality of life by 0 points. Moderate-quality evidence from seven trials (715 participants) indicated an increased likelihood of withdrawal from the exercise allocation (event rate 6%) compared with the control group (event rate 3%), but this difference was not significant (risk difference 1%; 95% CI -1% to 4%). Of the five studies reporting adverse events, each study reported only one or two events and all were related to increased pain attributed to the exercise programme.The reduction in pain was sustained at least three to six months after ceasing monitored treatment (five RCTs, 391 participants): pain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.18). Pain was estimated to be 29 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no pain) in the control group, the improvement in pain translated to a sustained reduction in pain intensity of 8 points (95% CI 4 to 12 points) compared with the control group (0 to 100 scale). The improvement in physical function was also sustained (five RCTs, 367 participants): physical function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.16). Physical function was estimated to be 24 points on a 0- to 100-point scale (0 was no loss of physical function) in the control group, the improvement translated to a mean of 7 points (95% CI 4 to 13) compared with the control group.Only five of the 10 RCTs exclusively recruited people with symptomatic hip OA (419 participants). There was no significant difference in pain or physical function outcomes compared with five studies recruiting participants with hip or knee OA (130 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Pooling the results of these 10 RCTs demonstrated that land-based therapeutic exercise programmes can reduce pain and improve physical function among people with symptomatic hip OA.

Development, implementation, and evaluation of a structured reporting web tool for abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND The majority of radiological reports are lacking a standard structure. Even within a specialized area of radiology, each report has its individual structure with regards to details and order, often containing too much of non-relevant information the referring physician is not interested in. For gathering relevant clinical key parameters in an efficient way or to support long-term therapy monitoring, structured reporting might be advantageous. OBJECTIVE Despite of new technologies in medical information systems, medical reporting is still not dynamic. To improve the quality of communication in radiology reports, a new structured reporting system was developed for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), intended to enhance professional communication by providing the pertinent clinical information in a predefined standard. METHODS Actual state analysis was performed within the departments of radiology and vascular surgery by developing a Technology Acceptance Model. The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis focused on optimization of the radiology reporting of patients with AAA. Definition of clinical parameters was achieved by interviewing experienced clinicians in radiology and vascular surgery. For evaluation, a focus group (4 radiologists) looked at the reports of 16 patients. The usability and reliability of the method was validated in a real-world test environment in the field of radiology. RESULTS A Web-based application for radiological "structured reporting" (SR) was successfully standardized for AAA. Its organization comprises three main categories: characteristics of pathology and adjacent anatomy, measurements, and additional findings. Using different graphical widgets (eg, drop-down menus) in each category facilitate predefined data entries. Measurement parameters shown in a diagram can be defined for clinical monitoring and be adducted for quick adjudications. Figures for optional use to guide and standardize the reporting are embedded. Analysis of variance shows decreased average time required with SR to obtain a radiological report compared to free-text reporting (P=.0001). Questionnaire responses confirm a high acceptance rate by the user. CONCLUSIONS The new SR system may support efficient radiological reporting for initial diagnosis and follow-up for AAA. Perceived advantages of our SR platform are ease of use, which may lead to more accurate decision support. The new system is open to communicate not only with clinical partners but also with Radiology Information and Hospital Information Systems.

The accuracy of self-reported medical history: A preliminary analysis of the promise of internet-based research in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Internet-based surveys provide a potentially important tool for Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) research. The advantages include low cost, large numbers of participants, rapid study completion and less extensive infrastructure than traditional methods. The aim was to determine the accuracy of patient self-reporting in internet-based IBD research and identify predictors of greater reliability. METHODS: 197 patients from a tertiary care center answered an online survey concerning personal medical history and an evaluation of disease specific knowledge. Self-reported medical details were compared with data abstracted from medical records. Agreement was assessed by kappa (κ) statistics. RESULTS: Participants responded correctly with excellent agreement (κ=0.96-0.97) on subtype of IBD and history of surgery. The agreement was also excellent for colectomy (κ=0.88) and small bowel resection (κ=0.91), moderate for abscesses and fistulas (κ=0.60 and 0.63), but poor regarding partial colectomy (κ=0.39). Time since last colonoscopy was self-reported with better agreement (κ=0.84) than disease activity. For disease location/extent, moderate agreements at κ=69% and 64% were observed for patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, respectively. Subjects who scored higher than the average in the IBD knowledge assessment were significantly more accurate about disease location than their complementary group (74% vs. 59%, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that IBD patients accurately report their medical history regarding type of disease and surgical procedures. More detailed medical information is less reliably reported. Disease knowledge assessment may help in identifying the most accurate individuals and could therefore serve as validity criteria. Internet-based surveys are feasible with high reliability about basic disease features only. However, the participants in this study were engaged at a tertiary center, which potentially leads to a bias and compromises generalization to an unfiltered patient group.

Poor Reliability between Cochrane Reviewers and Blinded External Reviewers When Applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in Physical Therapy Trials

OBJECTIVES To test the inter-rater reliability of the RoB tool applied to Physical Therapy (PT) trials by comparing ratings from Cochrane review authors with those of blinded external reviewers. METHODS Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PT were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analysis of PT interventions. RoB assessments were conducted independently by 2 reviewers blinded to the RoB ratings reported in the Cochrane reviews. Data on RoB assessments from Cochrane reviews and other characteristics of reviews and trials were extracted. Consensus assessments between the two reviewers were then compared with the RoB ratings from the Cochrane reviews. Agreement between Cochrane and blinded external reviewers was assessed using weighted kappa (κ). RESULTS In total, 109 trials included in 17 Cochrane reviews were assessed. Inter-rater reliability on the overall RoB assessment between Cochrane review authors and blinded external reviewers was poor (κ  =  0.02, 95%CI: -0.06, 0.06]). Inter-rater reliability on individual domains of the RoB tool was poor (median κ  = 0.19), ranging from κ  =  -0.04 ("Other bias") to κ  =  0.62 ("Sequence generation"). There was also no agreement (κ  =  -0.29, 95%CI: -0.81, 0.35]) in the overall RoB assessment at the meta-analysis level. CONCLUSIONS Risk of bias assessments of RCTs using the RoB tool are not consistent across different research groups. Poor agreement was not only demonstrated at the trial level but also at the meta-analysis level. Results have implications for decision making since different recommendations can be reached depending on the group analyzing the evidence. Improved guidelines to consistently apply the RoB tool and revisions to the tool for different health areas are needed.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration

Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.

Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination

Social norms pervade almost every aspect of social interaction. If they are violated, not only legal institutions, but other members of society as well, punish, i.e., inflict costs on the wrongdoer. Sanctioning occurs even when the punishers themselves were not harmed directly and even when it is costly for them. There is evidence for intergroup bias in this third-party punishment: third-parties, who share group membership with victims, punish outgroup perpetrators more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. However, it is unknown whether a discriminatory treatment of outgroup perpetrators (outgroup discrimination) or a preferential treatment of ingroup perpetrators (ingroup favoritism) drives this bias. To answer this question, the punishment of outgroup and ingroup perpetrators must be compared to a baseline, i.e., unaffiliated perpetrators. By applying a costly punishment game, we found stronger punishment of outgroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators and weaker punishment of ingroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators. This demonstrates that both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination drive intergroup bias in third-party punishment of perpetrators that belong to distinct social groups.

Negative bias of processing ambiguously cued emotional stimuli.

Daily we cope with upcoming potentially disadvantageous events. Therefore, it makes sense to be prepared for the worst case. Such a 'pessimistic' bias is reflected in brain activation during emotion processing. Healthy individuals underwent functional neuroimaging while viewing emotional stimuli that were earlier cued ambiguously or unambiguously concerning their emotional valence. Presentation of ambiguously announced pleasant pictures compared with unambiguously announced pleasant pictures resulted in increased activity in the ventrolateral prefrontal, premotor and temporal cortex, and in the caudate nucleus. This was not the case for the respective negative conditions. This indicates that pleasant stimuli after ambiguous cueing provided 'unexpected' emotional input, resulting in the adaptation of brain activity. It strengthens the hypothesis of a 'pessimistic' bias of brain activation toward ambiguous emotional events.

Oral or transdermal opioids for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

BACKGROUND Osteoarthritis is the most common form of joint disease and the leading cause of pain and physical disability in older people. Opioids may be a viable treatment option if people have severe pain or if other analgesics are contraindicated. However, the evidence about their effectiveness and safety is contradictory. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects on pain, function, safety, and addiction of oral or transdermal opioids compared with placebo or no intervention in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed on 15 August 2012), checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared oral or transdermal opioids with placebo or no treatment in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis. We excluded studies of tramadol. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We extracted data in duplicate. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and function, and risk ratios for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional trials and included 22 trials with 8275 participants in this update. Oral oxycodone was studied in 10 trials, transdermal buprenorphine and oral tapentadol in four, oral codeine in three, oral morphine and oral oxymorphone in two, and transdermal fentanyl and oral hydromorphone in one trial each. All trials were described as double-blind, but the risk of bias for other domains was unclear in several trials due to incomplete reporting. Opioids were more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.20), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 0.7 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) between opioids and placebo. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 12% (95% CI 9% to 15%) between opioids (41% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (29% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into a number needed to treat (NNTB) to cause one additional treatment response on pain of 10 (95% CI 8 to 14). Improvement of function was larger in opioid-treated participants compared with control groups (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.17), which corresponds to a difference in function scores of 0.6 units between opioids and placebo on a standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10. This corresponds to a difference in improvement of 11% (95% CI 7% to 14%) between opioids (32% mean improvement from baseline) and placebo (21% mean improvement from baseline), which translates into an NNTB to cause one additional treatment response on function of 11 (95% CI 7 to 14). We did not find substantial differences in effects according to type of opioid, analgesic potency, route of administration, daily dose, methodological quality of trials, and type of funding. Trials with treatment durations of four weeks or less showed larger pain relief than trials with longer treatment duration (P value for interaction = 0.001) and there was evidence for funnel plot asymmetry (P value = 0.054 for pain and P value = 0.011 for function). Adverse events were more frequent in participants receiving opioids compared with control. The pooled risk ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.35 to 1.63) for any adverse event (9 trials; 22% of participants in opioid and 15% of participants in control treatment experienced side effects), 3.76 (95% CI 2.93 to 4.82) for drop-outs due to adverse events (19 trials; 6.4% of participants in opioid and 1.7% of participants in control treatment dropped out due to adverse events), and 3.35 (95% CI 0.83 to 13.56) for serious adverse events (2 trials; 1.3% of participants in opioid and 0.4% of participants in control treatment experienced serious adverse events). Withdrawal symptoms occurred more often in opioid compared with control treatment (odds ratio (OR) 2.76, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.77; 3 trials; 2.4% of participants in opioid and 0.9% of participants control treatment experienced withdrawal symptoms). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The small mean benefit of non-tramadol opioids are contrasted by significant increases in the risk of adverse events. For the pain outcome in particular, observed effects were of questionable clinical relevance since the 95% CI did not include the minimal clinically important difference of 0.37 SMDs, which corresponds to 0.9 cm on a 10-cm VAS.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012. OBJECTIVES To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis. SEARCH METHODS For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively. MAIN RESULTS We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.