Oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies: systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Urgências hipertensivas são definidas como elevações graves na pressão arterial sem evidência de danos agudos ou progressivos a órgãos-alvo. A necessidade de tratamento é considerada urgente, mas permite um controle gradual, utilizando-se drogas orais ou sublinguais. Se o aumento na pressão arterial não está associado a risco de vida ou danos a órgãos alvo, o controle pressórico deve ser feito lentamente durante 24 horas. em relação às urgências hipertensivas, não é conhecida qual a classe de drogas anti-hipertensivas que promove os melhores resultados e há controvérsia em relação a quando e quais as drogas devem ser utilizadas nestas situações. O objetivo desta revisão foi avaliar a efetividade e a segurança de drogas orais para urgências hipertensivas. METODOS: Esta revisão sistemática da literatura foi desenvolvida no Centro Cochrane do Brasil, e na Disciplina de Medicina de Urgência e Medicina Baseada em Evidências da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) - Escola Paulista de Medicina (Unifesp-EPM), de acordo com a metodologia da Colaboração Cochrane. RESULTADOS: Os 16 ensaios clínicos aleatórios selecionados incluíram 769 participantes e demonstraram um efeito superior dos inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina no tratamento da urgência hipertensiva, avaliada em 223 participantes. Os efeitos adversos mais frequentes para os bloqueadores de canal de cálcio foram cefaleia (35/206), rubor (17/172) e alterações do ritmo cardíaco (14/189); para os inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina, o efeito colateral mais frequente foi disgeusia (25/38). CONCLUSÕES: Há evidências importantes a favor do uso de inibidores da enzima conversora da angiotensina para o tratamento de urgências hipertensivas, quando comparados aos bloqueadores dos canais de cálcio, devido a maior efetividade e à menor frequência de efeitos adversos, como cefaléia e rubor facial.

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: What about in 2011? the next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

Rationale and aim The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. Methods A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. Results We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. Conclusion Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Ablação por cateter versus tratamento farmacológico para pacientes com síndrome de Wolf-Parkinson-White: revisão sistemática

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

Efetividade da finasterida no tratamento da síndrome da dor pélvica crônica: revisão sistemática e metanálise

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)

Eficácia do tratamento cirúrgico no tórax instável: revisão sistemática e metanálise

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

Postectomia com dispositivo plástico versus postectomia convencional para circuncisão em crianças: revisão sistemática e metanálise

Pós-graduação em Bases Gerais da Cirurgia - FMB

Antidepressants for anorexia nervosa

Background Anorexia Nervosa ( AN) is an illness characterised by extreme concern about body weight and shape, severe self-imposed weight loss, and endocrine dysfunction. In spite of its high mortality, morbidity and chronicity, there are few intervention studies on the subject.Objectives The aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and acceptability of antidepressant drugs in the treatment of acute AN.Search strategy The strategy comprised of database searches of the Cochrane Collaboration Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE (1966 to April 28th, 2005), EMBASE (1980 to week 36, 2004), PsycINFO (1969 to August week 5, 2004), handsearching the International Journal of Eating Disorders and searching the reference lists of all papers selected. Personal letters were sent to researchers in the field requesting information on unpublished or in-progress trials.Selection criteria All randomised controlled trials of antidepressant treatment for AN patients, as de fined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) or similar international criteria, were selected.Data collection and analysis Quality ratings were made giving consideration to the strong relationship between allocation concealment and potential for bias in the results; studies meeting criteria A and B were included. Trials were excluded if non-completion rates were above 50%. The standardised mean difference and relative risk were used for continuous data and dichotomous data comparisons, respectively. Whenever possible, analyses were performed according to intention- to-treat principles. Heterogeneity was tested with the I-squared statistic. Weight change was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were severity of eating disorder, depression and anxiety symptoms, and global clinical state. Acceptability of treatment was evaluated by considering non-completion rates.Main results Only seven studies were included. Major methodological limitations such as small trial size and large confidence intervals decreased the power of the studies to detect differences between treatments, and meta-analysis of data was not possible for the majority of outcomes. Four placebo-controlled trials did not find evidence that antidepressants improved weight gain, eating disorder or associated psychopathology. Isolated findings, favouring amineptine and nortriptyline, emerged from the antidepressant versus antidepressant comparisons, but cannot be conceived as evidence of efficacy of a specific drug or class of antidepressant in light of the findings from the placebo comparisons. Non-completion rates were similar between the compared groups.Authors' conclusions A lack of quality information precludes us from drawing de finite conclusions or recommendations on the use of antidepressants in acute AN. Future studies testing safer and more tolerable antidepressants in larger, well designed trials are needed to provide guidance for clinical practice.

In search of optimal compression therapy for venous leg ulcers: a meta-analysis of studies comparing diverse [corrected] bandages with specifically designed stockings

OBJECTIVE: In search of an optimal compression therapy for venous leg ulcers, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing compression systems based on stockings (MCS) with divers bandages. METHODS: RCT were retrieved from six sources and reviewed independently. The primary endpoint, completion of healing within a defined time frame, and the secondary endpoints, time to healing, and pain were entered into a meta-analysis using the tools of the Cochrane Collaboration. Additional subjective endpoints were summarized. RESULTS: Eight RCT (published 1985-2008) fulfilled the predefined criteria. Data presentation was adequate and showed moderate heterogeneity. The studies included 692 patients (21-178/study, mean age 61 years, 56% women). Analyzed were 688 ulcerated legs, present for 1 week to 9 years, sizing 1 to 210 cm(2). The observation period ranged from 12 to 78 weeks. Patient and ulcer characteristics were evenly distributed in three studies, favored the stocking groups in four, and the bandage group in one. Data on the pressure exerted by stockings and bandages were reported in seven and two studies, amounting to 31-56 and 27-49 mm Hg, respectively. The proportion of ulcers healed was greater with stockings than with bandages (62.7% vs 46.6%; P < .00001). The average time to healing (seven studies, 535 patients) was 3 weeks shorter with stockings (P = .0002). In no study performed bandages better than MCS. Pain was assessed in three studies (219 patients) revealing an important advantage of stockings (P < .0001). Other subjective parameters and issues of nursing revealed an advantage of MCS as well. CONCLUSIONS: Leg compression with stockings is clearly better than compression with bandages, has a positive impact on pain, and is easier to use.

The effectiveness of laceback ligatures during initial orthodontic alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lacebacks may be used to limit unwanted incisor proclination during initial orthodontic alignment; however, their use has not met with universal approval. This systematic review aims to appraise the evidence in relation to the effectiveness of lacebacks in controlling incisor position during initial alignment. Electronic database searches of published literature (MEDLINE via Ovid, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and IBECS) and unpublished literature were performed. Search terms used included randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double blind method, orthodontics, and laceback. Data were extracted using custom forms. Risk of bias assessment was made using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The quality of the evidence was also assessed using GRADE. Mean differences in incisor inclination and antero-posterior changes in incisor and molar position during alignment were calculated. Two studies involving 97 participants were found to be at low risk of bias and were included in the quantitative synthesis. The random effects meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of lacebacks was associated with 0.5 mm greater posterior movement of the incisors during alignment; this finding was of limited clinical importance and statistically non-significant [95 per cent confidence interval (CI): -1.25, 0.25, P = 0.19]. Little difference (0.46 mm) was also found between laceback and non-laceback groups with regards to mesial molar movement (95 per cent CI: -0.33, 1.24, P = 0.26). According to the GRADE assessment, the overall quality of evidence relating to the use of lacebacks was high. There is no evidence to support the use of lacebacks for the control of the sagittal position of the incisors during initial orthodontic alignment.

Consensus on the Need for a Hierarchical List of Patient-reported Pain Outcomes for Metaanalyses of Knee Osteoarthritis Trials: An OMERACT Objective.

OBJECTIVE Although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not mandatory, reviewers should be strongly encouraged to register the protocol to identify the methodological approach, including all outcomes of interest. This will minimize the likelihood of biased decisions in reviews, such as selective outcome reporting. A group of international experts convened to address issues regarding the need to develop hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments for a particular outcome for metaanalyses. METHODS Multiple outcome measurement instruments exist to measure the same outcome. Metaanalysis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, and the assessment of pain as an outcome, was used as an exemplar to assess how Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), the Cochrane Collaboration, and other international initiatives might contribute in this area. The meeting began with formal presentations of background topics, empirical evidence from the literature, and a brief introduction to 2 existing hierarchical lists of pain outcome measurement instruments recommended for metaanalyses of knee OA trials. RESULTS After discussions, most participants agreed that there is a need to develop a methodology for generation of hierarchical lists of outcome measurement instruments to guide metaanalyses. Tools that could be used to steer development of such a prioritized list are the COSMIN checklist (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments) and the OMERACT Filter 2.0. CONCLUSION We list meta-epidemiological research agenda items that address the frequency of reported outcomes in trials, as well as methodologies to assess the best measurement properties (i.e., truth, discrimination, and feasibility).

Efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis. A systematic review

AIM To systematically assess the efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis (PM). MATERIAL AND METHODS Randomized (RCTs) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) were identified through an electronic search of three databases complemented by manual search. Identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of studies was performed independently by two reviewers. Studies without professional intervention or with only mechanical debridement professionally administered were included. Quality assessment was performed by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS Eleven RCTs with a follow-up from 3 to 24 months were included. Definition of PM was lacking or heterogeneously reported. Complete resolution of PM was not achieved in any study. One study reported 38% of patients with complete resolution of PM. Surrogate end-point outcomes of PM therapy were often reported. The choice of control interventions showed great variability. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes, a triclosan-containing toothpaste and adjunctive antiseptics remains to be established. High quality of methods and reporting was found in four studies. CONCLUSIONS Professionally- and patient-administered mechanical plaque control alone should be considered the standard of care in the management of PM. Therapy of PM is a prerequisite for the prevention of peri-implantitis.

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Antipsychotics in Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia: A Network Meta-analysis.

Importance In treatment-resistant schizophrenia, clozapine is considered the standard treatment. However, clozapine use has restrictions owing to its many adverse effects. Moreover, an increasing number of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of other antipsychotics have been published. Objective To integrate all the randomized evidence from the available antipsychotics used for treatment-resistant schizophrenia by performing a network meta-analysis. Data Sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biosis, PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Trial Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to June 30, 2014. Study Selection At least 2 independent reviewers selected published and unpublished single- and double-blind RCTs in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (any study-defined criterion) that compared any antipsychotic (at any dose and in any form of administration) with another antipsychotic or placebo. Data Extraction and Synthesis At least 2 independent reviewers extracted all data into standard forms and assessed the quality of all included trials with the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool. Data were pooled using a random-effects model in a Bayesian setting. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was efficacy as measured by overall change in symptoms of schizophrenia. Secondary outcomes included change in positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, categorical response to treatment, dropouts for any reason and for inefficacy of treatment, and important adverse events. Results Forty blinded RCTs with 5172 unique participants (71.5% men; mean [SD] age, 38.8 [3.7] years) were included in the analysis. Few significant differences were found in all outcomes. In the primary outcome (reported as standardized mean difference; 95% credible interval), olanzapine was more effective than quetiapine (-0.29; -0.56 to -0.02), haloperidol (-0. 29; -0.44 to -0.13), and sertindole (-0.46; -0.80 to -0.06); clozapine was more effective than haloperidol (-0.22; -0.38 to -0.07) and sertindole (-0.40; -0.74 to -0.04); and risperidone was more effective than sertindole (-0.32; -0.63 to -0.01). A pattern of superiority for olanzapine, clozapine, and risperidone was seen in other efficacy outcomes, but results were not consistent and effect sizes were usually small. In addition, relatively few RCTs were available for antipsychotics other than clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, and risperidone. The most surprising finding was that clozapine was not significantly better than most other drugs. Conclusions and Relevance Insufficient evidence exists on which antipsychotic is more efficacious for patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and blinded RCTs-in contrast to unblinded, randomized effectiveness studies-provide little evidence of the superiority of clozapine compared with other second-generation antipsychotics. Future clozapine studies with high doses and patients with extremely treatment-refractory schizophrenia might be most promising to change the current evidence.

An Assessment of the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trial Reports Published in Prosthodontic and Implant Dentistry Journals

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS The last 30 issues of 9 journals in the field of prosthodontic and implant dentistry (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, and Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry) were hand-searched for RCTs. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS From the 3,667 articles screened, a total of 147 RCTs were identified and included. The number of published RCTs increased with time. The overall distribution of a high risk of bias assessment varied across the domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool: 8% for random sequence generation, 18% for allocation concealment, 41% for masking, 47% for blinding of outcome assessment, 7% for incomplete outcome data, 12% for selective reporting, and 41% for other biases. CONCLUSION The distribution of high risk of bias for RCTs published in the selected prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals varied among journals and ranged from 8% to 47%, which can be considered as substantial.

Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention (Review)

Background Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy when taken after unprotected intercourse.Obtaining emergency contraception within the recommended time frame is difficult for many women. Advance provision could circumvent some obstacles to timely use. Objectives To summarize randomized controlled trials evaluating advance provision of emergency contraception to explore effects on pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual and contraceptive behaviors. Search strategy In November 2009, we searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, POPLINE,MEDLINE via PubMed, and a specialized emergency contraception article database. We also searched reference lists and contacted experts to identify additional published or unpublished trials. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials comparing advance provision and standard access (i.e., counseling whichmay ormay not have included information about emergency contraception, or provision of emergency contraception on request at a clinic or pharmacy). Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. We entered and analyzed data using RevMan 5.0.23. Main results Eleven randomized controlled trials met our criteria for inclusion, representing 7695 patients in the United States, China, India and Sweden. Advance provision did not decrease pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25 in studies for which we included twelve-month follow-up data; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29 in a study with seven-month follow-up data; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.20 in studies for which we included six-month follow-up data; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.74 in a study with three-month follow-up data), despite reported increased use (single use: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.40; multiple use: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.77 to 9.63) and faster use (weighted mean difference (WMD) -12.98 hours, 95% CI -16.66 to -9.31 hours). Advance provision did not lead to increased rates of sexually transmitted infections (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37), increased frequency of unprotected intercourse, or changes in contraceptive methods.Women who received emergency contraception in advance were equally likely to use condoms as other women. Authors’ conclusions Advance provision of emergency contraception did not reduce pregnancy rates when compared to conventional provision. Results from primary analyses suggest that advance provision does not negatively impact sexual and reproductive health behaviors and outcomes. Women should have easy access to emergency contraception, because it can decrease the chance of pregnancy.However, the interventions tested thus far have not reduced overall pregnancy rates in the populations studied.

A systematic review of treatments for atopic dermatitis

Atopic dermatitis is a very common inflammatory skin disease, particularly in children. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials of treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) was carried out to assess how many trials exist, what they cover, what they do not cover, the research gaps, provide a 'blue print' for future Cochrane Reviews and assist those making treatment recommendations by summarising the available RCT evidence, using descriptive statistics. The Cochrane Collaboration systematic review process formed the basis of the methodology, from which over 4000 studies were located via electronic database searches and hand searching of journals. A total of 292 trials were finally included covering 9 treatment groups and over 48 individual treatments. There are lots of trials covering lots of interventions but gaps are evident. However, there is evidence of a benefit in the treatment of atopic dermatitis with topical corticosteroids, psychological approaches, UV light, ascomycin derivatives, topical tacrolimus and oral cyclosporin. Treatments that show limited evidence of a benefit include non-sedatory antihistamines, topical doxepin, the oral antibiotic Cefadroxil on clinically infected AD, the topical antibacterial Mupirocin on clinically uninfected AD, Chinese herbs, hypnotherapy and biofeedback, massage therapy, dietary manipulation, house dust mite reduction, patient education, emollients, allergen antibody complexes of house dust mite and thymic extracts. Treatments that show no evidence of benefit include sedatory antihistamines, oral sodium cromoglycate, oral antibiotics on clinically uninfected AD, topical antibacterials, topical antifungals, aromatherapy essential oils, borage oil, fish oil, evening primrose oil, enzyme-free clothes detergent, cotton clothing, house dust mite hyposensitisation, salt baths, topical coal tar, topical cyclosporin and platelet-activating-factor antagonist. When interpreting the conclusions of this thesis it is important to understand that lack of evidence does not equal lack of efficacy, particularly considering the interventions that are commonly in use today to treat atopic dermatitis that have not been subjected to RCTs, such as occlusive dressings, water softening devices and stress management among many others.