Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) emerged as a promising test in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combined MRI/MRSI in prostate cancer and to explore risk profiles with highest benefit. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The authors searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library, and the authors screened reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in August 2008. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 31 test-accuracy studies (1765 patients); 16 studies (17 populations) with a total of 581 patients were suitable for meta-analysis. Nine combined MRI/MRSI studies (10 populations) examining men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer (297 patients; 1518 specimens) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity on prostate subpart level of 68% (95% CI, 56-78%) and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%), respectively. Compared with patients at high risk for clinically relevant cancer (six studies), sensitivity was lower in low-risk patients (four studies) (58% [46-69%] vs 74% [58-85%]; p>0.05) but higher for specificity (91% [86-94%] vs 78% [70-84%]; p<0.01). Seven studies examining patients with suspected prostate cancer at combined MRI/MRSI (284 patients) had an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity on patients level of 82% (59-94%) and 88% (80-95%). In the low-risk group (five studies) these values were 75% (39-93%) and 91% (77-97%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of small studies suggest that MRI combined with MRSI could be a rule-in test for low-risk patients. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies and cost-effectiveness needs to be established.

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.

Critical appraisal of meta-analyses: an introductory guide for the practicing surgeon

ABSTRACT: Meta-analyses are an essential tool of clinical research. Meta-analyses of individual randomized controlled trials frequently constitute the highest possible level of scientific evidence for a given research question and allow surgeons to rapidly gain a comprehensive understanding of an important clinical issue. Moreover, meta-analyses often serve as cornerstones for evidence-based surgery, treatment guidelines, and knowledge transfer. Given the importance of meta-analyses to the medical (and surgical) knowledge base, it is of cardinal importance that surgeons have a basic grasp of the principles that guide a high-quality meta-analysis, and be able to weigh objectively the advantages and potential pitfalls of this clinical research tool. Unfortunately, surgeons are often ill-prepared to successfully conduct, critically appraise, and correctly interpret meta-analyses. The objective of this educational review is to provide surgeons with a brief introductory overview of the knowledge and skills required for understanding and critically appraising surgical meta-analyses as well as assessing their implications for their own surgical practice.

Efficacy pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis

Background: Clinical trials and meta-analyses have produced conflicting results of the efficacy of unconjugated pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in adults. We sought to evaluate the vaccine’s efficacy on clinical outcomes as well as the methodologic quality of the trials. Methods: We searched several databases and all bibliographies of reviews and meta-analyses for clinical trials that compared pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine with a control. We examined rates of pneumonia and death, taking the methodologic quality of the trials into consideration. Results: We included 22 trials involving 101 507 participants: 11 trials reported on presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia, 19 on all-cause pneumonia and 12 on allcause mortality. The current 23-valent vaccine was used in 8 trials. The relative risk (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.96) for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia and 0.73 (95% CI 0.56–0.94) for all-cause pneumonia. There was significant heterogeneity between the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia (I2 = 74%, p < 0.001) and between those reporting on all-cause pneumonia (I2 = 90%, p < 0.001). The RR for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% CI 0.87–1.09), with moderate heterogeneity between trials (I2 = 44%, p = 0.053). Trial quality, especially regarding double blinding, explained a substantial proportion of the heterogeneity in the trials reporting on presumptive pneumonia and all-cause pneumonia. There was little evidence of vaccine protection in trials of higher methodologic quality (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.75–1.92, for presumptive pneumonia; and 1.19, 95% CI 0.95–1.49, for allcause pneumonia in double-blind trials; p for heterogeneity > 0.05). The results for all-cause mortality in double-blind trials were similar to those in all trials combined. There was little evidence of vaccine protection among elderly patients or adults with chronic illness in analyses of all trials (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78–1.38, for presumptive pneumococcal pneumonia; 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.14, for all-cause pneumonia; and 1.00, 95% CI 0.87–1.14, for all-cause mortality). Interpretation: Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended.