Overview de revisões sistemáticas - um novo tipo de estudo: parte I: por que e para quem?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Healthcare decision-making is complex and should involve healthcare professionals, patients and the best level of evidence. The speed of information production creates barriers against keeping up to date. In this light, methodologists have proposed a new type of study: overviews of systematic reviews (OoRs). The aim here was to introduce and demonstrate the role of OoRs in information synthesis for healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Time-series study conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, jointly with the Postgraduate Program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo. METHODS: To show the growth in the numbers of published papers that provide high-level evidence and thus demonstrate the importance of OoRs for synthesis and integration of information, three filters for study designs were applied to two databases. An equation for predicting the expected number of published papers was developed and applied. RESULTS: Over the present decade, the number of randomized controlled trials in Medline might reach 2,863,203 and the number of systematic reviews might reach 174,262. Nine OoRs and 15 OoRs protocols have been published in the Cochrane Library. CONCLUSIONS: With the exponential growth of published papers, as shown in this study, a new type of study directed especially towards healthcare decision-makers was proposed, named overview of systematic reviews. This could reduce the uncertainties in decision-making and generate a new hierarchy in the pyramid of evidence.CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: A tomada de decisão em saúde é complexa e deve envolver o profissional de saúde, o paciente e a evidência de melhor nível. A velocidade de geração da informação cria barreiras para manter-se atualizado. Diante disso, metodologistas propuseram um novo tipo de estudo, as overviews de revisões sistemáticas (OoRs). O objetivo é introduzir e demonstrar o papel das OoRs na síntese de informações para profissionais da área da saúde, gestores, pesquisadores e pacientes. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Estudo de série temporal realizado no Centro Cochrane do Brasil, em conjunto com o Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina Interna e Terapêutica da Disciplina de Medicina de Urgência e Medicina Baseada em Evidências do Departamento de Medicina da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP). MÉTODOS: Para mostrar o crescimento das publicações que fornecem evidência com alto nível e assim justificar a importância das OoRs na síntese e integração das informações, três filtros para desenhos de estudos foram aplicados em duas bases de dados. Uma equação de predição do número esperado de publicações foi desenvolvida e aplicada. RESULTADOS: Na presente década, o número de ensaios clínicos randomizados no Medline poderá chegar a 2.863.203 e o número de revisões sistemáticas poderá chegar a 174.262. Nove OoRs e 15 protocolos de OoRs foram publicados na Biblioteca Cochrane. CONCLUSÕES: Com o crescimento exponencial das publicações, demonstrado neste estudo, um novo tipo de estudo, direcionado especialmente aos decisores em saúde, foi proposto, a OoRs, o qual poderá reduzir incertezas para a tomada de decisão e gerar uma nova hierarquia na pirâmide de evidências.Federal University of São Paulo Program on Internal Medicine and TherapeuticsBrazilian Cochrane CentreBrazilian Cochrane Centre Itapeva Social and Agrarian Sciences CollegeEPM-UNIFESPFederal University of São PauloUNIFESP, Program on Internal Medicine and TherapeuticsEPM-UNIFESPSciEL

Exercise interventions for shoulder dysfunction in patients treated for head and neck cancer

BackgroundShoulder dysfunction is a common problem in patients treated for head and neck cancer. Both neck dissections and radiotherapy can cause morbidity to the shoulder joint. Exercise interventions have been suggested as a treatment option for this population.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of exercise interventions for the treatment of shoulder dysfunction caused by the treatment of head and neck cancer.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane ENT Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; BIOSIS Previews; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ISRCTN and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. the date of the search was 7 July 2011.Selection criteriaRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any type of exercise therapy compared with any other intervention in patients with shoulder dysfunction due to treatment of head and neck cancer.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data from studies. We contacted study authors for information not provided in the published articles.Main resultsThree trials involving 104 people were included. We classified one study as having low risk of bias; the others had some limitations and we classified them as having high risk of bias.Two studies (one with low risk of bias and the other with high risk of bias) applied progressive resistance training (PRT) combined with range of motion exercises and stretching; the comparison group received standard care. Pooled data demonstrated that PRT can improve shoulder pain (mean difference (MD) -6.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.20 to -0.31) and shoulder disability (MD - 8.48; 95% CI -15.07 to -1.88), both measured using the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) (range 0 to 100). Similarly, secondary outcomes were also improved: active range of motion for external rotation (MD 14.51 degrees; 95% CI 7.87 to 21.14), passive range of motion for abduction (MD 7.65 degrees; 95% CI 0.64 to 14.66), forward flexion (MD 6.20 degrees; 95% CI 0.69 to 11.71), external rotation (MD 7.17 degrees; 95% CI 2.20 to 12.14) and horizontal abduction (MD 7.34 degrees; 95% CI 2.86 to 11.83). Strength and resistance of scapular muscles was assessed in one study and the results showed a statistically significant benefit of PRT. the studies did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in quality of life. Only two non-serious adverse events were described in the PRT group compared with none in the standard care group.One study with high risk of bias used a broad spectrum of techniques including free active exercises, stretching and postural care for a period of three months following surgery. This study did not demonstrate a difference between the exercise group and routine postoperative physiotherapy care in shoulder function and quality of life, but serious methodological limitations could explain this. No serious adverse events were reported.Authors' conclusionsLimited evidence from two RCTs demonstrated that PRT is more effective than standard physiotherapy treatment for shoulder dysfunction in patients treated for head and neck cancer, improving pain, disability and range of motion of the shoulder joint, but it does not improve quality of life. However, although statistically significant the measured benefits of the intervention may be small. Other exercise regimes were not shown to be effective compared to routine postoperative physiotherapy. Further studies which apply other exercise interventions in head and neck cancer patients in the early postoperative and radiotherapy period are needed, with long-term follow-up.Muriae Canc Hosp, Dept Physiotherapy, Muriae, MG, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazilian Cochrane Ctr, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazilian Cochrane Ctr, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc

Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study: part I: why and for whom? Overview de revisões sistemáticas - um novo tipo de estudo: parte I: por que e para quem?

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Healthcare decision-making is complex and should involve healthcare professionals, patients and the best level of evidence. The speed of information production creates barriers against keeping up to date. In this light, methodologists have proposed a new type of study: overviews of systematic reviews (OoRs). The aim here was to introduce and demonstrate the role of OoRs in information synthesis for healthcare professionals, managers, researchers and patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Time-series study conducted at the Brazilian Cochrane Center, jointly with the Postgraduate Program on Internal Medicine and Therapeutics, Discipline of Emergency Medicine and Evidence-Based Medicine, Department of Medicine, Federal University of São Paulo. METHODS: To show the growth in the numbers of published papers that provide high-level evidence and thus demonstrate the importance of OoRs for synthesis and integration of information, three filters for study designs were applied to two databases. An equation for predicting the expected number of published papers was developed and applied. RESULTS: Over the present decade, the number of randomized controlled trials in Medline might reach 2,863,203 and the number of systematic reviews might reach 174,262. Nine OoRs and 15 OoRs protocols have been published in the Cochrane Library. CONCLUSIONS: With the exponential growth of published papers, as shown in this study, a new type of study directed especially towards healthcare decision-makers was proposed, named "overview of systematic reviews". This could reduce the uncertainties in decision-making and generate a new hierarchy in the pyramid of evidence.<br>CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: A tomada de decisão em saúde é complexa e deve envolver o profissional de saúde, o paciente e a evidência de melhor nível. A velocidade de geração da informação cria barreiras para manter-se atualizado. Diante disso, metodologistas propuseram um novo tipo de estudo, as overviews de revisões sistemáticas (OoRs). O objetivo é introduzir e demonstrar o papel das OoRs na síntese de informações para profissionais da área da saúde, gestores, pesquisadores e pacientes. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Estudo de série temporal realizado no Centro Cochrane do Brasil, em conjunto com o Programa de Pós-Graduação em Medicina Interna e Terapêutica da Disciplina de Medicina de Urgência e Medicina Baseada em Evidências do Departamento de Medicina da Universidade Federal de São Paulo. MÉTODOS: Para mostrar o crescimento das publicações que fornecem evidência com alto nível e assim justificar a importância das OoRs na síntese e integração das informações, três filtros para desenhos de estudos foram aplicados em duas bases de dados. Uma equação de predição do número esperado de publicações foi desenvolvida e aplicada. RESULTADOS: Na presente década, o número de ensaios clínicos randomizados no Medline poderá chegar a 2.863.203 e o número de revisões sistemáticas poderá chegar a 174.262. Nove OoRs e 15 protocolos de OoRs foram publicados na Biblioteca Cochrane. CONCLUSÕES: Com o crescimento exponencial das publicações, demonstrado neste estudo, um novo tipo de estudo, direcionado especialmente aos decisores em saúde, foi proposto, a OoRs, o qual poderá reduzir incertezas para a tomada de decisão e gerar uma nova hierarquia na pirâmide de evidências

Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published.DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at a research center.METHODS: The OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work.RESULTS: All 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months.CONCLUSION: The OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making