Predictors of seizure outcomes in children with tuberous sclerosis complex and intractable epilepsy undergoing resective epilepsy surgery: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to identify preoperative factors associated with a good seizure outcome in children with Tuberous Sclerosis Complex undergoing resective epilepsy surgery.Data sourcesElectronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science), archives of major epilepsy and neurosurgery meetings, and bibliographies of relevant articles, with no language or date restrictions.Study selectionWe included case-control or cohort studies of consecutive participants undergoing resective epilepsy surgery that reported seizure outcomes. We performed title and abstract and full text screening independently and in duplicate. We resolved disagreements through discussion.Data extractionOne author performed data extraction which was verified by a second author using predefined data fields including study quality assessment using a risk of bias instrument we developed. We recorded all preoperative factors that may plausibly predict seizure outcomes.Data synthesisTo identify predictors of a good seizure outcome (i.e. Engel Class I or II) we used logistic regression adjusting for length of follow-up for each preoperative variable.ResultsOf 9863 citations, 20 articles reporting on 181 participants were eligible. Good seizure outcomes were observed in 126 (69%) participants (Engel Class I: 102(56%); Engel class II: 24(13%)). In univariable analyses, absence of generalized seizure semiology (OR = 3.1, 95%CI = 1.2-8.2, p = 0.022), no or mild developmental delay (OR = 7.3, 95%CI = 2.1-24.7, p = 0.001), unifocal ictal scalp electroencephalographic (EEG) abnormality (OR = 3.2, 95%CI = 1.4-7.6, p = 0.008) and EEG/Magnetic resonance imaging concordance (OR = 4.9, 95%CI = 1.8-13.5, p = 0.002) were associated with a good postoperative seizure outcome.ConclusionsSmall retrospective cohort studies are inherently prone to bias, some of which are overcome using individual participant data. The best available evidence suggests four preoperative factors predictive of good seizure outcomes following resective epilepsy surgery. Large long-term prospective multicenter observational studies are required to further evaluate the risk factors identified in this review

What is a disease? Perspectives of the public, health professionals and legislators

Peer reviewe

Incretin treatment and risk of pancreatitis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus : systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised studies

Objective To investigate the risk of pancreatitis associated with the use of incretin-based treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligibility criteria Randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies of treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus compared with placebo, lifestyle modification, or active anti-diabetic drugs. Data collection and analysis Pairs of trained reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. A modified Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials and a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies were used to assess bias. We pooled data from randomised controlled trials using Peto odds ratios, and conducted four prespecified subgroup analyses and a post hoc subgroup analysis. Because of variation in outcome measures and forms of data, we describe the results of observational studies without a pooled analysis. Results 60 studies (n=353 639), consisting of 55 randomised controlled trials (n=33 350) and five observational studies (three retrospective cohort studies, and two case-control studies; n=320 289) were included. Pooled estimates of 55 randomised controlled trials (at low or moderate risk of bias involving 37 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.11%) did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis with incretins versus control (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 2.17). Estimates by type of incretin suggested similar results (1.05 (0.37 to 2.94) for GLP-1 agonists v control; 1.06 (0.46 to 2.45) for DPP-4 inhibitors v control). Analyses according to the type of control, mode, duration of treatment, and individual incretin agents suggested no differential effect by subgroups, and sensitivity analyses by alternative statistical modelling and effect measures did not show important differences in effect estimates. Three retrospective cohort studies (moderate to high risk of bias, involving 1466 pancreatitis events, raw event rate 0.47%) also did not suggest an increased risk of pancreatitis associated with either exenatide (adjusted odds ratios 0.93 (0.63 to 1.36) in one study and 0.9 (0.6 to 1.5) in another) or sitagliptin (adjusted hazard ratio 1.0, 0.7 to 1.3); a case-control study at moderate risk of bias (1003 cases, 4012 controls) also suggested no significant association (adjusted odds ratio 0.98, 0.69 to 1.38). Another case-control study (1269 cases, 1269 controls) at moderate risk of bias, however, suggested that the use of either exenatide or sitagliptin was associated with significantly increased odds of acute pancreatitis (use within two years v no use, adjusted odds ratio 2.07, 1.36 to 3.13). Conclusions The available evidence suggests that the incidence of pancreatitis among patients using incretins is low and that the drugs do not increase the risk of pancreatitis. Current evidence, however, is not definitive, and more carefully designed and conducted observational studies are warranted to definitively establish the extent, if any, of increased risk

Evaluating patient values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis decision making during pregnancy: a study protocol

Peer reviewe

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and risk of heart failure in type 2 diabetes : systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies

Objectives To examine the association between dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the risk of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and observational studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov searched up to 25 June 2015, and communication with experts. Eligibility criteria Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that compared DPP-4 inhibitors against placebo, lifestyle modification, or active antidiabetic drugs in adults with type 2 diabetes, and explicitly reported the outcome of heart failure or hospital admission for heart failure. Data collection and analysis Teams of paired reviewers independently screened for eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data using standardised, pilot tested forms. Data from trials and observational studies were pooled separately; quality of evidence was assessed by the GRADE approach. Results Eligible studies included 43 trials (n=68 775) and 12 observational studies (nine cohort studies, three nested case-control studies; n=1 777 358). Pooling of 38 trials reporting heart failure provided low quality evidence for a possible similar risk of heart failure between DPP-4 inhibitor use versus control (42/15 701 v 33/12 591; odds ratio 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.56); risk difference 2 fewer (19 fewer to 28 more) events per 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes over five years). The observational studies provided effect estimates generally consistent with trial findings, but with very low quality evidence. Pooling of the five trials reporting admission for heart failure provided moderate quality evidence for an increased risk in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors versus control (622/18 554 v 552/18 474; 1.13 (1.00 to 1.26); 8 more (0 more to 16 more)). The pooling of adjusted estimates from observational studies similarly suggested (with very low quality evidence) a possible increased risk of admission for heart failure (adjusted odds ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 2.09) in patients treated with DPP-4 inhibitors (exclusively sitagliptin) versus no use. Conclusions The relative effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on the risk of heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes is uncertain, given the relatively short follow-up and low quality of evidence. Both randomised controlled trials and observational studies, however, suggest that these drugs may increase the risk of hospital admission for heart failure in those patients with existing cardiovascular diseases or multiple risk factors for vascular diseases, compared with no use

Minimally important difference estimates and methods: A protocol

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the outcomes of greatest importance to patients. The minimally important difference (MID) provides a measure of the smallest change in the PRO that patients perceive as important. An anchor-based approach is the most appropriate method for MID determination. No study or database currently exists that provides all anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments; nor are there any accepted standards for appraising the credibility of MID estimates. Our objectives are to complete a systematic survey of the literature to collect and characterise published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments used in evaluating the effects of interventions on chronic medical and psychiatric conditions and to assess their credibility. Methods and analysis: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (1989 to present) to identify studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs of target PRO instruments or reporting empirical ascertainment of anchor-based MIDs. Teams of two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, review full texts of citations, and extract relevant data. On the basis of findings from studies addressing methods to estimate anchor-based MIDs, we will summarise the available methods and develop an instrument addressing the credibility of empirically ascertained MIDs. We will evaluate the credibility of all studies reporting on the empirical ascertainment of anchorbased MIDs using the credibility instrument, and assess the instrument's inter-rater reliability. We will separately present reports for adult and paediatric populations. Ethics and dissemination: No research ethics approval was required as we will be using aggregate data from published studies. Our work will summarise anchor-based methods available to establish MIDs, provide an instrument to assess the credibility of available MIDs, determine the reliability of that instrument, and provide a comprehensive compendium of published anchor-based MIDs associated with PRO instruments which will help improve the interpretability of outcome effects in systematic reviews and practice guidelines

Systematic reviews experience major limitations in reporting absolute effects

Objectives: Expressing treatment effects in relative terms yields larger numbers than expressions in absolute terms, affecting the judgment of the clinicians and patients regarding the treatment options. It is uncertain how authors of systematic reviews (SRs) absolute effect estimates are reported in. We therefore undertook a systematic survey to identify and describe the reporting and methods for calculating absolute effect estimates in SRs. Study Design and Setting: Two reviewers independently screened title, abstract, and full text and extracted data from a sample of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. We used regression analyses to examine the association between study characteristics and the reporting of absolute estimates for the most patient-important outcome. Results: We included 202 SRs (98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane), most of which (92.1%) included standard meta-analyses including relative estimates of effect. Of the 202 SRs, 73 (36.1%) reported absolute effect estimates for the most patient-important outcome. SRs with statistically significant effects were more likely to report absolute estimates (odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 4.74). The most commonly reported absolute estimates were: for each intervention, risk of adverse outcomes expressed as a percentage (41.1%); number needed to treat (26.0%); and risk for each intervention expressed as natural units or natural frequencies (24.7%). In 12.3% of the SRs that reported absolute effect estimates for both benefit and harm outcomes, harm outcomes were reported exclusively as absolute estimates. Exclusively reporting of beneficial outcomes as absolute estimates occurred in 6.8% of the SRs. Conclusions: Most SRs do not report absolute effects. Those that do often report them inadequately, thus requiring users of SRs to generate their own estimates of absolute effects. For any apparently effective or harmful intervention, SR authors should report both absolute and relative estimates to optimize the interpretation of their findings. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe