Efficacy and Safety of Inhaled Corticosteroids in Patients With COPD: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Health Outcomes

PURPOSE We wanted to review systematically the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of inhaled corticosteroids with respect to health outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Pharmacologic treatments for Alzheimer’s disease include the cholinesterase inhibitors donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine. We reviewed their evidence by searching MEDLINE®, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 through 2007 (July) for placebo-controlled and comparative trials assessing cognition, function, behavior, global change, and safety. Thirty-three articles on 26 studies were included in the review. Meta-analyses of placebo-controlled data support the drugs’ modest overall benefits for stabilizing or slowing decline in cognition, function, behavior, and clinical global change. Three open-label trials and one double-blind randomized trial directly compared donepezil with galantamine and rivastigmine. Results are conflicting; two studies suggest no differences in efficacy between compared drugs, while one study found donepezil to be more efficacious than galantamine, and one study found rivastigmine to be more efficacious than donepezil. Adjusted indirect comparison of placebo-controlled data did not find statistically significant differences among drugs with regard to cognition, but found the relative risk of global response to be better with donepezil and rivastigmine compared with galantamine (relative risk = 1.63 and 1.42, respectively). Indirect comparisons also favored donepezil over galantamine with regard to behavior. Across trials, the incidence of adverse events was generally lowest for donepezil and highest for rivastigmine

Taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes:protocol

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the effects of taxation of sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSBs) on SSB consumption, energy intake, overweight, obesity, and other adverse health outcomes in the general population

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources

Taxation of unprocessed sugar or sugar-added foods for reducing their consumption and preventing obesity or other adverse health outcomes

No abstract available

Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: a metaresearch study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Assessing changes in coverage, recall, review, conclusions and references not found when searching fewer databases. METHODS: In randomly selected 60 Cochrane reviews, we checked included study publications' coverage (indexation) and recall (findability) using different search approaches with MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and related them to authors' conclusions and certainty. We assessed characteristics of unfound references. RESULTS: Overall 1989/2080 included references, were indexed in ≥1 database (coverage = 96%). In reviews where using one of our search approaches would not change conclusions and certainty (n = 44-54), median coverage and recall were highest (range 87.9%-100.0% and 78.2%-93.3%, respectively). Here, searching ≥2 databases reached >95% coverage and ≥87.9% recall. In reviews with unchanged conclusions but less certainty (n = 2-8): 63.3%-79.3% coverage and 45.0%-75.0% recall. In reviews with opposite conclusions (n = 1-3): 63.3%-96.6% and 52.1%-78.7%. In reviews where a conclusion was no longer possible (n = 3-7): 60.6%-86.0% and 20.0%-53.8%. The 265 references that were indexed but unfound were more often abstractless (30% vs. 11%) and older (28% vs. 17% published before 1991) than found references. CONCLUSION: Searching ≥2 databases improves coverage and recall and decreases the risk of missing eligible studies. If researchers suspect that relevant articles are difficult to find, supplementary search methods should be used

Efficacy and tolerability of second-generation antidepressants in social anxiety disorder

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of second-generation antidepressants in social anxiety disorder. Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE®, Embase, The Cochrane Library, PsychLit, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from January 1980 through October 2006. Comparative evidence was summarized and indirect comparisons were made using network meta-analysis. Only three head-to-head trials were identified; comparative trials found only minimal differences in efficacy between escitalopram and paroxetine, and no statistically significant differences in efficacy between extended-release venlafaxine and paroxetine. Pooled evidence from 15 placebo-controlled trials suggests that escitalopram (relative benefit 1.3; 95% CI 1.2 to 1.5), paroxetine (relative benefit 1.9; 95% CI 1.5 to 2.3), sertraline (relative benefit 1.8; 95% CI 1.5 to 2.2), and venlafaxine (relative benefit 1.7; 95% CI 1.5 to 1.9) all produce significantly more responders than placebo; evidence favored fluvoxamine over placebo but was not significant (relative benefit 1.5; 95% CI 0.9 to 2.4). Network meta-analysis did not reveal differences in efficacy among drugs. Overall, fair evidence supports the efficacy of escitalopram, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine in social anxiety disorder. The drugs do not differ in efficacy, although their adverse event profiles do

Differences in Efficacy and Safety of Pharmaceutical Treatments between Men and Women: An Umbrella Review

Being male or female is an important determinant of risks for certain diseases, patterns of illness and life expectancy. Although differences in risks for and prognoses of several diseases have been well documented, sex-based differences in responses to pharmaceutical treatments and accompanying risks of adverse events are less clear. The objective of this umbrella review was to determine whether clinically relevant differences in efficacy and safety of commonly prescribed medications exist between men and women. We retrieved all available systematic reviews of the Oregon Drug Effectiveness Review Project published before January 2010. Two persons independently reviewed each report to identify relevant studies. We dually abstracted data from the original publications into standardized forms. We synthesized the available evidence for each drug class and rated its quality applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Findings, based on 59 studies and data of more than 250,000 patients suggested that for the majority of drugs no substantial differences in efficacy and safety exist between men and women. Some clinically important exceptions, however, were apparent: women experienced substantially lower response rates with newer antiemetics than men (45% vs. 58%; relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.35–1.64); men had higher rates of sexual dysfunction than women while on paroxetine for major depressive disorder; women discontinued lovastatin more frequently than men because of adverse events. Overall, for the majority of drugs sex does not appear to be a factor that has to be taken into consideration when choosing a drug treatment. The available body of evidence, however, was limited in quality and quantity, confining the range and certainty of our conclusions

Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to assess the agreement of treatment effect estimates from meta-analyses based on abbreviated or comprehensive literature searches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING This was a meta-epidemiological study. We abbreviated 47 comprehensive Cochrane review searches and searched MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL alone, in combination, with/without checking references (658 new searches). We compared one meta-analysis from each review with recalculated ones based on abbreviated searches. RESULTS The 47 original meta-analyses included 444 trials (median 6 per review interquartile range (IQR) 3-11) with 360045 participants (median 1,371 per review IQR 685-8,041). Depending on the search approach, abbreviated searches led to identical effect estimates in 34-79{\%} of meta-analyses, to different effect estimates with the same direction and level of statistical significance in 15-51{\%}, and to opposite effects (or effects could not be estimated anymore) in 6-13{\%}. The deviation of effect sizes was zero in 50{\%} of the meta-analyses and in 75{\%} not larger than 1.07-fold. Effect estimates of abbreviated searches were not consistently smaller or larger (median ratio of odds ratio 1 IQR 1-1.01) but more imprecise (1.02-1.06-fold larger standard errors). CONCLUSION Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur