The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence

The authors would like to thank colleagues at the Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) who, through participating in a series of seminars, contributed with valuable input on the initial draft of the presented approaches. The authors also thank all GRADE Working Group members who have contributed to the paper during group discussions at Grade Working Group meetings. The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, receives core funding from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates. The Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation (OCAY-13-309). SVK is funded by a NRS Scottish Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/13 & MC_UU_12017/15) and Chief Scientist’s Office (SPHSU13 & SPHSU15).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Benefits and harms of direct oral anticoagulation and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery : systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE To systematically compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis on the benefits and harms to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), up to August 2021. REVIEW METHODS Randomised controlled trials in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery were selected, comparing low molecular weight heparin (prophylactic (low) or higher dose) with direct oral anticoagulants or with no active treatment. Main outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism, symptomatic pulmonary embolism, and major bleeding. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for network meta-analyses. Abstracts and full texts were screened independently in duplicate. Data were abstracted on study participants, interventions, and outcomes, and risk of bias was assessed independently in duplicate. Frequentist network meta-analysis with multivariate random effects models provided odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) assessments indicated the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS 68 randomised controlled trials were included (51 orthopaedic, 10 general, four gynaecological, two thoracic, and one urological surgery), involving 45 445 patients. Low dose (odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.67) and high dose (0.19, 0.07 to 0.54) low molecular weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants (0.17, 0.07 to 0.41) reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment, with absolute risk differences of 1-100 per 1000 patients, depending on baseline risks (certainty of evidence, moderate to high). None of the active agents reduced symptomatic pulmonary embolism (certainty of evidence, low to moderate). Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin were associated with a 2-3-fold increase in the odds of major bleeding compared with no active treatment (certainty of evidence, moderate to high), with absolute risk differences as high as 50 per 1000 in patients at high risk. Compared with low dose low molecular weight heparin, high dose low molecular weight heparin did not reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.57, 0.26 to 1.27) but increased major bleeding (1.87, 1.06 to 3.31); direct oral anticoagulants reduced symptomatic venous thromboembolism (0.53, 0.32 to 0.89) and did not increase major bleeding (1.23, 0.89 to 1.69). CONCLUSIONS Direct oral anticoagulants and low molecular weight heparin reduced venous thromboembolism compared with no active treatment but probably increased major bleeding to a similar extent. Direct oral anticoagulants probably prevent symptomatic venous thromboembolism to a greater extent than prophylactic low molecular weight heparin.Peer reviewe

First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PANLAR)

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All preliminary findings were discussed in a second face-to-face meeting in Washington, DC, in November 2016. As a result, nine organ/system sections are presented with the main findings; an 'overarching' treatment approach was added. Special emphasis was made on regional implementation issues. Best pharmacologic options were examined for musculoskeletal, mucocutaneous, kidney, cardiac, pulmonary, neuropsychiatric, haematological manifestations and the antiphospholipid syndrome. The roles of main therapeutic options (ie, glucocorticoids, antimalarials, immunosuppressant agents, therapeutic plasma exchange, belimumab, rituximab, abatacept, low-dose aspirin and anticoagulants) were summarised in each section. In all cases, benefits and harms, certainty of the evidence, values and preferences, feasibility, acceptability and equity issues were considered to produce a recommendation with special focus on ethnic and socioeconomic aspects. Guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus have been developed and could be used in similar settings.Fil: Pons Estel, Bernardo A.. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; ArgentinaFil: Bonfa, Eloisa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Soriano, Enrique R.. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Cardiel, Mario H.. Centro de Investigación Clínica de Morelia; MéxicoFil: Izcovich, Ariel. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Popoff, Federico. Hospital Aleman; ArgentinaFil: Criniti, Juan M.. Hospital Alemán; ArgentinaFil: Vásquez, Gloria. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Massardo, Loreto. Universidad San Sebastián; ChileFil: Duarte, Margarita. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Barile Fabris, Leonor A.. Hospital Angeles del Pedregal; MéxicoFil: García, Mercedes A.. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Hospital de Clínicas General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Amigo, Mary Carmen. Centro Médico Abc; MéxicoFil: Espada, Graciela. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital General de Niños "Ricardo Gutiérrez"; ArgentinaFil: Catoggio, Luis J.. Hospital Italiano. Instituto Universitario. Escuela de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Sato, Emilia Inoue. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Levy, Roger A.. Universidade do Estado de Rio do Janeiro; BrasilFil: Acevedo Vásquez, Eduardo M.. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos; PerúFil: Chacón Díaz, Rosa. Policlínica Méndez Gimón; VenezuelaFil: Galarza Maldonado, Claudio M.. Corporación Médica Monte Sinaí; EcuadorFil: Iglesias Gamarra, Antonio J.. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; ColombiaFil: Molina, José Fernando. Centro Integral de Reumatología; ColombiaFil: Neira, Oscar. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Silva, Clóvis A.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Vargas Peña, Andrea. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Gómez Puerta, José A.. Hospital Clinic Barcelona; EspañaFil: Scolnik, Marina. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Pons Estel, Guillermo J.. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; Argentina. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Ugolini Lopes, Michelle R.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Savio, Verónica. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Drenkard, Cristina. University of Emory; Estados UnidosFil: Alvarellos, Alejandro J.. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Ugarte Gil, Manuel F.. Universidad Cientifica del Sur; Perú. Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen; PerúFil: Babini, Alejandra. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires. Rectorado.; ArgentinaFil: Cavalcanti, André. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Cardoso Linhares, Fernanda Athayde. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Haye Salinas, Maria Jezabel. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Fuentes Silva, Yurilis J.. Universidad de Oriente - Núcleo Bolívar; VenezuelaFil: Montandon De Oliveira E Silva, Ana Carolina. Universidade Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Eraso Garnica, Ruth M.. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: Herrera Uribe, Sebastián. Hospital General de Medellin Luz Castro de Gutiérrez; ColombiaFil: Gómez Martín, DIana. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Robaina Sevrini, Ricardo. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Quintana, Rosana M.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; Argentina. Centro Regional de Enfermedades Autoinmunes y Reumáticas; ArgentinaFil: Gordon, Sergio. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Fragoso Loyo, Hilda. Instituto Nacional de la Nutrición Salvador Zubiran; MéxicoFil: Rosario, Violeta. Hospital Docente Padre Billini; República DominicanaFil: Saurit, Verónica. Hospital Privado Universitario de Córdoba; ArgentinaFil: Appenzeller, Simone. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Dos Reis Neto, Edgard Torres. Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Cieza, Jorge. Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins; PerúFil: González Naranjo, Luis A.. Universidad de Antioquia; ColombiaFil: González Bello, Yelitza C.. Ceibac; MéxicoFil: Collado, María Victoria. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas; ArgentinaFil: Sarano, Judith. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas; ArgentinaFil: Retamozo, Maria Soledad. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud; ArgentinaFil: Sattler, María E.. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital Interzonal de Agudos "Eva Perón"; ArgentinaFil: Gamboa Cárdenas, Rocio V.. Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara Irigoyen; PerúFil: Cairoli, Ernesto. Universidad de la República; UruguayFil: Conti, Silvana M.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Amezcua Guerra, Luis M.. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez; MéxicoFil: Silveira, Luis H.. Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia Ignacio Chavez; MéxicoFil: Borba, Eduardo F.. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Pera, Mariana A.. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Alba Moreyra, Paula B.. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Medicina; ArgentinaFil: Arturi, Valeria. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos General San Martín; ArgentinaFil: Berbotto, Guillermo A.. Provincia de Buenos Aires. Ministerio de Salud. Hospital Interzonal de Agudos "Eva Perón"; ArgentinaFil: Gerling, Cristian. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Gobbi, Carla Andrea. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Medicina; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Gervasoni, Viviana L.. Hospital Provincial de Rosario; ArgentinaFil: Scherbarth, Hugo R.. Hospital Interzonal General de Agudos Dr Oscar Alende. Unidad de Reumatología y Enfermedades Autoinmunes Sistémicas; ArgentinaFil: Brenol, João C. Tavares. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Cavalcanti, Fernando. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco; BrasilFil: Costallat, Lilian T. Lavras. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; BrasilFil: Da Silva, Nilzio A.. Universidade Federal de Goiás; BrasilFil: Monticielo, Odirlei A.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Seguro, Luciana Parente Costa. Universidade de Sao Paulo; BrasilFil: Xavier, Ricardo M.. Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre; BrasilFil: Llanos, Carolina. Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Montúfar Guardado, Rubén A.. Instituto Salvadoreño de la Seguridad Social; El SalvadorFil: Garcia De La Torre, Ignacio. Hospital General de Occidente; MéxicoFil: Pineda, Carlos. Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación; MéxicoFil: Portela Hernández, Margarita. Umae Hospital de Especialidades Centro Medico Nacional Siglo Xxi; MéxicoFil: Danza, Alvaro. Hospital Pasteur Montevideo; UruguayFil: Guibert Toledano, Marlene. Medical-surgical Research Center; CubaFil: Reyes, Gil Llerena. Medical-surgical Research Center; CubaFil: Acosta Colman, Maria Isabel. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Aquino, Alicia M.. Hospital de Clínicas; ParaguayFil: Mora Trujillo, Claudia S.. Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins; PerúFil: Muñoz Louis, Roberto. Hospital Docente Padre Billini; República DominicanaFil: García Valladares, Ignacio. Centro de Estudios de Investigación Básica y Clínica; MéxicoFil: Orozco, María Celeste. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Burgos, Paula I.. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile; ChileFil: Betancur, Graciela V.. Instituto de Rehabilitación Psicofísica; ArgentinaFil: Alarcón, Graciela S.. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia; Perú. University of Alabama at Birmingahm; Estados Unido

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020178187) Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization–specific and COVID-19–specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers

Approche différentielle du sujet âgé en service d’hémato-Oncologie: réflexion à partir d’un cas

In this article, we propose to reconstruct a clinical case in the context of a medical institution taking care of hemato-oncology patients. This reconstruction is shaped by a psychoanalytical and differential approach based on a structural and subjective logic. More specifically, in the case of Mr V, we explore the self-other relationship in paranoia and its implications on the position of the clinician and the caregiving team in the transference process so that the subject may be best supported during the great physical and psychical suffering experienced at the end of life. We show how a differential approach is required from the very onset of the sessions to enable the clinician to be a bearable conversant, even during the radicalization of the paranoiac's approach to the other. We further indicate how a contingent configuration - the worsening of the patient's somatic state - and the appropriate medical response it elicits, constitutes triggers that promote the radicalization of the subject's paranoia. We emphasize both the ethical and operational implications of a differential approach to the subjective logics of oncological patients for whom violent bodily insults as well as death anxieties are daily occurrences. Our discussion highlights how the exploration of such clinical cases enables connecting their constituents with the psychoanalytical concepts developed by Freud and Lacan in the field of psychosis and paranoia and demonstrates both their richness and effectiveness in clinical practice. © 2012 Springer Verlag.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

GRADE approach to rate the certainty from a network meta-analysis: addressing incoherence

This article presents official guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group on how to address incoherence when assessing the certainty in the evidence from network meta-analysis. Incoherence represents important differences between direct and indirect estimates that contribute to a network estimate. Bias due to limitations in study design or publication bias, indirectness, and intransitivity may be responsible for incoherence. Addressing incoherence requires a judgment regarding the importance of the impact on the network estimate. Reviewers need to be alert to the possibility of misguidedly arriving at excessively low ratings of certainty by rating down for both incoherence and other closely related GRADE domains. This article describes and illustrates each of these issues and provides explicit guidance on how to deal with them

First Latin American clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus: Latin American Group for the Study of Lupus (GLADEL, Grupo Latino Americano de Estudio del Lupus)-Pan-American League of Associations of Rheumatology (PAN

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a complex and heterogeneous autoimmune disease, represents a significant challenge for both diagnosis and treatment. Patients with SLE in Latin America face special problems that should be considered when therapeutic guidelines are developed. The objective of the study is to develop clinical practice guidelines for Latin American patients with lupus. Two independent teams (rheumatologists with experience in lupus management and methodologists) had an initial meeting in Panama City, Panama, in April 2016. They selected a list of questions for the clinical problems most commonly seen in Latin American patients with SLE. These were addressed with the best available evidence and summarised in a standardised format following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All prelimi

DOACs vs LMWHs in hospitalized medical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis that informed 2018 ASH guidelines

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a relatively frequent complication in hospitalized patients, especially in those with risk factors. The bene\ufb01t of using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for prevention is controversial. This systematic review was performed as part of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, developed in partnership with McMaster University. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Epistemonikos were used as data sources from date of inception to November 2019. We included randomized trials in patients hospitalized for an acute medical disease, evaluating any DOACs vs other pharmacological prophylaxis, and included 3 trials with low risk of bias. We analyzed the effects of DOACs vs low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) at 2 different time points: at the end of the short-term treatment phase (both drugs given for the same period of time) and at the end of the extended prophylaxis period (extended DOACs vs a shorter course of LMWHs). We observed that the use of DOACs did not reduce the risk of pulmonary embolism or symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in comparison with LMWHs. However, the risk of major bleeding was slightly increased. Additionally, we observed that the bene\ufb01t of DOACs previously reported was largely based on the reduction of asymptomatic DVT and was not apparent when only symptomatic events were considered. The use of DOACs in hospitalized medical patients slightly increases the risk of major bleeding with no appreciable bene\ufb01t over LMWHs