Effect of lower sodium intake on health: systematic review and meta-analyses

Objective To assess the effect of decreased sodium intake on blood pressure, related cardiovascular diseases, and potential adverse effects such as changes in blood lipids, catecholamine levels, and renal function. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Latin American and Caribbean health science literature database, and the reference lists of previous reviews. Study selection Randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies in non-acutely ill adults and children assessing the relations between sodium intake and blood pressure, renal function, blood lipids, and catecholamine levels, and in non-acutely ill adults all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Study appraisal and synthesis Potential studies were screened independently and in duplicate and study characteristics and outcomes extracted. When possible we conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the effect of lower sodium intake using the inverse variance method and a random effects model. We present results as mean differences or risk ratios, with 95% confidence intervals. Results We included 14 cohort studies and five randomised controlled trials reporting all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, stroke, or coronary heart disease; and 37 randomised controlled trials measuring blood pressure, renal function, blood lipids, and catecholamine levels in adults. Nine controlled trials and one cohort study in children reporting on blood pressure were also included. In adults a reduction in sodium intake significantly reduced resting systolic blood pressure by 3.39 mm Hg (95% confidence interval 2.46 to 4.31) and resting diastolic blood pressure by 1.54 mm Hg (0.98 to 2.11). When sodium intake was 0.05). There were insufficient randomised controlled trials to assess the effects of reduced sodium intake on mortality and morbidity. The associations in cohort studies between sodium intake and all cause mortality, incident fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease, and coronary heart disease were non-significant (P>0.05). Increased sodium intake was associated with an increased risk of stroke (risk ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.43), stroke mortality (1.63, 1.27 to 2.10), and coronary heart disease mortality (1.32, 1.13 to 1.53). In children, a reduction in sodium intake significantly reduced systolic blood pressure by 0.84 mm Hg (0.25 to 1.43) and diastolic blood pressure by 0.87 mm Hg (0.14 to 1.60). Conclusions High quality evidence in non-acutely ill adults shows that reduced sodium intake reduces blood pressure and has no adverse effect on blood lipids, catecholamine levels, or renal function, and moderate quality evidence in children shows that a reduction in sodium intake reduces blood pressure. Lower sodium intake is also associated with a reduced risk of stroke and fatal coronary heart disease in adults. The totality of evidence suggests that most people will likely benefit from reducing sodium intake

Tamoxifen for the management of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Tamoxifen has emerged as a potential management option for gynecomastia and breast pain due to non-steroidal antiandrogens, and it is considered an alternative to surgery or radiotherapy. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the benefits and harms of tamoxifen, in comparison to other treatment options, for either the prophylaxis or treatment of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens in prostate cancer patients. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists, the abstracts of three major conferences and three trial registers to identify ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently screened the articles identified, assessed the trial quality and extracted data. The protocol was prospectively registered (CRD42011001320; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). RESULTS: Four studies were identified. Tamoxifen significantly reduced the risk of suffering from gynecomastia (risk ratio 9RR0 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.22) or breast pain (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17) at six months compared to untreated controls. Tamoxifen also showed a significant benefit for the prevention of gynecomastia (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.58) and breast pain (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.64) when compared to anastrozole after a median of 12 months. One study showed a significant benefit of tamoxifen for the prevention of gynecomastia (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.65) and breast pain (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.65) when compared with radiotherapy at six months. Radiotherapy increased the risk of suffering from nipple erythema and skin irritation, but there were no significant differences for any other adverse events (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The currently available evidence suggests good efficacy of tamoxifen for the prevention and treatment of breast events induced by non-steroidal antiandrogens. The impact of tamoxifen therapy on long-term adverse events, disease progression and survival remains unclear. Further large, well-designed RCTs, including long-term follow-ups, are warranted. Also, the optimal dose needs to be clarified

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted

Musical and vocal interventions to improve neurodevelopmental outcomes for preterm infants

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: We will assess the overall efficacy of auditory stimulation for physiological and neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation), compared to standard care. In addition, we will determine specific effects of various musical and vocal interventions for physiological, anthropometrical, social‐emotional, neurodevelopmental short‐ and long‐term outcomes in preterm infants, parental well‐being, and bonding

Reporting of eligibility criteria of randomised trials: cohort study comparing trial protocols with subsequent articles

Objective To determine whether and how eligibility criteria of participants prespecified in protocols of randomised trials are reported in subsequent articles

PRECEPT: an evidence assessment framework for infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control

Decisions in public health should be based on the best available evidence, reviewed and appraised using a rigorous and transparent methodology. The Project on a Framework for Rating Evidence in Public Health (PRECEPT) defined a methodology for evaluating and grading evidence in infectious disease epidemiology, prevention and control that takes different domains and question types into consideration. The methodology rates evidence in four domains: disease burden, risk factors, diagnostics and intervention. The framework guiding it has four steps going from overarching questions to an evidence statement. In step 1, approaches for identifying relevant key areas and developing specific questions to guide systematic evidence searches are described. In step 2, methodological guidance for conducting systematic reviews is provided; 15 study quality appraisal tools are proposed and an algorithm is given for matching a given study design with a tool. In step 3, a standardised evidence-grading scheme using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group (GRADE) methodology is provided, whereby findings are documented in evidence profiles. Step 4 consists of preparing a narrative evidence summary. Users of this framework should be able to evaluate and grade scientific evidence from the four domains in a transparent and reproducible way.Funding Agencies|European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) [2012/040, 2014/008]</p

Using GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks to support the process of health policy-making

BACKGROUND: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks are well-known tools that enable guideline panels to structure the process of developing recommendations and making decisions in healthcare and public health. To date, they have not regularly been used for health policy-making. This article aims to illustrate the application of the GRADE EtD frameworks in the process of nutrition-related policy-making for a European country. METHODS: Based on methodological guidance by the GRADE Working Group and the findings of our recently published scoping review, we illustrate the process of moving from evidence to recommendations, by applying the EtD frameworks to a fictitious example. Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxation based on energy density was chosen as an example application. RESULTS: A fictitious guideline panel was convened by a national nutrition association to develop a population-level recommendation on SSB taxation aiming to reduce the burden of overweight and obesity. Exemplary evidence was summarized for each EtD criterion and conclusions were drawn based on all judgements made in relation to each criterion. As a result of the high priority to reduce the burden of obesity and because of the moderate desirable effects on health outcomes, but considering scarce or varying research evidence for other EtD criteria, the panel made a conditional recommendation for SSB taxation. Decision-makers may opt for conducting a pilot study prior to implementing the policy on a national level. CONCLUSIONS: GRADE EtD frameworks can be used by guideline panels to make the process of developing recommendations in the field of health policy more systematic, transparent and comprehensible

Patients’ self‐reported physical and psychological effects of opioid use in chronic noncancer pain—A retrospective cross‐sectional analysis

Background: Strong opioids can have unintended effects. Clinical studies of strong opioids mainly report physical side effects, psychiatric or opioid use disorders. To date, too little attention has been paid to the psychological effects of opioids to treat patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This study aims to identify and measure (i) the nature and frequency of physical and psychological effects and (ii) the degree of physician counseling of patients with CNCP taking strong opioids. Methods: Within a cross-sectional survey-conducted as part of a randomised controlled online intervention trial (ERONA [Experiencing the risk of overusing opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care])-300 German CNCP patients were surveyed via patient-reported outcome measures regarding on both the side effects from their use of strong opioids as well as their counselling experience. Results: Among the patients' reported effects, the psychological outcomes of the opioids in CNCP were: feeling relaxed (84%), fatigue (76%), dizziness (57%), listlessness (37%), difficulty with mental activities (23%), dulled emotions (17%) and poor memory (17%). Ninety-two per cent of the patients reported having received information about opioid effects, and 46% had discussed cessation of the opioid medication with their physicians before commencing the prescription. Conclusions: In addition to the well-known physical side effects, patients with CNCP taking strong opioids experience significant psychological effects. In view of these effects, discontinuation of opioid therapy should be discussed early to ensure their benefits do not outweigh their harm. Significance: In this study, patients with non-cancer pain notice that opioids they have taken do not only cause physical side effects but also may have an impact on their psyche and their emotions and, thus, may also affect quality of life substantially. Clinical trial number: DRKS00020358

Health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity: the protocol for an evidence map

Introduction: Interaction of conditions and treatments, complicated care needs and substantial treatment burden make patient–physician encounters involving multimorbid older patients highly complex. To optimally integrate patients’ preferences, define and prioritise realistic treatment goals and individualise care, a patient-centred approach is recommended. However, the preferences of older patients, who are especially vulnerable and frequently multimorbid, have not been systematically investigated with regard to their health status. The purpose of this evidence map is to explore current research addressing health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity, and to identify the knowledge clusters and research gaps. Methods and analysis: To identify relevant research, we will conduct searches in the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL, Social Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index Expanded and the Cochrane library from their inception. We will check reference lists of relevant articles and carry out cited reference research (forward citation tracking). Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, check full texts for eligibility and extract the data. Any disagreement will be resolved and consensus reached with the help of a third reviewer. We will include both qualitative and quantitative studies, and address preferences from the patients’ perspectives in a multimorbid population of 60 years or older. There will be no restrictions on the publication language. Data extraction tables will present study and patient characteristics, aim of study, methods used to identify preferences and outcomes (ie, type of preferences). We will summarise the data using tables and figures (ie, bubble plot) to present the research landscape and to describe clusters and gaps. Ethics and dissemination: Due to the nature of the proposed evidence map, ethics approval will not be required. Results from our research will be disseminated by means of specifically prepared materials for patients, at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals

An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries

CITATION: Rehfuess, Eva A., et al. 2016. An approach for setting evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities in low- and middle-income countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94:297–305, doi:10.2471/BLT.15.162966.The original publication is available at http://www.who.int/bulletin/en/ENGLISH SUMMARY : To derive evidence-based and stakeholder-informed research priorities for implementation in African settings, the international research consortium Collaboration for Evidence-Based Healthcare and Public Health in Africa (CEBHA+) developed and applied a pragmatic approach. First, an online survey and face-to-face consultation between CEBHA+ partners and policy-makers generated priority research areas. Second, evidence maps for these priority research areas identified gaps and related priority research questions. Finally, study protocols were developed for inclusion within a grant proposal. Policy and practice representatives were involved throughout the process. Tuberculosis, diabetes, hypertension and road traffic injuries were selected as priority research areas. Evidence maps covered screening and models of care for diabetes and hypertension, population-level prevention of diabetes and hypertension and their risk factors, and prevention and management of road traffic injuries. Analysis of these maps yielded three priority research questions on hypertension and diabetes and one on road traffic injuries. The four resulting study protocols employ a broad range of primary and secondary research methods; a fifth promotes an integrated methodological approach across all research activities. The CEBHA+ approach, in particular evidence mapping, helped to formulate research questions and study protocols that would be owned by African partners, fill gaps in the evidence base, address policy and practice needs and be feasible given the existing research infrastructure and expertise. The consortium believes that the continuous involvement of decision-makers throughout the research process is an important means of ensuring that studies are relevant to the African context and that findings are rapidly implemented.http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/4/15-162966-ab/en/Publisher's versio