Methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies: a survey of reviews of basic research

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews can serve as a tool in translation of basic life sciences research from laboratory to human research and healthcare. The extent to which reviews of animal research are systematic and unbiased is not known. METHODS: We searched, without language restrictions, Medline, Embase, bibliographies of known reviews (1996–2004) and contacted experts to identify citations of reviews of basic science literature which, as a minimum, performed search of a publicly available resource. From these we identified reviews of animal studies where laboratory variables were measured or where treatments were administered to live animals to examine their effects, and compared them with reviews of bench studies in which human or animal tissues, cell systems or organ preparations were examined in laboratories to better understand mechanisms of diseases. RESULTS: Systematic reviews of animal studies often lacked methodological features such as specification of a testable hypothesis (9/30, 30%); literature search without language restriction (8/30, 26.6%); assessment of publication bias (5/30, 16.6%), study validity (15/30, 50%) and heterogeneity (10/30, 33.3%); and meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis (12/30, 40%). Compared to reviews of bench studies, they were less prone to bias as they specified the question (96.6% vs. 80%, p = 0.04), searched multiple databases (60% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.01), assessed study quality (50% vs. 20%, p = 0.01), and explored heterogeneity (33.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.001) more often. CONCLUSION: There seems to be a gradient of frequency of methodological weaknesses among reviews: Attempted systematic reviews of whole animal research tend to be better than those of bench studies, though compared to systematic reviews of human clinical trials they are apparently poorer. There is a need for rigour when reviewing animal research

Treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of antiemetics for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is poorly understood. METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to 8.2000) for randomised comparisons of antiemetics with any comparator for the treatment of established PONV. Dichotomous data on prevention of further nausea and vomiting, and on side effects were combined using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: In seven trials (1,267 patients), 11 different antiemetics were tested without placebos; these data were not further analysed. Eighteen trials (3,809) had placebo controls. Dolasetron 12.5–100 mg, granisetron 0.1–3 mg, tropisetron 0.5–5 mg, and ondansetron 1–8 mg prevented further vomiting with little evidence of dose-responsiveness; with all regimens, absolute risk reductions compared with placebo were 20%–30%. The anti-nausea effect was less pronounced. Headache was dose-dependent. Results on propofol were contradictory. The NK(1) antagonist GR205171, isopropyl alcohol vapor, metoclopramide, domperidone, and midazolam were tested in one trial each with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 vomiting surgical patients receiving a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, 20 to 30 will stop vomiting who would not have done so had they received a placebo; less will profit from the anti-nausea effect. There is a lack of evidence for a clinically relevant dose-response; minimal effective doses may be used. There is a discrepancy between the plethora of trials on prevention of PONV and the paucity of trials on treatment of established symptoms. Valid data on the therapeutic efficacy of classic antiemetics, which have been used for decades, are needed

Sources of evidence in HIV/AIDS care: pilot study comparing family physicians and AIDS service organization staff

BACKGROUND: The improvement of the quality of the evidence used in treatment decision-making is especially important in the case of patients with complicated disease processes such as HIV/AIDS for which multiple treatment strategies exist with conflicting reports of efficacy. Little is known about the perceptions of distinct groups of health care workers regarding various sources of evidence and how these influence the clinical decision-making process. Our objective was to investigate how two groups of treatment information providers for people living with HIV/AIDS perceive the importance of various sources of treatment information. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to staff at two local AIDS service organizations and to family physicians at three community health centres treating people living with HIV/AIDS. Participants were asked to rate the importance of 10 different sources of evidence for HIV/AIDS treatment information on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Mean rating scores and relative rankings were compared. RESULTS: Findings suggest that a discordance exists between the two health information provider groups in terms of their perceptions of the various sources of evidence. Furthermore, AIDS service organization staff ranked health care professionals as the most important source of information whereas physicians deemed AIDS service organizations to be relatively unimportant. The two groups appear to share a common mistrust for information from pharmaceutical industries. CONCLUSIONS: Discordance exists between medical "experts" from different backgrounds relating to their perceptions of evidence. Further investigation is warranted in order to reveal any effects on the quality of treatment information and implications in the decision-making process. Possible effects on collaboration and working relationships also warrant further exploration

Sildenafil (Viagra) for male erectile dysfunction: a meta-analysis of clinical trial reports

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of company clinical trial reports could provide information for meta-analysis at the commercial introduction of a new technology. METHODS: Clinical trial reports of sildenafil for erectile dysfunction from September 1997 were used for meta-analysis of randomised trials (at least four weeks duration) and using fixed or dose optimisation regimens. The main outcome sought was an erection, sufficiently rigid for penetration, followed by successful intercourse, and conducted at home. RESULTS: Ten randomised controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria (2123 men given sildenafil and 1131 placebo). NNT or NNH were calculated for important efficacy, adverse event and discontinuation outcomes. Dose optimisation led to at least 60% of attempts at sexual intercourse being successful in 49% of men, compared with 11% with placebo; the NNT was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3 to 3.3). For global improvement in erections the NNT was 1.7 (1.6 to 1.9). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 30% of men on dose optimised sildenafil compared with 11% on placebo; the NNH was 5.4 (4.3 to 7.3). All cause discontinuations were less frequent with sildenafil (10%) than with placebo (20%). Sildenafil dose optimisation gave efficacy equivalent to the highest fixed doses, and adverse events equivalent to the lowest fixed doses. CONCLUSION: This review of clinical trial reports available at the time of licensing agreed with later reviews that had many more trials and patients. Making reports submitted for marketing approval available publicly would provide better information when it was most needed, and would improve evidence-based introduction of new technologies

Rofecoxib for dysmenorrhoea: meta-analysis using individual patient data

BACKGROUND: Individual patient meta-analysis to determine the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose rofecoxib in primary dysmenorrhoea. METHODS: Individual patient information was available from three randomised, double blind, placebo and active controlled trials of rofecoxib. Data were combined through meta-analysis. Number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for at least 50% pain relief and the proportion of patients who had taken rescue medication over 12 hours were calculated. Information was collected on adverse effects. RESULTS: For single-dose rofecoxib 50 mg compared with placebo, the NNTs (with 95% CI) for at least 50% pain relief were 3.2 (2.4 to 4.5) at six, 3.1 (2.4 to 9.0) at eight, and 3.7 (2.8 to 5.6) at 12 hours. For naproxen sodium 550 mg they were 3.1 (2.4 to 4.4) at six, 3.0 (2.3 to 4.2) at eight, and 3.8 (2.7 to 6.1) at 12 hours. The proportion of patients who needed rescue medication within 12 hours was 27% with rofecoxib 50 mg, 29% with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 50% with placebo. In the single-dose trial, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 8% (4/49) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 12% (6/49) with ibuprofen 400 mg, and 6% (3/49) with placebo. In the other two multiple dose trials, the proportion of patients reporting any adverse effect was 23% (42/179) with rofecoxib 50 mg, 24% (45/181) with naproxen sodium 550 mg, and 18% (33/178) with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose rofecoxib 50 mg provided similar pain relief to naproxen sodium 550 mg over 12 hours. The duration of analgesia with rofecoxib 50 mg was similar to that of naproxen sodium 550 mg. Adverse effects were uncommon suggesting safety in short-term use of rofecoxib and naproxen sodium. Future research should include restriction on daily life and absence from work or school as outcomes

A multidisciplinary systematic literature review on frailty: Overview of the methodology used by the Canadian Initiative on Frailty and Aging

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over the past two decades, there has been a substantial growth in the body of literature on frailty in older persons. However, there is no consensus on its definition or the criteria used to identify frailty. In response to this lack of consensus, the Canadian Initiative on Frailty and Aging carried out a set of systematic reviews of the literature in ten areas of frailty research: biological basis; social basis; prevalence; risk factors; impact; identification; prevention and management; environment and technology; health services; health and social policy. This paper describes the methodology that was developed for the systematic reviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A Central Coordination Group (CCG) was responsible for developing the methodology. This involved the development of search strategies and keywords, article selection processes, quality assessment tools, and guidelines for the synthesis of results. Each review was conducted by two experts in the content area, with the assistance of methodologists and statisticians from the CCG.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Conducting a series of systematic literature reviews involving a range of disciplines on a concept that does not have a universally accepted definition posed several conceptual and methodological challenges. The most important conceptual challenge was determining what would qualify as literature on frailty. The methodological challenges arose from our goal of structuring a consistent methodology for reviewing literature from diverse fields of research. At the outset, certain methodological guidelines were deemed essential to ensure the validity of all the reviews. Nevertheless, it was equally important to permit flexibility in the application of the proposed methodology to capture the essence of frailty research within the given fields.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of these reviews allowed us to establish the status of current knowledge on frailty and promote collaboration between disciplines. Conducting systematic literature reviews in health science that involve multiple disciplines is a mechanism to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and a more integrated understanding of health. This initiative highlighted the need for further methodological development in the performance of multidisciplinary systematic reviews.</p

Parathyroid Hormone versus Bisphosphonate Treatment on Bone Mineral Density in Osteoporosis Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates and parathyroid hormone (PTH) represent the antiresorptive and anabolic classes of drugs for osteoporosis treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD) is an essential parameter for the evaluation of anti-osteoporotic drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of PTH versus bisphosphonates on BMD for the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a literature search to identify studies that investigated the effects of PTH versus bisphosphonates treatment on BMD. A total of 7 articles were included in this study, representing data on 944 subjects. The pooled data showed that the percent change of increased BMD in the spine is higher with PTH compared to bisphosphonates (WMD = 5.90, 95% CI: 3.69-8.10, p<0.01,). In the hip, high dose (40 µg) PTH (1-34) showed significantly higher increments of BMD compared to alendronate (femoral neck: WMD = 5.67, 95% CI: 3.47-7.87, p<0.01; total hip: WMD = 2.40, 95%CI: 0.49-4.31, p<0.05). PTH treatment has yielded significantly higher increments than bisphosphonates with a duration of over 12 months (femoral neck: WMD = 5.67, 95% CI: 3.47-7.86, p<0.01; total hip: WMD = 2.40, 95% CI: 0.49-4.31, P<0.05) and significantly lower increments at 12 months (femoral neck: WMD = -1.05, 95% CI: -2.26-0.16, p<0.01; total hip: WMD: -1.69, 95% CI: -3.05-0.34, p<0.05). In the distal radius, a reduction in BMD was significant between PTH and alendronate treatment. (WMD = -3.68, 95% CI: -5.57-1.79, p<0.01). DISCUSSION: Our results demonstrated that PTH significantly increased lumbar spine BMD as compared to treatment with bisphosphonates and PTH treatment induced duration- and dose-dependent increases in hip BMD as compared to bisphosphonates treatment. This study has also disclosed that for the distal radius, BMD was significantly lower from PTH treatment than alendronate treatment

Intravenous magnesium prevents atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of 7 double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) is the most common complication after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The preventive effect of magnesium on POAF is not well known. This meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy of intravenous magnesium on the prevention of POAF after CABG.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of POAF. The meta-analysis was performed with the fixed-effect model or random-effect model according to heterogeneity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seven double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria including 1,028 participants. The pooled results showed that intravenous magnesium reduced the incidence of POAF by 36% (RR 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.83; <it>P </it>= 0.001; with no heterogeneity between trials (heterogeneity <it>P </it>= 0.8, <it>I</it>²= 0%)).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This meta-analysis indicates that intravenous magnesium significantly reduces the incidence of POAF after CABG. This finding encourages the use of intravenous magnesium as an alternative to prevent POAF after CABG. But more high quality randomized clinical trials are still need to confirm the safety.</p

Systematic review on the recurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after a first episode in the recovery room – implications for the treatment of PONV and related clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Despite the presence of a plethora of publications on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) only little is known how to treat established symptoms. Besides the high effort of performing these efficacy trials (much more patients must give their consent than are actually included in a study) and ethical concerns, little is known about the rate of re-occurring PONV/vomiting after placebo. As a consequence investigators will have difficulties defining a clinically relevant effect for the new treatment which is crucial for any planning. A quantitative systematic review was performed in order to provide more reliable estimates of the incidence of re-occurring PONV/vomiting after placebo and to help investigators defining a clinically relevant treatment effect. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed using an extended search strategy of a previous review. Data on the recurrence of PONV (any nausea or emetic symptom) and vomiting (retching or vomiting) was extracted from published reports treating PONV with placebo and unpublished results from two observational trials where no treatment was given. A nonlinear random effects model was used to calculate estimates of the recurrence of symptoms and their 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI). RESULTS: A total of 29 trials (including the unpublished data) were eligible for the calculations. Depending on the length of observation after administering placebo or no treatment the recurrence rate of PONV was between 65% (95%-CI: 53%...75%) and 84% (95%-CI: 73%...91%) and that of vomiting was between 65% (95%-CI: 44%...81%) and 78% (95%-CI: 59%...90%). CONCLUSION: Almost all trials showed a considerable and consistently high rate of recurrence of emetic symptoms after placebo highlighting the need for a consequent antiemetic treatment. Future (placebo) controlled efficacy trials may use the presented empirical estimates for defining clinically relevant effects and for statistical power considerations