Seatbelt use and risk of major injuries sustained by vehicle occupants during motor-vehicle crashes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

BackgroundIn 2004, a World Health Report on road safety called for enforcement of measures such as seatbelt use, effective at minimizing morbidity and mortality caused by road traffic accidents. However, injuries caused by seatbelt use have also been described. Over a decade after publication of the World Health Report on road safety, this study sought to investigate the relationship between seatbelt use and major injuries in belted compared to unbelted passengers.MethodsCohort studies published in English language from 2005 to 2018 were retrieved from seven databases. Critical appraisal of studies was carried out using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklist. Pooled risk of major injuries was assessed using the random effects meta-analytic model. Heterogeneity was quantified using I-squared and Tau-squared statistics. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to investigate publication bias. This review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015020309).ResultsEleven studies, all carried out in developed countries were included. Overall, the risk of any major injury was significantly lower in belted passengers compared to unbelted passengers (RR 0.47; 95%CI, 0.29 to 0.80; I-2=99.7; P=0.000). When analysed by crash types, belt use significantly reduced the risk of any injury (RR 0.35; 95%CI, 0.24 to 0.52). Seatbelt use reduces the risk of facial injuries (RR=0.56, 95% CI=0.37 to 0.84), abdominal injuries (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.78 to 0.98) and, spinal injuries (RR=0.56, 95% CI=0.37 to 0.84). However, we found no statistically significant difference in risk of head injuries (RR=0.49; 95% CI=0.22 to 1.08), neck injuries (RR=0.69: 95%CI 0.07 to 6.44), thoracic injuries (RR 0.96, 95%CI, 0.74 to 1.24), upper limb injuries (RR=1.05, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.34) and lower limb injuries (RR=0.77, 95%CI 0.58 to 1.04) between belted and non-belted passengers.ConclusionIn sum, the risk of most major road traffic injuries is lower in seatbelt users. Findings were inconclusive regarding seatbelt use and susceptibility to thoracic, head and neck injuries during road traffic accidents. Awareness should be raised about the dangers of inadequate seatbelt use. Future research should aim to assess the effects of seatbelt use on major injuries by crash type

Association between proton pump inhibitor therapy and clostridium difficile infection: a contemporary systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract Introduction Emerging epidemiological evidence suggests that proton pump inhibitor (PPI) acid-suppression therapy is associated with an increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). Methods Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from 1990 to January 2012 for analytical studies that reported an adjusted effect estimate of the association between PPI use and CDI. We performed random-effect meta-analyses. We used the GRADE framework to interpret the findings. Results We identified 47 eligible citations (37 case-control and 14 cohort studies) with corresponding 51 effect estimates. The pooled OR was 1.65, 95% CI (1.47, 1.85), I2 = 89.9%, with evidence of publication bias suggested by a contour funnel plot. A novel regression based method was used to adjust for publication bias and resulted in an adjusted pooled OR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.26–1.83). In a speculative analysis that assumes that this association is based on causality, and based on published baseline CDI incidence, the risk of CDI would be very low in the general population taking PPIs with an estimated NNH of 3925 at 1 year. Conclusions In this rigorously conducted systemic review and meta-analysis, we found very low quality evidence (GRADE class) for an association between PPI use and CDI that does not support a cause-effect relationship

STORIES Statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis

Fully copy of the STORIES statement - a checklist of reporting guidance for health education evidence synthesis Structured approach for Reporting In health education of Evidence Synthesis Background Evidence synthesis techniques in healthcare education have been enhanced through the activities of experts in the field and the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaborative. Despite this, significant heterogeneity in techniques and reporting of healthcare education systematic review still exist and limit the usefulness of such reports. The aim of this project was to produce the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement to offer a guide for reporting evidence synthesis in health education for use by authors and journal editors. Methods A review of existing published evidence synthesis consensus statements was undertaken. A modified Delphi process was used. In stage one, expert participants were asked to state whether common existing items identified were relevant, to suggest relevant texts and specify any items they feel should be included. The results were analysed and a second stage commenced where all synthesised items were presented and participants asked to state whether they should be included or amend as needed. After further analysis, the full statement was sent for final review and comment. Results Nineteen experts participated in the panel from 35 invitations. Thirteen text sources were proposed, six existing items amended and twelve new items synthesised. After stage two, 25 amended consensus items were proposed for inclusion. The final statement contains several items unique to this context, including description of relevant conceptual frameworks or theoretical constructs, description of qualitative methodologies with rationale for their choice and presenting the implications for educators in practice of the results obtained. Conclusions An international expert panel has agreed upon a consensus statement of 25 items for the reporting of evidence synthesis within healthcare education. This unique set of items is focused on context, rather than a specific methodology. This statement can be used for those writing for publication and reviewing such manuscripts to ensure reporting supports and best informs the wider healthcare education community

A systematic review of the relationship between subchondral bone features, pain and structural pathology in peripheral joint osteoarthritis

Introduction: Bone is an integral part of the osteoarthritis (OA) process. We conducted a systematic literature review in order to understand the relationship between non-conventional radiographic imaging of subchondral bone, pain, structural pathology and joint replacement in peripheral joint OA. Methods: A search of the Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases was performed for original articles reporting association between non-conventional radiographic imaging-assessed subchondral bone pathologies and joint replacement, pain or structural progression in knee, hip, hand, ankle and foot OA. Each association was qualitatively characterised by a synthesis of the data from each analysis based upon study design, adequacy of covariate adjustment and quality scoring. Results: In total 2456 abstracts were screened and 139 papers were included (70 cross-sectional, 71 longitudinal analyses; 116 knee, 15 hip, six hand, two ankle and involved 113 MRI, eight DXA, four CT, eight scintigraphic and eight 2D shape analyses). BMLs, osteophytes and bone shape were independently associated with structural progression or joint replacement. BMLs and bone shape were independently associated with longitudinal change in pain and incident frequent knee pain respectively. Conclusion: Subchondral bone features have independent associations with structural progression, pain and joint replacement in peripheral OA in the hip and hand but especially in the knee. For peripheral OA sites other than the knee, there are fewer associations and independent associations of bone pathologies with these important OA outcomes which may reflect fewer studies; for example the foot and ankle were poorly studied. Subchondral OA bone appears to be a relevant therapeutic target. Systematic review: PROSPERO registration number: CRD 4201300500

Worldwide comparison of survival from childhood leukaemia for 1995–2009, by subtype, age, and sex (CONCORD-2): a population-based study of individual data for 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries

Background Global inequalities in access to health care are reflected in differences in cancer survival. The CONCORD programme was designed to assess worldwide differences and trends in population-based cancer survival. In this population-based study, we aimed to estimate survival inequalities globally for several subtypes of childhood leukaemia. Methods Cancer registries participating in CONCORD were asked to submit tumour registrations for all children aged 0-14 years who were diagnosed with leukaemia between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2009, and followed up until Dec 31, 2009. Haematological malignancies were defined by morphology codes in the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third revision. We excluded data from registries from which the data were judged to be less reliable, or included only lymphomas, and data from countries in which data for fewer than ten children were available for analysis. We also excluded records because of a missing date of birth, diagnosis, or last known vital status. We estimated 5-year net survival (ie, the probability of surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis, after controlling for deaths from other causes [background mortality]) for children by calendar period of diagnosis (1995-99, 2000-04, and 2005-09), sex, and age at diagnosis (< 1, 1-4, 5-9, and 10-14 years, inclusive) using appropriate life tables. We estimated age-standardised net survival for international comparison of survival trends for precursor-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Findings We analysed data from 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries. During 1995-99, 5-year agestandardised net survival for all lymphoid leukaemias combined ranged from 10.6% (95% CI 3.1-18.2) in the Chinese registries to 86.8% (81.6-92.0) in Austria. International differences in 5-year survival for childhood leukaemia were still large as recently as 2005-09, when age-standardised survival for lymphoid leukaemias ranged from 52.4% (95% CI 42.8-61.9) in Cali, Colombia, to 91.6% (89.5-93.6) in the German registries, and for AML ranged from 33.3% (18.9-47.7) in Bulgaria to 78.2% (72.0-84.3) in German registries. Survival from precursor-cell ALL was very close to that of all lymphoid leukaemias combined, with similar variation. In most countries, survival from AML improved more than survival from ALL between 2000-04 and 2005-09. Survival for each type of leukaemia varied markedly with age: survival was highest for children aged 1-4 and 5-9 years, and lowest for infants (younger than 1 year). There was no systematic difference in survival between boys and girls. Interpretation Global inequalities in survival from childhood leukaemia have narrowed with time but remain very wide for both ALL and AML. These results provide useful information for health policy makers on the effectiveness of health-care systems and for cancer policy makers to reduce inequalities in childhood survival

Effectiveness of second-generation antipsychotics: a naturalistic, randomized comparison of olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>No clear recommendations exist regarding which antipsychotic drug should be prescribed first for a patient suffering from psychosis. The primary aims of this naturalistic study were to assess the head-to-head effectiveness of first-line second-generation antipsychotics with regards to time until drug discontinuation, duration of index admission, time until readmission, change of psychopathology scores and tolerability outcomes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients ≥ 18 years of age admitted to the emergency ward for symptoms of psychosis were consecutively randomized to risperidone (n = 53), olanzapine (n = 52), quetiapine (n = 50), or ziprasidone (n = 58), and followed for up to 2 years.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 213 patients were included, of which 68% were males. The sample represented a diverse population suffering from psychosis. At admittance the mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score was 74 points and 44% were antipsychotic drug naïve. The primary intention-to-treat analyses revealed no substantial differences between the drugs regarding the times until discontinuation of initial drug, until discharge from index admission, or until readmission. Quetiapine was superior to risperidone and olanzapine in reducing the PANSS total score and the positive subscore. Quetiapine was superior to the other drugs in decreasing the PANSS general psychopathology subscore; in decreasing the Clinical Global Impression - Severity of Illness scale score (CGI-S); and in increasing the Global Assessment of Functioning - Split version, Functions scale score (GAF-F). Ziprasidone was superior to risperidone in decreasing the PANSS positive symptoms subscore and the CGI-S score, and in increasing the GAF-F score. The drugs performed equally with regards to most tolerability outcomes except a higher increase of hip-circumference per day for olanzapine compared to risperidone, and more galactorrhoea for risperidone compared to the other groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Quetiapine appears to be a good starting drug candidate in this sample of patients admitted to hospital for symptoms of psychosis.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID; URL: <url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/</url>: NCT00932529</p

Cardiovascular risk associated with the use of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas: meta-analysis of published observational studies

BACKGROUND: The results of observational studies evaluating and comparing the cardiovascular safety of glitazones, metformin and sufonylureas are inconsistent.To conduct and evaluate heterogeneity in a meta-analysis of observational studies on the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes using non-insulin blood glucose–lowering drugs (NIBGLD). METHODS: We systematically identified and reviewed studies evaluating NIBGLD in patients with type 2 diabetes indexed in Medline, Embase, or the Cochrane Library that met prespecified criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed with the RTI item bank. Results were combined using fixed- and random-effects models, and the Higgins I(2) statistic was used to evaluate heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses by study quality were conducted. RESULTS: The summary relative risk (sRR) (95 % CI) of AMI for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.13 (1.04–1.24) [I(2) = 55 %]. In the sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity was reduced [I(2) = 16 %]. The sRR (95 % CI) of stroke for rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone was 1.18 (1.02–1.36) [I(2) = 42 %]. There was strong evidence of heterogeneity related to study quality in the comparisons of rosiglitazone versus metformin and rosiglitazone versus sulfonylureas (I(2) ≥ 70 %). The sRR (95 % CI) of AMI for sulfonylurea versus metformin was 1.24 (1.14–1.34) [I(2) = 41 %] and for pioglitazone versus metformin was 1.02 (0.75–1.38) [I(2) = 17 %]. Sensitivity analyses decreased heterogeneity in most comparisons. CONCLUSION/INTERPRETATION: Sulfonylureas increased the risk of AMI by 24 % compared with metformin; an imprecise point estimate indicated no difference in risk of AMI when comparing pioglitazone with metformin. The presence of heterogeneity precluded any conclusions on the other comparisons. The quality assessment was valuable in identifying methodological problems in the individual studies and for analysing potential sources of heterogeneity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-016-0187-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO), like many other organisations around the world, has recognised the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the eighth of a series of 16 reviews that have been prepared as background for advice from the WHO Advisory Committee on Health Research to WHO on how to achieve this. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the literature on the synthesis and presentation of research evidence, focusing on four key questions. METHODS: We searched PubMed and three databases of methodological studies for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. We did not conduct systematic reviews ourselves. Our conclusions are based on the available evidence, consideration of what WHO and other organisations are doing and logical arguments. KEY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: We found two reviews of instruments for critically appraising systematic reviews, several studies of the importance of using extensive searches for reviews and determining when it is important to update reviews, and consensus statements about the reporting of reviews that informed our answers to the following questions. How should existing systematic reviews be critically appraised? • Because preparing systematic reviews can take over a year and require capacity and resources, existing reviews should be used when possible and updated, if needed. • Standard criteria, such as A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Reviews (AMSTAR), should be used to critically appraise existing systematic reviews, together with an assessment of the relevance of the review to the questions being asked. When and how should WHO undertake or commission new reviews? • Consideration should be given to undertaking or commissioning a new review whenever a relevant, up-to-date review of good quality is not available. • When time or resources are limited it may be necessary to undertake rapid assessments. The methods that are used to do these assessments should be reported, including important limitations and uncertainties and explicit consideration of the need and urgency of undertaking a full systematic review. • Because WHO has limited capacity for undertaking systematic reviews, reviews will often need to be commissioned when a new review is needed. Consideration should be given to establishing collaborating centres to undertake or support this work, similar to what some national organisations have done. How should the findings of systematic reviews be summarised and presented to committees responsible for making recommendations? • Concise summaries (evidence tables) of the best available evidence for each important outcome, including benefits, harms and costs, should be presented to the groups responsible for making recommendations. These should include an assessment of the quality of the evidence and a summary of the findings for each outcome. • The full systematic reviews, on which the summaries are based, should also be available to both those making recommendations and users of the recommendations. What additional information is needed to inform recommendations and how should this information be synthesised with information about effects and presented to committees? • Additional information that is needed to inform recommendations includes factors that might modify the expected effects, need (prevalence, baseline risk or status), values (the relative importance of key outcomes), costs and the availability of resources. • Any assumptions that are made about values or other factors that may vary from setting to setting should be made explicit. • For global guidelines that are intended to inform decisions in different settings, consideration should be given to using a template to assist the synthesis of information specific to a setting with the global evidence of the effects of the relevant interventions

Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviewers seek to comprehensively search for relevant studies and summarize these to present the most valid estimate of intervention effectiveness. The more resources searched, the higher the yield, and thus time and costs required to conduct a systematic review. While there is an abundance of evidence to suggest how extensive a search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be, it is neither conclusive nor consistent. This systematic review was conducted in order to assess the value of different resources to identify trials for inclusion in systematic reviews. METHODS: Seven electronic databases, four journals and Cochrane Colloquia were searched. Key authors were contacted and references of relevant articles screened. Included studies compared two or more sources to find RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). A checklist was developed and applied to assess quality of reporting. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Medians and ranges for precision and recall were calculated; results were grouped by comparison. Meta-analysis was not performed due to large heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses were conducted for: search strategy (Cochrane, Simple, Complex, Index), expertise of the searcher (Cochrane, librarian, non-librarian), and study design (RCT and CCT). RESULTS: Sixty-four studies representing 13 electronic databases met inclusion criteria. The most common comparisons were MEDLINE vs. handsearching (n = 23), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE+handsearching (n = 13), and MEDLINE vs. reference standard (n = 13). Quality was low, particularly for the reporting of study selection methodology. Overall, recall and precision varied substantially by comparison and ranged from 0 to 100% and 0 to 99%, respectively. The trial registries performed the best with median recall of 89% (range 84, 95) and median precision of 96.5% (96, 97), although these results are based on a small number of studies. Inadequate or inappropriate indexing was the reason most cited for missing studies. Complex and Cochrane search strategies (SS) performed better than Simple SS. CONCLUSION: Multiple-source comprehensive searches are necessary to identify all RCTs for a systematic review, although indexing needs to be improved. Although trial registries demonstrated the highest recall and precision, the Cochrane SS or a Complex SS in consultation with a librarian are recommended. Continued efforts to develop CENTRAL should be supported