Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary study selection between systematic reviews is inconsistent, and reviews on the same topic may reach different conclusions. Our main objective was to compare systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) regarding their agreement in primary study selection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis was conducted within the framework of a systematic review (a full review and a subsequent rapid report) on NPWT prepared by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).</p> <p>For the IQWiG review and rapid report, 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) were searched to identify systematic reviews and primary studies on NPWT versus conventional wound therapy in patients with acute or chronic wounds. All databases were searched from inception to December 2006.</p> <p>For the present analysis, reviews on NPWT were classified as eligible systematic reviews if multiple sources were systematically searched and the search strategy was documented. To ensure comparability between reviews, only reviews published in or after December 2004 and only studies published before June 2004 were considered.</p> <p>Eligible reviews were compared in respect of the methodology applied and the selection of primary studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 5 systematic reviews (including the IQWiG review) and 16 primary studies were analysed. The reviews included between 4 and 13 primary studies published before June 2004. Two reviews considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Three reviews considered both RCTs and non-RCTs. The overall agreement in study selection between reviews was 96% for RCTs (24 of 25 options) and 57% for non-RCTs (12 of 21 options). Due to considerable disagreement in the citation and selection of non-RCTs, we contacted the review authors for clarification (this was not initially planned); all authors or institutions responded. According to published information and the additional information provided, most differences between reviews arose from variations in inclusion criteria or inter-author study classification, as well as from different reporting styles (citation or non-citation) for excluded studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The citation and selection of primary studies differ between systematic reviews on NPWT, particularly with regard to non-RCTs. Uniform methodological and reporting standards need to be applied to ensure comparability between reviews as well as the validity of their conclusions.</p

Role of CCL3L1-CCR5 Genotypes in the Epidemic Spread of HIV-1 and Evaluation of Vaccine Efficacy

Polymorphisms in CCR5, the major coreceptor for HIV, and CCL3L1, a potent CCR5 ligand and HIV-suppressive chemokine, are determinants of HIV-AIDS susceptibility. Here, we mathematically modeled the potential impact of these genetic factors on the epidemic spread of HIV, as well as on its prevention.Ro, the basic reproductive number, is a fundamental concept in explaining the emergence and persistence of epidemics. By modeling sexual transmission among HIV+/HIV- partner pairs, we find that Ro estimates, and concordantly, the temporal and spatial patterns of HIV outgrowth are highly dependent on the infecting partners' CCL3L1-CCR5 genotype. Ro was least and highest when the infected partner possessed protective and detrimental CCL3L1-CCR5 genotypes, respectively. The modeling data indicate that in populations such as Pygmies with a high CCL3L1 gene dose and protective CCR5 genotypes, the spread of HIV might be minimal. Additionally, Pc, the critical vaccination proportion, an estimate of the fraction of the population that must be vaccinated successfully to eradicate an epidemic was <1 only when the infected partner had a protective CCL3L1-CCR5 genotype. Since in practice Pc cannot be >1, to prevent epidemic spread, population groups defined by specific CCL3L1-CCR5 genotypes might require repeated vaccination, or as our models suggest, a vaccine with an efficacy of >70%. Further, failure to account for CCL3L1-CCR5-based genetic risk might confound estimates of vaccine efficacy. For example, in a modeled trial of 500 subjects, misallocation of CCL3L1-CCR5 genotype of only 25 (5%) subjects between placebo and vaccine arms results in a relative error of approximately 12% from the true vaccine efficacy.CCL3L1-CCR5 genotypes may impact on the dynamics of the HIV epidemic and, consequently, the observed heterogeneous global distribution of HIV infection. As Ro is lowest when the infecting partner has beneficial CCL3L1-CCR5 genotypes, we infer that therapeutic vaccines directed towards reducing the infectivity of the host may play a role in halting epidemic spread. Further, CCL3L1-CCR5 genotype may provide critical guidance for optimizing the design and evaluation of HIV-1 vaccine trials and prevention programs