The demise of the randomised controlled trial: bibliometric study of the German-language health care literature, 1948 to 2004

BACKGROUND: In order to reduce systematic errors (such as language bias) and increase the precision of the summary treatment effect estimate, a comprehensive identification of randomised controlled trials (RCT), irrespective of publication language, is crucial in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We identified trials in the German general health care literature. METHODS: Eight German language general health care journals were searched for randomised controlled trials and analysed with respect to the number of published RCTs each year and the size of trials. RESULTS: A total of 1618 trials were identified with a median total number of 43 patients per trial. Between 1970 and 2004 a small but constant rise in sample size from a median number of 30 to 60 patients per trial can be observed. The number of published trials was very low between 1948 and 1970, but increased between 1970 and 1986 to a maximum of 11.2 RCTs per journal and year. In the following time period a striking decline of the number of RCTs was observed. Between 1999 and 2001 only 0.8 RCTs per journal and year were published, in the next three years, the number of published trials increased to 1.7 RCTs per journal and year. CONCLUSION: German language general health care journals no longer have a role in the dissemination of trial results. The slight rise in the number of published RCTs in the last three years can be explained by a change of publication language from German to English of three of the analysed journals

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

First-Line Matched Related Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Compared to Immunosuppressive Therapy in Acquired Severe Aplastic Anemia

INTRODUCTION: Acquired severe aplastic anemia (SAA) is a rare and progressive disease characterized by an immune-mediated functional impairment of hematopoietic stem cells. Transplantation of these cells is a first-line treatment option if HLA-matched related donors are available. First-line immunosuppressive therapy may be offered as alternative. The aim was to compare the outcome of these patients in controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. To show an overview of various outcomes by treatment group we conducted a meta-analysis on overall survival. We evaluated whether studies reported statistically significant factors for improved survival. RESULTS: 26 non-randomized controlled trials (7,955 patients enrolled from 1970 to 2001) were identified. We did not identify any RCTs. Risk of bias was high except in 4 studies. Young age and recent year of treatment were identified as factors for improved survival in the HSCT group. Advanced age, SAA without very severe aplastic anemia, and combination of anti-lymphocyte globulin with cyclosporine A were factors for improved survival in the IST group. In 19 studies (4,855 patients), summary statistics were sufficient to be included in meta-analysis. Considerable heterogeneity did not justify a pooled estimate. Adverse events were inconsistently reported and varied significantly across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Young age and recent year of treatment were identified as factors for improved survival in the transplant group. Advanced age, SAA without very severe aplastic anemia, and combination of anti-lymphocyte globulin with cyclosporine A were factors for improved survival in the immunosuppressive group. Considerable heterogeneity of non-randomized controlled studies did not justify a pooled estimate. Adverse events were inconsistently reported and varied significantly across studies

High-Dose Chemotherapy Followed by Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Metastatic Rhabdomyosarcoma—A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION: Patients with metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) have a poor prognosis. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate whether high-dose chemotherapy (HDCT) followed by autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with metastatic RMS has additional benefit or harm compared to standard chemotherapy. METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from inception to February 2010. PubMed was searched in June 2010 for a last update. In addition to randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, case series and case reports were included to complement results from scant data. The primary outcome was overall survival. A meta-analysis was performed using the hazard ratio as primary effect measure, which was estimated from Cox proportional hazard models or from summary statistics of Kaplan Meier product-limit estimations. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies with 287 transplant patients with metastatic RMS (age range 0 to 32 years) were included in the assessment. We identified 3 non-randomized controlled trials. The 3-year overall survival ranged from 22% to 53% in the transplant groups vs. 18% to 55% in the control groups. Meta-analysis on overall survival in controlled trials showed no difference between treatments. Result of meta-analysis of pooled individual survival data of case series and case reports, and results from uncontrolled studies with aggregate data were in the range of those from controlled data. The risk of bias was high in all studies due to methodological flaws. CONCLUSIONS: HDCT followed by autologous HSCT in patients with RMS remains an experimental treatment. At present, it does not appear justifiable to use this treatment except in appropriately designed controlled trials

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p