The number of patients and events required to limit the risk of overestimation of intervention effects in meta-analysis--a simulation study

Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis

BACKGROUND

Myelofibrosis is a bone marrow disorder characterized by excessive production of reticulin and collagen fiber deposition caused by hematological and non-hematological disorders. The prognosis of myelofibrosis is poor and treatment is mainly palliative. Janus kinase inhibitors are a novel strategy to treat people with myelofibrosis.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical benefits and harms of Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors for treating myelofibrosis secondary to hematological or non-hematological conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946 to 13 November 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 12 January 2013), and LILACS (from 1982 to 20 November 2014). We searched WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and The metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We also searched for conference proceedings of the American Society of Hematology (from 2009 to October 2013), European Hematology Association (from 2009 to October 2013), American Society of Clinical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013), and European Society of Medical Oncology (from 2009 to October 2013). We included searches in FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Epistemonikos. We handsearched the references of all identified included trials, and relevant review articles. We did not apply any language restrictions. Two review authors independently screened search results.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized clinical trials comparing Janus kinase-1 and Janus kinase-2 inhibitors with placebo or other treatments. Both previously treated and treatment naive patients were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for overall survival, progression-free survival and leukemia-free survival, risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI for reduction in spleen size and adverse events binary data, and standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous data (health-related quality of life). Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. Primary outcomes were overall survival, progression-free survival and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials involving 528 participants, comparing ruxolitinib with placebo or best available therapy (BAT). As the two included trials had different comparators we did not pool the data. The confidence in the results estimates of these trials was low due to the bias in their design, and their limited sample sizes that resulted in imprecise results.There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on survival when compared with placebo at 51 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.98) and compared with BAT at 48 weeks of follow-up (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.47). Similarly there was very low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib on progression free survival compared with BAT (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.39).There is low quality evidence for the effect of ruxolitinib in terms of quality of life. Compared with placebo, the drug achieved a greater proportion of patients with a significant reduction of symptom scores (RR 8.82, 95% CI 4.40 to 17.69), and treated patients with ruxolitinib obtained greater MFSAF scores at the end of follow-up (MD -87.90, 95% CI -139.58 to -36.22). An additional trial showed significant differences in EORTC QLQ-C30 scores when compared ruxolitinib with best available therapy (MD 7.60, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.85).The effect of ruxolitinib on reduction in the spleen size of participants compared with placebo or BAT was uncertain (versus placebo: RR 64.58, 95% CI 9.08 to 459.56, low quality evidence; versus BAT: RR 41.78, 95% CI 2.61 to 669.75, low quality evidence).There is low quality evidence for the effect of the drug compared with placebo on anemia (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41), neutropenia (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.55) and thrombocytopenia (RR 9.74, 95% CI 2.32 to 40.96). Ruxolitinib did not result in differences versus BAT in the risk of anemia (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.99, low quality evidence) or thrombocytopenia (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.44 to 3.28, low quality evidence). The risk of non-hematologic grade 3 or 4 adverse events (including fatigue, arthralgia, nausea, diarrhea, extremity pain and pyrexia) was similar when ruxolitinib was compared with placebo or BAT. The rate of neutropenia comparing ruxolitinib with standard medical treatment was not reported by the trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to allow any conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib for treating myelofibrosis. The findings of this Cochrane review should be interpreted with caution as they are based on trials sponsored by industry, and include a small number of patients. Unless powered randomized clinical trials provide strong evidence of a treatment effect, and the trade-off between potential benefits and harms is established, clinicians should be cautious when administering ruxolitinib for treating patients with myelofibrosis.

Complete Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization for ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

Background—

The 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines for patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction gives a class III indication for nonculprit artery percutaneous coronary intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, driven by data from observational studies. However, more recent trials suggest otherwise.

Methods and Results—

We conducted PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL searches for randomized trials comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Safety outcomes were contrast-induced nephropathy, contrast volume used, and procedure time. Five trials with 1165 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Complete revascularization (68% during index percutaneous coronary intervention) was associated with significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (rate ratio =0.48; 95% confidence interval =0.37–0.61), death (rate ratio =0.60; 95% confidence interval =0.38–0.97), cardiovascular death (rate ratio =0.38, 95% confidence interval =0.20–0.73), and repeat revascularization (rate ratio =0.42; 95% confidence interval =0.31–0.57) when compared with culprit-only revascularization. However, trial sequential analyses (similar to interim analysis of a randomized trial) powered for a 25% relative reduction showed firm evidence (cumulative z-curve crossed the monitoring boundary) only for major adverse cardiovascular events driven by a decrease in repeat revascularization with no firm evidence for reduction in death and myocardial infarction. Moreover, there was a significant increase in contrast volume use (mean difference 85.12 [70.41–83.00] ml) and procedure time (mean difference 16.42 [13.22–19.63] mins) with complete revascularization without increase in contrast-induced nephropathy.

Conclusions—

In patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, immediate or staged complete revascularization results in significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events driven largely by reduction in repeat revascularization with no firm evidence for the reduction in death or myocardial infarction when compared with culprit-only revascularization.

Impact of small study bias on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and value of information analyses

It is well known that small, randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have limited validity. When comparing the results of meta-analyses with those of later large trials or with those of large trials removed from the meta-analyses, discrepancies were reported. This paper addresses two issues: (1) how measures of the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness, i.e., cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs), and the expected value of perfect information (EVPI) are affected by the limited validity of small trials and (2) how to deal with this bias. To this end, the paper adopts a Bayesian approach. Using empirical estimates for the validity of small RCTs compared to larger RCTs, the probability of cost-effectiveness drops by almost 10 %, while the EVPI is three times higher. In conclusion, traditional CEACs and EVPI analyses based on (small) RCTs may need careful appraisal. Ignoring prior evidence on the validity of small-size trials leads to an underestimation of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. For future economic analyses, it is important to incorporate aspects of uncertainty which are caused by flawed data on effectiveness .

Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease, Parkinson's disease dementia, and dementia with Lewy bodies: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVE

Recently, several large randomised controlled trials about the treatments of cognitive impairment or dementia due to Parkinson's disease (CIND-PD or PDD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) were completed. Here, we systematically reviewed the studies (including the recent reports) to provide updated evidence for the treatments of CIND-PD, PDD and DLB.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialised Register, Pubmed, Embase, and other sources for eligible trials. We selected global impression and cognitive function as primary efficacy outcomes, and dropouts and adverse events as safety outcomes. Furthermore, Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used here.

RESULTS

Ten trials were included in this study. Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine produced small global efficacy on clinicians' global impression of change (CGIC), from a weighted mean difference of -0.40 (95% CI -0.77 to -0.03) to -0.65 (95% CI -1.28 to -0.01); however, cholinesterase inhibitors but not memantine significantly improved cognition on Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), from 1.04 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.65) to 2.57 (95% CI 0.90 to 4.23). Additionally, both of them had good safety outcomes, although rivastigmine showed an increased risk on adverse events than placebo (risk ratio, RR 1.19, TSA adjusted 95% CI 1.04 to 1.36), these events were usually mild or moderate, and the risk disappeared on serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine slightly improve global impression; however, only cholinesterase inhibitors enhance cognitive function. Besides, all the drugs have good safety outcomes. But the limited trials precluded the generalisation of these outcomes.

Clarithromycin for stable coronary heart disease increases all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and cerebrovascular morbidity over 10years in the CLARICOR randomised, blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The CLARICOR trial reported that clarithromycin compared with placebo increased all-cause mortality in patients with stable coronary heart disease. This study investigates the effects of clarithromycin versus placebo during 10years follow up.

METHODS

The CLARICOR trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled trial including 4373 patients with stable coronary heart disease. The interventions were 2weeks of clarithromycin 500mg a day versus placebo. 10year follow up was performed through Danish public registers and analysed with Cox regression.

RESULTS

Clarithromycin increased all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.00-1.21) and cerebrovascular disease during 10years (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02-1.38). The increased mortality and morbidity were restricted to patients not on statin at entry (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.31, and HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.03-1.50). The assumption of constant HR during the 10years was violated for cardiovascular death (P=0.01) and cardiovascular death outside hospital (P<0.0005). Analyses of the effects over time showed that clarithromycin increased cardiovascular mortality during the first three years (HR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.09-1.84) due to increased cardiovascular mortality outside hospital in patients not on statin (HR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.60-3.50). During the last 4years, cardiovascular death outside hospital was lower in the clarithromycin group (HR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.88).

CONCLUSION

Clarithromycin increased mortality due to cardiovascular death outside hospital and cerebrovascular morbidity in patients with stable coronary heart disease who were not on statin. The increased cardiovascular mortality was years later compensated, likely through frailty attrition.

Procedure-related risk of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS) based on a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and The Cochrane Library (2000-2014) was performed to review relevant citations reporting procedure-related complications of amniocentesis and CVS. Only studies reporting data on more than 1000 procedures were included in this review to minimize the effect of bias from smaller studies. Heterogeneity between studies was estimated using Cochran's Q, the I(2) statistic and Egger bias. Meta-analysis of proportions was used to derive weighted pooled estimates for the risk of miscarriage before 24 weeks' gestation. Incidence-rate difference meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled procedure-related risks.

RESULTS

The weighted pooled risks of miscarriage following invasive procedures were estimated from analysis of controlled studies including 324 losses in 42 716 women who underwent amniocentesis and 207 losses in 8899 women who underwent CVS. The risk of miscarriage prior to 24 weeks in women who underwent amniocentesis and CVS was 0.81% (95% CI, 0.58-1.08%) and 2.18% (95% CI, 1.61-2.82%), respectively. The background rates of miscarriage in women from the control group that did not undergo any procedures were 0.67% (95% CI, 0.46-0.91%) for amniocentesis and 1.79% (95% CI, 0.61-3.58%) for CVS. The weighted pooled procedure-related risks of miscarriage for amniocentesis and CVS were 0.11% (95% CI, -0.04 to 0.26%) and 0.22% (95% CI, -0.71 to 1.16%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The procedure-related risks of miscarriage following amniocentesis and CVS are much lower than are currently quoted.

Constraint-induced movement therapy: trial sequential analysis applied to Cochrane collaboration systematic review results

BACKGROUND

Trial sequential analysis (TSA) may establish when firm evidence about the efficacy of interventions is reached in a cumulative meta-analysis, combining a required information size with adjusted thresholds for conservative statistical significance. Our aim was to demonstrate TSA results on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in a Cochrane systematic review on the effectiveness of constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) for stroke patients.

METHODS

We extracted data on the functional independence measure (FIM) and the action research arm test (ARAT) from RCTs that compared CIMT versus other rehabilitative techniques. Mean differences (MD) were analyzed using a random-effects model. We calculated the information size and the cumulative Z-statistic, applying the O'Brien-Fleming monitoring boundaries.

RESULTS

We included data from 14 RCTs. In the conventional meta-analysis (seven trials, 233 patients), the effect of CIMT on FIM was reported as significant (MD 2.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.68; P = 0.04). The diversity-adjusted required information size was 142 patients, and the cumulative Z-score did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit (adjusted 95% CI -0.02 to 5.78). The effect of CIMT on ARAT (nine trials, 199 patients) was reported as significant (MD 7.78, 95% CI 1.19 to 14.37; P = 0.02). However, the diversity-adjusted required information size was 252 patients, and the Z-score did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit (adjusted 95% CI -0.06 to 15.62).

CONCLUSIONS

Although conventional meta-analyses of CIMT reached statistical significance, their overall results remain inconclusive and might be spurious. Researchers should not be overconfident on CIMT efficacy based on the results of meta-analyses and derived recommendations.

Effect of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In anesthetized patients undergoing surgery, the role of lung-protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes is unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of this ventilation strategy on postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases from inception through September 2014. We included RCTs that compared protective ventilation with lower tidal volumes and conventional ventilation with higher tidal volumes in anesthetized adults undergoing surgery. We pooled outcomes using a random-effects model. The primary outcome measures were lung injury and pulmonary infection.

RESULTS

We included 19 trials (n=1348). Compared with patients in the control group, those who received lung-protective ventilation had a decreased risk of lung injury (risk ratio [RR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17 to 0.78; I2=0%) and pulmonary infection (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83; I2=8%), and higher levels of arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (standardized mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; I2=65%). No significant differences were observed between the patient groups in atelectasis, mortality, length of hospital stay, length of stay in the intensive care unit or the ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen.

INTERPRETATION

Anesthetized patients who received ventilation with lower tidal volumes during surgery had a lower risk of lung injury and pulmonary infection than those given conventional ventilation with higher tidal volumes. Implementation of a lung-protective ventilation strategy with lower tidal volumes may lower the incidence of these outcomes.

Thresholds for statistical and clinical significance in systematic reviews with meta-analytic methods

BACKGROUND

Thresholds for statistical significance when assessing meta-analysis results are being insufficiently demonstrated by traditional 95% confidence intervals and P-values. Assessment of intervention effects in systematic reviews with meta-analysis deserves greater rigour.

METHODS

Methodologies for assessing statistical and clinical significance of intervention effects in systematic reviews were considered. Balancing simplicity and comprehensiveness, an operational procedure was developed, based mainly on The Cochrane Collaboration methodology and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines.

RESULTS

We propose an eight-step procedure for better validation of meta-analytic results in systematic reviews (1) Obtain the 95% confidence intervals and the P-values from both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses and report the most conservative results as the main results. (2) Explore the reasons behind substantial statistical heterogeneity using subgroup and sensitivity analyses (see step 6). (3) To take account of problems with multiplicity adjust the thresholds for significance according to the number of primary outcomes. (4) Calculate required information sizes (≈ the a priori required number of participants for a meta-analysis to be conclusive) for all outcomes and analyse each outcome with trial sequential analysis. Report whether the trial sequential monitoring boundaries for benefit, harm, or futility are crossed. (5) Calculate Bayes factors for all primary outcomes. (6) Use subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the potential impact of bias on the review results. (7) Assess the risk of publication bias. (8) Assess the clinical significance of the statistically significant review results.

CONCLUSIONS

If followed, the proposed eight-step procedure will increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in systematic reviews of randomised clinical trials.

Eculizumab for treating patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

BACKGROUND

Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) is a chronic, not malignant, disease of the hematopoietic stem cells, associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is a rare disease with an estimated incidence of 1.3 new cases per one million individuals per year. The treatment of PNH has been largely empirical and symptomatic, with blood transfusions, anticoagulation, and supplementation with folic acid or iron. Eculizumab, a biological agent that inhibits complement cascade, was developed for preventing hemolytic anemia and severe thrombotic episodes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical benefits and harms of eculizumab for treating patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search strategy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 5), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946 to 15 May 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 25 June 2014), and LILACS (from 1982 to 25 June 2014). We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) irrespective of their publication status or language. No limits were applied with respect to period of follow-up. We excluded quasi-RCTs. We included trials comparing eculizumab with placebo or best available therapy. We included any patient with a confirmed diagnosis of PNH. Primary outcome was overall survival.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently performed a duplicate selection of eligible trials, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used a random-effects model for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one multicenter (34 sites) phase III RCT involving 87 participants. The trial compared eculizumab versus placebo, and was conducted in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia with 26 weeks of follow-up. This small trial had high risk of bias in many domains (attrition and selective reporting). It was sponsored by a pharmaceutical company. No patients died during the study. By using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (scores can range from 0 to 100, with higher scores on the global health status and functioning scales indicating improvement), the trial showed improvement in health-related quality of life in patients treated with eculizumab (mean difference (MD) 19.4, 95% CI 8.25 to 30.55; P = 0.0007; low quality of evidence). By using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue instrument (scores can range from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating improvement in fatigue), the trial showed a reduction in fatigue (MD 10.4, 95% CI 9.97 to 10.83; P = 0.00001; moderate quality of evidence) in the eculizumab group compared with placebo. Eculizumab compared with placebo showed a greater proportion of patients with transfusion independence: 51% (22/43) versus 0% (0/44); risk ratio (RR) 46.02, 95% CI 2.88 to 735.53; P = 0.007; moderate quality of evidence; and withdrawal for any reason: 4.7% (2/43) versus 22.72% (10/44); RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.88; P = 0.03; moderate quality of evidence. Due to the low rate of events observed, the included trial did not show any difference between eculizumab and placebo in terms of serious adverse events: 9.3% (4/43) versus 20.4% (9/44); RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.37; P = 0.16; low quality of evidence. We did not observe any difference between intervention and placebo for the most frequent adverse events. One participant receiving placebo showed an episode of thrombosis. The trial did not assess overall survival, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, or development or recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review has detected an absence of evidence for eculizumab compared with placebo for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), in terms of overall survival, nonfatal thrombotic events, transformation to myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myelogenous leukemia, and development and recurrence of aplastic anemia on treatment. Current evidence indicates that compared with placebo, eculizumab increases health-related quality of life and increases transfusion independence. During the execution of the included trial, no patients died. Furthermore, the intervention seems to reduce fatigue and withdrawals for any reason. The safety profile of eculizumab is unclear. These conclusions are based on one small trial with risk of attrition and selective reporting bias.Therefore, prescription of eculizumab for treating patients with PNH can neither be supported nor rejected, unless new evidence from a large high quality trial alters this conclusion. Therefore, we urge the reader to interpret the trial results with much caution. Future trials on this issue should be conducted according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement by independent investigators, and using the Foundation of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research recommendations.

Detailed statistical analysis plan for the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT)

BACKGROUND

Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialized palliative care (SPC) could offer improvements. The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. DanPaCT is a multicenter, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomization. The planned sample size was 300 patients. The primary data collection for DanPaCT is finished. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for DanPaCT here.

RESULTS

This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the statistical analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT. The primary outcome is the change in the patient's 'primary need'. The 'primary need' is a patient-individualised outcome representing the score of the symptom or problem that had the highest intensity out of seven at baseline assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes are the seven scales that are represented in the primary outcome, but each scale evaluated individually for all patients, and survival. The detailed description includes chosen significance levels, models for multiple imputations, sensitivity analyses and blinding. In addition, we discuss the patient-individualized primary outcome, blinding, missing data, multiplicity and the risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with metastatic cancer from a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01348048 (May 2011).

Different loading times for dental implants - no clinically important differences?

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, and Embase databases were searched. Reference lists of identified articles were also scanned for relevant papers. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel group design and of split-mouth design including root-form osseointegrated dental implants having a follow-up of four months to one year after loading were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by at least two review authors. The outcome measures were prosthesis and implant failures and radiographic marginal bone level changes. Risk of bias was assessed for each trial by at least two review authors. Results were combined using fixed-effect models with mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-six trials involving a total of 1217 participants and 2120 implants were included. The risk of bias was low in three trials, high in 12 and unclear for the remaining eleven. In nine studies there were no prosthetic failures within the first year, with no implant failures in seven studies and the mean rate of implant failure in all 26 trials was a low 2.5%. From 15 RCTs comparing immediate with conventional loading there was no evidence of a difference in either prosthesis failure (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.70 to 5.01; 8 trials) or implant failure (RR 1.65; 95% CI 0.68 to 3.98; 10 trials) in the first year. However, there is some evidence of a small reduction in bone loss favouring immediate loading (MD -0.10 mm; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01; P = 0.03; 9 trials), but this very small difference may not be clinically important. From three RCTs which compared early loading with conventional loading, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. Six RCTs compared immediate and early loading and found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. From the two trials that compared occlusal loading with non-occlusal loading there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a clinically important difference in the outcomes of prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. No trials were identified which evaluated progressive loading of implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall there was no convincing evidence of a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss associated with different loading times of implants. More well-designed RCTs are needed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines.

Prevention of generalized tonic-clonic seizures in refractory focal epilepsy: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Secondary generalized tonic-clonic seizures (SGTCS) are among the most severe forms of seizures, and the main risk factor for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP). Whether some antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) might be more efficacious than others on SGTCS in patients with drug-resistant focal epilepsy thus represents an important clinical issue for which no data are currently available.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of adjunctive AED in which information on efficacy outcomes (i.e., responder rate and/or frequency per 28 days relative to baseline) were available both for all seizure types and for SGTCS. The primary analysis evaluated the efficacy of AEDs on all types of seizure and on SGTCS by comparing the responder rates for AED and for placebo.

RESULTS

Responder rate was available both for all seizure types and for SGTCS in 13 of the 72 eligible trials, evaluating 7 AEDs. Only three AEDs--lacosamide, perampanel and topiramate--showed greater efficacy than placebo. However, confidence intervals of relative risks overlapped for all AEDs but pregabalin, which demonstrated significantly lower efficacy than lacosamide, perampanel, and topiramate. Moreover, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a lower relative risk of responder rate for SGTCS than for all seizure types, which appeared related to a greater response to placebo for this outcome.

SIGNIFICANCE

Indirect comparison of AEDs using randomized placebo-controlled add-on trials does not support robust differences between AEDs to prevent SGTCS. Alternative designs for evaluation of therapeutic interventions in patients at risk for SGTCS-related complications are required.

Targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control for type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of targeting intensive versus conventional glycaemic control in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and LILACS to January 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials that prespecified different targets of glycaemic control in participants at any age with type 1 diabetes mellitus were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data.

RESULTS

18 randomised clinical trials included 2254 participants with type 1 diabetes mellitus. All trials had high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of targeting intensive glycaemic control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio 1.16, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.08) or cardiovascular mortality (0.49, 0.19 to 1.24). Targeting intensive glycaemic control reduced the relative risks for the composite macrovascular outcome (0.63, 0.41 to 0.96; p=0.03), and nephropathy (0.37, 0.27 to 0.50; p<0.00001. The effect estimates of retinopathy, ketoacidosis and retinal photocoagulation were not consistently statistically significant between random and fixed effects models. The risk of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly increased with intensive glycaemic targets (1.40, 1.01 to 1.94). Trial sequential analyses showed that the amount of data needed to demonstrate a relative risk reduction of 10% were, in general, inadequate.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant effect towards improved all-cause mortality when targeting intensive glycaemic control compared with conventional glycaemic control. However, there may be beneficial effects of targeting intensive glycaemic control on the composite macrovascular outcome and on nephropathy, and detrimental effects on severe hypoglycaemia. Notably, the data for retinopathy and ketoacidosis were inconsistent. There was a severe lack of reporting on patient relevant outcomes, and all trials had poor bias control.

More ethical and more efficient clinical research: multiplex trial design

Background

Today’s clinical research faces challenges such as a lack of clinical equipoise between treatment arms, reluctance in randomizing for multiple treatments simultaneously, inability to address interactions and increasingly restricted resources. Furthermore, many trials are biased by extensive exclusion criteria, relatively small sample size and less appropriate outcome measures.

Findings

We propose a ‘Multiplex’ trial design that preserves clinical equipoise with a continuous and factorial trial design that will also result in more efficient use of resources. This multiplex design accommodates subtrials with appropriate choice of treatment arms within each subtrial. Clinical equipoise should increase consent rates while the factorial design is the best way to identify interactions.

Conclusion

The multiplex design may evolve naturally from today’s research limitations and challenges, while principal objections seem absent. However this new design poses important infrastructural, organisational and psychological challenges that need in depth consideration.

Observational studies using propensity score analysis underestimated the effect sizes in critical care medicine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Propensity score (PS) analysis has been increasingly used in critical care medicine; however, its validation has not been systematically investigated. The present study aimed to compare effect sizes in PS-based observational studies vs. randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (or meta-analysis of RCTs).

METHODS

Critical care observational studies using PS were systematically searched in PubMed from inception to April 2013. Identified PS-based studies were matched to one or more RCTs in terms of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome. The effect sizes of experimental treatments were compared for PS-based studies vs. RCTs (or meta-analysis of RCTs) with sign test. Furthermore, ratio of odds ratio (ROR) was calculated from the interaction term of treatment × study type in a logistic regression model. A ROR < 1 indicates greater benefit for experimental treatment in RCTs compared with PS-based studies. RORs of each comparison were pooled by using meta-analytic approach with random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 20 PS-based studies were identified and matched to RCTs. Twelve of the 20 comparisons showed greater beneficial effect for experimental treatment in RCTs than that in PS-based studies (sign test P = 0.503). The difference was statistically significant in four comparisons. ROR can be calculated from 13 comparisons, of which four showed significantly greater beneficial effect for experimental treatment in RCTs. The pooled ROR was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63, 0.79; P = 0.002), suggesting that RCTs (or meta-analysis of RCTs) were more likely to report beneficial effect for the experimental treatment than PS-based studies. The result remained unchanged in sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.

CONCLUSION

In critical care literature, PS-based observational study is likely to report less beneficial effect of experimental treatment compared with RCTs (or meta-analysis of RCTs).

Holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection in patients with benign prostate hyperplasia: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

Holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) in surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) potentially offers advantages over transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP).

Methods

Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Library up to October 10, 2013 (updated on February 5, 2014). After methodological quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was performed using STATA 12.0 and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) 0.9 software.

Results

Fifteen studies including 8 RCTs involving 855 patients met the criteria. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) efficacy indicators: there was no significant difference in quality of life between the two groups (P>0.05), but compared with the TURP group, Qmax was better at 3 months and 12 months, PVR was less at 6, 12 months, and IPSS was lower at 12 months in the HoLEP, b) safety indicators: compared with the TURP, HoLEP had less blood transfusion (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47), but there was no significant difference in early and late postoperative complications (P>0.05), and c) perioperative indicators: HoLEP was associated with longer operation time (WMD 14.19 min, 95% CI 6.30 to 22.08 min), shorter catheterization time (WMD −19.97 h, 95% CI −24.24 to −15.70 h) and hospital stay (WMD −25.25 h, 95% CI −29.81 to −20.68 h).

Conclusions

In conventional meta-analyses, there is no clinically relevant difference in early and late postoperative complications between the two techniques, but HoLEP is preferable due to advantage in the curative effect, less blood transfusion rate, shorter catheterization duration time and hospital stay. However, trial sequential analysis does not allow us to draw any solid conclusion in overall clinical benefit comparison between the two approaches. Further large, well-designed, multicentre/international RCTs with long-term data and the comparison between the two approaches remain open.

Sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend metformin as the first-line oral treatment for type 2 diabetes. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether the use of second- and third-generation sulfonylurea agents is associated with benefits and harms in terms of patient-important outcomes compared with metformin.

METHODS

We searched several electronic databases and other sources for randomized clinical trials published to August 2011. We included trials that compared sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy among patients 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes and that had an intervention period of at least 24 weeks. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data related to interventions and outcomes. The risk of random errors was assessed by trial sequential analysis.

RESULTS

We included 14 trials (4560 participants). All trials were judged to be at high risk of bias. Data on patient-important outcomes were sparse. Compared with metformin, sulfonylurea did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.58) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01). Sulfonylurea significantly decreased the risk of nonfatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93). However, the definition of this outcome varied among trials, and trial sequential analysis showed that more trials are needed before reliable conclusions can be drawn. No differences between sulfonylurea and metformin were found for change in fasting blood glucose level or glycosylated hemoglobin concentration in the random-effects model. Sulfonylurea resulted in greater weight gain compared with metformin, a finding confirmed in the trial sequential analysis. Significantly more patients in the sulfonylurea arm than in the metformin arm had mild hypoglycemia (RR 2.95, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.07) and severe hypoglycemia (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00).

INTERPRETATION

Some evidence suggests that, compared with metformin, second- and third-generation sulfonylureas may not affect all-cause or cardiovascular mortality but may decrease the risk of nonfatal macrovascular outcomes among patients with type 2 diabetes. They may also increase the risk of hypoglycemia. In general, the available data were too few and inconsistent to provide firm evidence concerning patient-important outcomes in relation to the benefits and harms of sulfonylurea versus metformin monotherapy.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults

BACKGROUND

The evidence on whether vitamin D supplementation is effective in decreasing cancers is contradictory.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of cancer in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science to February 2014. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and asked experts and pharmaceutical companies for additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults who were healthy or were recruited among the general population, or diagnosed with a specific disease. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. We conducted random-effects and fixed-effect model meta-analyses. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). We considered risk of bias in order to assess the risk of systematic errors. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess the risk of random errors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen randomised trials with 50,623 participants provided data for the analyses. All trials came from high-income countries. Most of the trials had a high risk of bias, mainly for-profit bias. Most trials included elderly community-dwelling women (aged 47 to 97 years). Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of six years. Fourteen trials tested vitamin D₃, one trial tested vitamin D₂, and three trials tested calcitriol supplementation. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1927/25,275 (7.6%) recipients of vitamin D versus 1943/25,348 (7.7%) recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 18 trials; 50,623 participants; moderate quality evidence according to the GRADE instrument). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the 18 vitamin D trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. We did not observe substantial differences in the effect of vitamin D on cancer in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared to trials at high risk of bias; of trials with no risk of for-profit bias compared to trials with risk of for-profit bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared to trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL at entry compared to trials including participants with vitamin D levels of 20 ng/mL or more at entry; or of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared to trials without calcium. Vitamin D decreased all-cause mortality (1854/24,846 (7.5%) versus 2007/25,020 (8.0%); RR 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98); P = 0.009; I² = 0%; 15 trials; 49,866 participants; moderate quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Cancer occurrence was observed in 1918/24,908 (7.7%) recipients of vitamin D₃ versus 1933/24,983 (7.7%) in recipients of control interventions (RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.06); P = 0.88; I² = 0%; 14 trials; 49,891 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA of the vitamin D₃ trials shows that the futility area is reached after the 10th trial, allowing us to conclude that a possible intervention effect, if any, is lower than a 5% relative risk reduction. Vitamin D₃ decreased cancer mortality (558/22,286 (2.5%) versus 634/22,206 (2.8%); RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 4 trials; 44,492 participants; low quality evidence), but TSA indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. Vitamin D₃ combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I² = 0%; 3 trials; 42,753 participants; moderate quality evidence). TSA, however, indicates that this finding could be due to random errors. We did not find any data on health-related quality of life or health economics in the randomised trials included in this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no firm evidence that vitamin D supplementation decreases or increases cancer occurrence in predominantly elderly community-dwelling women. Vitamin D₃ supplementation decreased cancer mortality and vitamin D supplementation decreased all-cause mortality, but these estimates are at risk of type I errors due to the fact that too few participants were examined, and to risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants. Combined vitamin D₃ and calcium supplements increased nephrolithiasis, whereas it remains unclear from the included trials whether vitamin D₃, calcium, or both were responsible for this effect. We need more trials on vitamin D supplementation, assessing the benefits and harms among younger participants, men, and people with low vitamin D status, and assessing longer duration of treatments as well as higher dosages of vitamin D. Follow-up of all participants is necessary to reduce attrition bias.

Antibody induction versus placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for preventing rejection after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of T-cell specific antibody induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) until September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, no induction, or another type of antibody induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy. We planned to include trials with all of the different types of T-cell specific antibodies that are or have been used for induction (ie., polyclonal antibodies (rabbit of horse antithymocyte globulin (ATG), or antilymphocyte globulin (ALG)), monoclonal antibodies (muromonab-CD3, anti-CD2, or alemtuzumab), and interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (daclizumab, basiliximab, BT563, or Lo-Tact-1)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan analysis for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance). We presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 randomised clinical trials with a total of 2067 liver transplant recipients. All 19 trials were with high risk of bias. Of the 19 trials, 16 trials were two-arm trials, and three trials were three-arm trials. Hence, we found 25 trial comparisons with antibody induction agents: interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction (10 trials with 1454 participants); monoclonal antibody versus no induction (five trials with 398 participants); polyclonal antibody versus no induction (three trials with 145 participants); IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (one trial with 87 participants); and IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody (two trials with 112 participants). Thus, we were able to compare T-cell specific antibody induction versus no induction (17 trials with a total of 1955 participants). Overall, no difference in mortality (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.28; low-quality of evidence), graft loss including death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.19; low-quality of evidence), and adverse events ((RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02; low-quality evidence) outcomes was observed between any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Acute rejection seemed to be reduced when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96; moderate-quality evidence), and when trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed before the required information size was obtained. Furthermore, serum creatinine was statistically significantly higher when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction (MD 3.77 μmol/L, 95% CI 0.33 to 7.21; low-quality evidence), as well as when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with no induction, but this small difference was not clinically significant. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes - infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension - when the T-cell specific antibody induction agents were analysed together or separately. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were found on quality of life.When T-cell specific antibody induction agents were compared with another type of antibody induction, no statistically significant differences were found for mortality, graft loss, and acute rejection for the separate analyses. When interleukin-2 receptor antagonists were compared with polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction, drug-related adverse events were less common among participants treated with interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.63; low-quality evidence), but this was caused by the results from one trial, and trial sequential analysis could not exclude random errors. We found no statistically significant differences for any of the remaining predefined outcomes: infection, cytomegalovirus infection, hepatitis C recurrence, malignancy, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, hyperlipidaemia, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. No data were found on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain because of the high risk of bias of the randomised clinical trials, the small number of randomised clinical trials reported, and the limited numbers of participants and outcomes in the trials. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce acute rejection when compared with no induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with no induction, or when compared with another type of T-cell specific antibody. Hence, more randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with placebo, and compared with another type of antibody, for prevention of rejection in liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error (bias) and low risk of random error (play of chance).

Antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation is an established treatment option for end-stage liver failure. To date, no consensus has been reached on the use of immunosuppressive T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction of immunosuppression after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction for prevention of acute rejection in liver transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 30 September 2013 together with reference checking, citation searching, contact with trial authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing immunosuppression with T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in liver transplant recipients. Our inclusion criteria stated that participants within each included trial should have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used RevMan for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of systematic errors (bias) using bias risk domains with definitions. We used trial sequential analysis to control for random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 randomised trials with a total of 1589 liver transplant recipients, which studied the use of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction. All trials were with high risk of bias. We compared any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in 10 trials with 1589 participants, including interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction versus corticosteroid induction in nine trials with 1470 participants, and polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction versus corticosteroid induction in one trial with 119 participants.Our analyses showed no significant differences regarding mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.43), graft loss (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.53) and acute rejection (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.00), infection (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.09), hepatitis C virus recurrence (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00), malignancy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.73), and post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.38) when any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (all low-quality evidence). Cytomegalovirus infection was less frequent in patients receiving any kind of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; low-quality evidence). This was also observed when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.70; low-quality evidence). However, when trial sequential analysis regarding cytomegalovirus infection was applied, the required information size was not reached. Furthermore, diabetes mellitus occurred less frequently when T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.60; low-quality evidence), when interleukin-2 receptor antagonist induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61; low-quality evidence), and when polyclonal T-cell specific antibody induction was compared with corticosteroid induction (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.95; low-quality evidence). When trial sequential analysis was applied, the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit was crossed. We found no subgroup differences for type of interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (basiliximab versus daclizumab). Four trials reported on adverse events. However, no differences between trial groups were noted. Limited data were available for meta-analysis on drug-specific adverse events such as haematological adverse events for antithymocyte globulin. No data were available on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because of the low quality of the evidence, the effects of T-cell antibody induction remain uncertain. T-cell specific antibody induction seems to reduce diabetes mellitus and may reduce cytomegalovirus infection when compared with corticosteroid induction. No other clear benefits or harms were associated with the use of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction. For some analyses, the number of trials investigating the use of T-cell specific antibody induction after liver transplantation is small, and the numbers of participants and outcomes in these randomised trials are limited. Furthermore, the included trials are heterogeneous in nature and have applied different types of T-cell specific antibody induction therapy. All trials were at high risk of bias. Hence, additional randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell specific antibody induction compared with corticosteroid induction for liver transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic error and of random error.

STRIDER: Sildenafil Therapy In Dismal prognosis Early-onset intrauterine growth Restriction--a protocol for a systematic review with individual participant data and aggregate data meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

In pregnancies complicated by early-onset extreme fetal growth restriction, there is a high risk of preterm birth and an overall dismal fetal prognosis. Sildenafil has been suggested to improve this prognosis. The first aim of this review is to assess whether sildenafil benefits or harms these babies. The second aim is to analyse if these effects are modified in a clinically meaningful way by factors related to the women or the trial protocol.

METHODS/DESIGN

The STRIDER (Sildenafil Therapy In Dismal prognosis Early-onset intrauterine growth Restriction) Individual Participant Data (IPD) Study Group will conduct a prospective IPD and aggregate data systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. The STRIDER IPD Study Group started trial planning and funding applications in 2012. Three trials will be launched in 2014, recruiting for three years. Further trials are planned to commence in 2015.The primary outcome for babies is being alive at term gestation without evidence of serious adverse neonatal outcome. The latter is defined as severe central nervous system injury (severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grade 3 and 4) or cystic periventricular leukomalacia, demonstrated by ultrasound and/or magnetic resonance imaging) or other severe morbidity (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment, or necrotising enterocolitis requiring surgery). The secondary outcomes are improved fetal growth velocity assessed by ultrasound abdominal circumference measurements, gestational age and birth weight (centile) at delivery, and age-adequate performance on the two-year Bayley scales of infant and toddler development-III (composite cognitive score and composite motor score). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses in the IPD meta-analysis include assessment of the influence of several patient characteristics: an abnormal or normal serum level of placental growth factor, absent/reversed umbilical arterial end diastolic flow at commencement of treatment, and other patient characteristics available at baseline such as gestational age and estimated fetal weight. The secondary outcomes for mothers include co-incidence and severity of the maternal syndrome of pre-eclampsia, mortality, and other serious adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Trials are expected to start in 2013-2014 and end in 2016-2017. Data analyses of individual trials are expected to finish in 2019. Given the pre-planned and agreed IPD protocol, these results should be available in 2020.

The thresholds for statistical and clinical significance - a five-step procedure for evaluation of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Thresholds for statistical significance are insufficiently demonstrated by 95% confidence intervals or P-values when assessing results from randomised clinical trials. First, a P-value only shows the probability of getting a result assuming that the null hypothesis is true and does not reflect the probability of getting a result assuming an alternative hypothesis to the null hypothesis is true. Second, a confidence interval or a P-value showing significance may be caused by multiplicity. Third, statistical significance does not necessarily result in clinical significance. Therefore, assessment of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials deserves more rigour in order to become more valid.

METHODS

Several methodologies for assessing the statistical and clinical significance of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials were considered. Balancing simplicity and comprehensiveness, a simple five-step procedure was developed.

RESULTS

For a more valid assessment of results from a randomised clinical trial we propose the following five-steps: (1) report the confidence intervals and the exact P-values; (2) report Bayes factor for the primary outcome, being the ratio of the probability that a given trial result is compatible with a 'null' effect (corresponding to the P-value) divided by the probability that the trial result is compatible with the intervention effect hypothesised in the sample size calculation; (3) adjust the confidence intervals and the statistical significance threshold if the trial is stopped early or if interim analyses have been conducted; (4) adjust the confidence intervals and the P-values for multiplicity due to number of outcome comparisons; and (5) assess clinical significance of the trial results.

CONCLUSIONS

If the proposed five-step procedure is followed, this may increase the validity of assessments of intervention effects in randomised clinical trials.

Vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in adults

BACKGROUND

Available evidence on the effects of vitamin D on mortality has been inconclusive. In a recent systematic review, we found evidence that vitamin D3 may decrease mortality in mostly elderly women. The present systematic review updates and reassesses the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation used in primary and secondary prophylaxis of mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation for prevention of mortality in healthy adults and adults in a stable phase of disease.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, the Science Citation Index-Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (all up to February 2012). We checked references of included trials and pharmaceutical companies for unidentified relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials that compared any type of vitamin D in any dose with any duration and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adult participants. Participants could have been recruited from the general population or from patients diagnosed with a disease in a stable phase. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) or as an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six review authors extracted data independently. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were conducted. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratios (RRs). To account for trials with zero events, we performed meta-analyses of dichotomous data using risk differences (RDs) and empirical continuity corrections. We used published data and data obtained by contacting trial authors.To minimise the risk of systematic error, we assessed the risk of bias of the included trials. Trial sequential analyses controlled the risk of random errors possibly caused by cumulative meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 159 randomised clinical trials. Ninety-four trials reported no mortality, and nine trials reported mortality but did not report in which intervention group the mortality occurred. Accordingly, 56 randomised trials with 95,286 participants provided usable data on mortality. The age of participants ranged from 18 to 107 years. Most trials included women older than 70 years. The mean proportion of women was 77%. Forty-eight of the trials randomly assigned 94,491 healthy participants. Of these, four trials included healthy volunteers, nine trials included postmenopausal women and 35 trials included older people living on their own or in institutional care. The remaining eight trials randomly assigned 795 participants with neurological, cardiovascular, respiratory or rheumatoid diseases. Vitamin D was administered for a weighted mean of 4.4 years. More than half of the trials had a low risk of bias. All trials were conducted in high-income countries. Forty-five trials (80%) reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants based on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Participants in 19 trials had vitamin D adequacy (at or above 20 ng/mL). Participants in the remaining 26 trials had vitamin D insufficiency (less than 20 ng/mL).Vitamin D decreased mortality in all 56 trials analysed together (5,920/47,472 (12.5%) vs 6,077/47,814 (12.7%); RR 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.99); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%). More than 8% of participants dropped out. 'Worst-best case' and 'best-worst case' scenario analyses demonstrated that vitamin D could be associated with a dramatic increase or decrease in mortality. When different forms of vitamin D were assessed in separate analyses, only vitamin D3 decreased mortality (4,153/37,817 (11.0%) vs 4,340/38,110 (11.4%); RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.98); P = 0.002; I(2) = 0%; 75,927 participants; 38 trials). Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol did not significantly affect mortality. A subgroup analysis of trials at high risk of bias suggested that vitamin D2 may even increase mortality, but this finding could be due to random errors. Trial sequential analysis supported our finding regarding vitamin D3, with the cumulative Z-score breaking the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit, corresponding to 150 people treated over five years to prevent one additional death. We did not observe any statistically significant differences in the effect of vitamin D on mortality in subgroup analyses of trials at low risk of bias compared with trials at high risk of bias; of trials using placebo compared with trials using no intervention in the control group; of trials with no risk of industry bias compared with trials with risk of industry bias; of trials assessing primary prevention compared with trials assessing secondary prevention; of trials including participants with vitamin D level below 20 ng/mL at entry compared with trials including participants with vitamin D levels equal to or greater than 20 ng/mL at entry; of trials including ambulatory participants compared with trials including institutionalised participants; of trials using concomitant calcium supplementation compared with trials without calcium; of trials using a dose below 800 IU per day compared with trials using doses above 800 IU per day; and of trials including only women compared with trials including both sexes or only men. Vitamin D3 statistically significantly decreased cancer mortality (RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.98); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 44,492 participants; 4 trials). Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased the risk of nephrolithiasis (RR 1.17 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.34); P = 0.02; I(2) = 0%; 42,876 participants; 4 trials). Alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased the risk of hypercalcaemia (RR 3.18 (95% CI 1.17 to 8.68); P = 0.02; I(2) = 17%; 710 participants; 3 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Vitamin D3 seemed to decrease mortality in elderly people living independently or in institutional care. Vitamin D2, alfacalcidol and calcitriol had no statistically significant beneficial effects on mortality. Vitamin D3 combined with calcium increased nephrolithiasis. Both alfacalcidol and calcitriol increased hypercalcaemia. Because of risks of attrition bias originating from substantial dropout of participants and of outcome reporting bias due to a number of trials not reporting on mortality, as well as a number of other weaknesses in our evidence, further placebo-controlled randomised trials seem warranted.

Does anaesthesia with nitrous oxide affect mortality or cardiovascular morbidity? A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of nitrous oxide in modern anaesthetic practice is contentious. One concern is that exposure to nitrous oxide may increase the risk of cardiovascular complications. ENIGMA II is a large randomized clinical trial currently underway which is investigating nitrous oxide and cardiovascular complications. Before the completion of this trial, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, using Cochrane methodology, on the outcomes that make up the composite primary outcome.

METHODS

We used conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). We reviewed 8282 abstracts and selected 138 that fulfilled our criteria for study type, population, and intervention. We attempted to contact the authors of all the selected publications to check for unpublished outcome data.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials had outcome data eligible for our outcomes. We assessed three of these trials as having a low risk of bias. Using conventional meta-analysis, the relative risk of short-term mortality in the nitrous oxide group was 1.38 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-8.71] and the relative risk of long-term mortality in the nitrous oxide group was 0.94 (95% CI 0.80-1.10). In both cases, TSA demonstrated that the data were far too sparse to make any conclusions. There were insufficient data to perform meta-analysis for stroke, myocardial infarct, pulmonary embolus, or cardiac arrest.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review demonstrated that we currently do not have robust evidence for how nitrous oxide used as part of general anaesthesia affects mortality and cardiovascular complications.

Noninvasive ventilation as a weaning strategy for mechanical ventilation in adults with respiratory failure: a Cochrane systematic review

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation has been studied as a means of reducing complications among patients being weaned from invasive mechanical ventilation. We sought to summarize evidence comparing noninvasive and invasive weaning and their effects on mortality.

METHODS

We identified relevant randomized and quasirandomized trials through searches of databases, conference proceedings and grey literature. We included trials comparing extubation and immediate application of noninvasive ventilation with continued invasive weaning in adults on mechanical ventilation. Two reviewers each independently screened citations, assessed trial quality and abstracted data. Our primary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 16 trials involving 994 participants, most of whom had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared with invasive weaning, noninvasive weaning significantly reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36 to 0.80), weaning failures (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96), ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.43), length of stay in the intensive care unit (mean difference [MD] -5.59 d, 95% CI -7.90 to -3.28) and in hospital (MD -6.04 d, 95% CI -9.22 to -2.87), and total duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -5.64 d, 95% CI -9.50 to -1.77). Noninvasive weaning had no significant effect on the duration of ventilation related to weaning, but significantly reduced rates of tracheostomy (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47) and reintubation (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97). Mortality benefits were significantly greater in trials enrolling patients with COPD than in trials enrolling mixed patient populations (RR 0.36 [95% CI 0.24 to 0.56] v. RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.47 to 1.40]).

INTERPRETATION

Noninvasive weaning reduces rates of death and pneumonia without increasing the risk of weaning failure or reintubation. In subgroup analyses, mortality benefits were significantly greater in patients with COPD.

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as a weaning strategy for intubated adults with respiratory failure

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) provides ventilatory support without the need for an invasive airway. Interest has emerged in using NPPV to facilitate earlier removal of an endotracheal tube and to decrease complications associated with prolonged intubation.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated studies in which invasively ventilated adults with respiratory failure of any cause (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), non-COPD, postoperative, nonoperative) were weaned by means of early extubation followed by immediate application of NPPV or continued IPPV weaning. The primary objective was to determine whether the noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) strategy reduced all-cause mortality compared with invasive positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) weaning. Secondary objectives were to ascertain differences between strategies in proportions of weaning failure and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), total duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical support related to weaning, duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (ETMV), frequency of adverse events (related to weaning) and overall quality of life. We planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses to assess (1) the influence on mortality and VAP of excluding quasi-randomized trials, and (2) effects on mortality and weaning failure associated with different causes of respiratory failure (COPD vs. mixed populations).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013), proceedings from four conferences, trial registration websites and personal files; we contacted authors to identify trials comparing NPPV versus conventional IPPV weaning.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized and quasi-randomized trials comparing early extubation with immediate application of NPPV versus IPPV weaning in intubated adults with respiratory failure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and abstracted data according to prespecified criteria. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed (1) the impact of excluding quasi-randomized trials, and (2) the effects on selected outcomes noted with different causes of respiratory failure.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 16 trials, predominantly of moderate to good quality, involving 994 participants, most with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Compared with IPPV weaning, NPPV weaning significantly decreased mortality. The benefits for mortality were significantly greater in trials enrolling exclusively participants with COPD (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.56) versus mixed populations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.40). NPPV significantly reduced weaning failure (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.43); shortened length of stay in an intensive care unit (mean difference (MD) -5.59 days, 95% CI -7.90 to -3.28) and in hospital (MD -6.04 days, 95% CI -9.22 to -2.87); and decreased the total duration of ventilation (MD -5.64 days, 95% CI -9.50 to -1.77) and the duration of endotracheal mechanical ventilation (MD - 7.44 days, 95% CI -10.34 to -4.55) amidst significant heterogeneity. Noninvasive weaning also significantly reduced tracheostomy (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.47) and reintubation (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97) rates. Noninvasive weaning had no effect on the duration of ventilation related to weaning. Exclusion of a single quasi-randomized trial did not alter these results. Subgroup analyses suggest that the benefits for mortality were significantly greater in trials enrolling exclusively participants with COPD versus mixed populations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Summary estimates from 16 trials of moderate to good quality that included predominantly participants with COPD suggest that a weaning strategy that includes NPPV may reduce rates of mortality and ventilator-associated pneumonia without increasing the risk of weaning failure or reintubation.

Immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Heart transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for end-stage heart failure. Rejection of the transplanted heart by the recipient's body is a risk to the success of the procedure, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary to avoid this. Clear evidence is required to identify the best, safest and most effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for heart transplant recipients. To date, there is no consensus on the use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

To review the benefits, harms, feasibility and tolerability of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction versus placebo, or no antibody induction, or another kind of antibody induction for heart transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November Week 1 2012), EMBASE (Ovid) (1946 to 2012 Week 45), ISI Web of Science (14 November 2012); we also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists in November 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction for heart transplant recipients. Within individual trials, we required all participants to receive the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted data independently. RevMan analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR), and of continuous data with mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components were used to assess risks of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). We assessed mortality, acute rejection, infection, Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidaemia.

MAIN RESULTS

In this review, we included 22 RCTs that investigated the use of T-cell antibody induction, with a total of 1427 heart-transplant recipients. All trials were judged to be at a high risk of bias. Five trials, with a total of 606 participants, compared any kind of T-cell antibody induction versus no antibody induction; four trials, with a total of 576 participants, compared interleukin-2 receptor antagonist (IL-2 RA) versus no induction; one trial, with 30 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus no antibody induction; two trials, with a total of 159 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) induction; four trials, with a total of 185 participants, compared IL-2 RA versus polyclonal antibody induction; seven trials, with a total of 315 participants, compared monoclonal antibody (other than IL-2 RA) versus polyclonal antibody induction; and four trials, with a total of 162 participants, compared polyclonal antibody induction versus another kind, or dose of polyclonal antibodies.No significant differences were found for any of the comparisons for the outcomes of mortality, infection, CMV infection, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorder, cancer, adverse events, chronic allograft vasculopathy, renal function, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or hyperlipidaemia. Acute rejection occurred significantly less frequently when IL-2 RA induction was compared with no induction (93/284 (33%) versus 132/292 (45%); RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90; I(2) 57%) applying the fixed-effect model. No significant difference was found when the random-effects model was applied (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.46 to 1.17; I(2) 57%). In addition, acute rejection occurred more often statistically when IL-2 RA induction was compared with polyclonal antibody induction (24/90 (27%) versus 10/95 (11%); RR 2.43; 95% CI 1.01 to 5.86; I(2) 28%). For all of these differences in acute rejection, trial sequential alpha-spending boundaries were not crossed and the required information sizes were not reached when trial sequential analysis was performed, indicating that we cannot exclude random errors.We observed some occasional significant differences in adverse events in some of the comparisons, however definitions of adverse events varied between trials, and numbers of participants and events in these outcomes were too small to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that acute rejection might be reduced by IL-2 RA compared with no induction, and by polyclonal antibody induction compared with IL-2 RA, though trial sequential analyses cannot exclude random errors, and the significance of our observations depended on the statistical model used. Furthermore, this review does not show other clear benefits or harms associated with the use of any kind of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when one type of T-cell antibody is compared with another type of antibody. The number of trials investigating the use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after heart transplantation is small, and the number of participants and outcomes in these RCTs is limited. Furthermore, the included trials are at a high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for heart-transplant recipients. Such trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic and random error.

Antibody induction therapy for lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation has become a valuable and well-accepted treatment option for most end-stage lung diseases. Lung transplant recipients are at risk of transplanted organ rejection, and life-long immunosuppression is necessary. Clear evidence is essential to identify an optimal, safe and effective immunosuppressive treatment strategy for lung transplant recipients. Consensus has not yet been achieved concerning use of immunosuppressive antibodies against T-cells for induction following lung transplantation.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of immunosuppressive T-cell antibody induction with ATG, ALG, IL-2RA, alemtuzumab, or muromonab-CD3 for lung transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 4 March 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immunosuppressive monoclonal and polyclonal T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. An inclusion criterion was that all participants must have received the same maintenance immunosuppressive therapy within each study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted data. We derived risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and trial sequential analyses were undertaken to assess the risk of random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

Our review included six RCTs (representing a total of 278 adult lung transplant recipients) that assessed the use of T-cell antibody induction. Evaluation of the included studies found all to be at high risk of bias.We conducted comparisons of polyclonal or monoclonal T-cell antibody induction versus no induction (3 studies, 140 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus no induction (3 studies, 125 participants); interleukin-2 receptor antagonists (IL-2RA) versus no induction (1 study, 25 participants); polyclonal T-cell antibody versus muromonab-CD3 (1 study, 64 participants); and polyclonal T-cell antibody versus IL-2RA (3 studies, 100 participants). Overall we found no significant differences among interventions in terms of mortality, acute rejection, adverse effects, infection, pneumonia, cytomegalovirus infection, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disease, or cancer.We found a significant outcome difference in one study that compared antithymocyte globulin versus muromonab-CD3 relating to adverse events (25/34 (74%) versus 12/30 (40%); RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.98). This suggested that antithymocyte globulin increased occurrence of adverse events. However, trial sequential analysis found that the required information size had not been reached, and the cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries.None of the studies reported quality of life or kidney injury. Trial sequential analyses indicated that none of the meta-analyses achieved required information sizes and the cumulative Z-curves did not cross the trial sequential alpha-spending monitoring boundaries, nor reached the area of futility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

No clear benefits or harms associated with the use of T-cell antibody induction compared with no induction, or when different types of T-cell antibodies were compared were identified in this review. Few studies were identified that investigated use of antibodies against T-cells for induction after lung transplantation, and numbers of participants and outcomes were also limited. Assessment of the included studies found that all were at high risk of methodological bias.Further RCTs are needed to perform robust assessment of the benefits and harms of T-cell antibody induction for lung transplant recipients. Future studies should be designed and conducted according to methodologies to reduce risks of systematic error (bias) and random error (play of chance).

Pancreatic duct stents at pancreaticoduodenectomy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several studies suggested that pancreatic stents had some benefit during pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), but others disagree. Whether pancreatic duct stents could prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is still under controversy.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials published before November 2012 were all aggregated, focusing on the evaluation of pancreatic duct stents during PD. Trial data was reviewed and extracted independently by two reviewers. The quality of the including studies was assessed by the Cochrane handbook 5.1.0.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, with a total of 793 patients. The results showed that compared with nonstents, stents during PD was associated with a significant difference on overall POPF rate (OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.45-0.95, p = 0.02), POPF grades B and C (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.76, p = 0.003), and hospital stay (MD = -4.28, 95% CI -6.81, -1.75, p = 0.0009). Subgroup analyses showed that the external stent had a significant difference in the incidence of overall POPF (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.73, p = 0.0009), POPF grades B and C (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.79, p = 0.003), postoperative morbidity (OR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.96, p = 0.03), as well as hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon this meta-analysis, there might be potential benefit in reducing POPF thanks to the use of pancreatic duct stents.

Mesenchymal stem cells improve locomotor recovery in traumatic spinal cord injury: systematic review with meta-analyses of rat models

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating event with huge personal and societal costs. A limited number of treatments exist to ameliorate the progressive secondary damage that rapidly follows the primary mechanical impact. Mesenchymal stem or stromal cells (MSCs) have anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects and may thus reduce secondary damage after administration. We performed a systematic review with quantitative syntheses to assess the evidence of MSCs versus controls for locomotor recovery in rat models of traumatic SCI, and identified 83 eligible controlled studies comprising a total of 1,568 rats. Between-study heterogeneity was large. Fifty-three studies (64%) were reported as randomised, but only four reported adequate methodologies for randomisation. Forty-eight studies (58%) reported the use of a blinded outcome assessment. A random-effects meta-analysis yielded a difference in behavioural Basso-Beattie-Bresnahan (BBB) locomotor score means of 3.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.2 to 4.7; P<0.001) in favour of MSCs. Trial sequential analysis confirmed the findings of the meta-analyses with the upper monitoring boundary for benefit being crossed by the cumulative Z-curve before reaching the diversity-adjusted required information size. Only time from intervention to last follow-up remained statistically significant after adjustment using multivariate random-effects meta-regression modelling. Lack of other demonstrable explanatory variables could be due to insufficient meta-analytic study power. MSCs would seem to demonstrate a substantial beneficial effect on locomotor recovery in a widely-used animal model of traumatic SCI. However, the animal results should be interpreted with caution concerning the internal and external validity of the studies in relation to the design of future clinical trials.

Stress ulcer prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis in critically ill patients. A systematic review of randomised clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) versus placebo or no prophylaxis on all-cause mortality, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and hospital-acquired pneumonia in adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Eligible trials were randomised clinical trials comparing proton pump inhibitors or histamine 2 receptor antagonists with either placebo or no prophylaxis. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. The Cochrane Collaboration methodology was used. Risk ratios/relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. The predefined outcome measures were all-cause mortality, GI bleeding, and hospital-acquired pneumonia.

RESULTS

Twenty trials (n = 1,971) were included; all were judged as having a high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (fixed effect: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84-1.20; P = 0.87; I(2) = 0%) or hospital-acquired pneumonia (random effects: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.86-1.78; P = 0.28; I(2) = 19%) between SUP patients and the no prophylaxis/placebo patients. These findings were confirmed in the TSA. With respect to GI bleeding, a statistically significant difference was found in the conventional meta-analysis (random effects: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.68; P = 0.01; I(2) = 48%); however, TSA (TSA adjusted 95% CI 0.18-1.11) and subgroup analyses could not confirm this finding.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review using meta-analysis and TSA demonstrated that both the quality and the quantity of evidence supporting the use of SUP in adult ICU patients is low. Consequently, large randomised clinical trials are warranted.

Meta-regression analyses, meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses of the effects of supplementation with beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E singly or in different combinations on all-cause mortality: do we have evidence for lack of harm?

Background and Aims

Evidence shows that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality. Our aims were to assess whether different doses of beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E affect mortality in primary and secondary prevention randomized clinical trials with low risk of bias.

Methods

The present study is based on our 2012 Cochrane systematic review analyzing beneficial and harmful effects of antioxidant supplements in adults. Using random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression analyses, and trial sequential analyses, we examined the association between beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E, and mortality according to their daily doses and doses below and above the recommended daily allowances (RDA).

Results

We included 53 randomized trials with low risk of bias (241,883 participants, aged 18 to 103 years, 44.6% women) assessing beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E. Meta-regression analysis showed that the dose of vitamin A was significantly positively associated with all-cause mortality. Beta-carotene in a dose above 9.6 mg significantly increased mortality (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.09, I² = 13%). Vitamin A in a dose above the RDA (> 800 µg) did not significantly influence mortality (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.19, I² = 53%). Vitamin E in a dose above the RDA (> 15 mg) significantly increased mortality (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05, I² = 0%). Doses below the RDAs did not affect mortality, but data were sparse.

Conclusions

Beta-carotene and vitamin E in doses higher than the RDA seem to significantly increase mortality, whereas we lack information on vitamin A. Dose of vitamin A was significantly associated with increased mortality in meta-regression. We lack information on doses below the RDA.

Background

All essential compounds to stay healthy cannot be synthesized in our body. Therefore, these compounds must be taken through our diet or obtained in other ways [1]. Oxidative stress has been suggested to cause a variety of diseases [2]. Therefore, it is speculated that antioxidant supplements could have a potential role in preventing diseases and death. Despite the fact that a normal diet in high-income countries may provide sufficient amounts of antioxidants [3,4], more than one third of adults regularly take antioxidant supplements [5,6].

Open Versus Endovascular Stent Graft Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

We performed an analysis to assess the need for conducting additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing open and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) is a statistical methodology that can calculate the required information size of a meta-analysis and assess the risk of random errors similar to interim analysis in a single optimally powered trial. It helps to decide whether we have obtained sufficient evidence or whether further RCTs are required. For short-term mortality reintervention rates, TSA showed firm evidence that there would be no extra benefit in conducting more RCTs to detect the effectiveness of EVAR versus open repair. For long-term mortality, TSA revealed either inconclusive evidence to support or refute endovascular or open repair; so, further RCTs should be performed to investigate long-term, all-cause mortality after AAA repair.

Populations at risk for severe or complicated influenza illness: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate risk factors for severe outcomes in patients with seasonal and pandemic influenza.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

STUDY SELECTION

Observational studies reporting on risk factor-outcome combinations of interest in participants with influenza. Outcomes included death, ventilator support, admission to hospital, admission to an intensive care unit, pneumonia, and composite outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2011.

RISK OF BIAS ASSESSMENT

Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias. GRADE framework to evaluate the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

63 537 articles were identified of which 234 with a total of 610 782 participants met the inclusion criteria. The evidence supporting risk factors for severe outcomes of influenza ranged from being limited to absent. This was particularly relevant for the relative lack of data for non-2009 H1N1 pandemics and for seasonal influenza studies. Limitations in the published literature included lack of power and lack of adjustment for confounders was widespread: adjusted risk estimates were provided for only 5% of risk factor-outcome comparisons in 39 of 260 (15%) studies. The level of evidence was low for "any risk factor" (odds ratio for mortality 2.77, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 4.05 for pandemic influenza and 2.04, 1.74 to 2.39 for seasonal influenza), obesity (2.74, 1.56 to 4.80 and 30.1, 1.74 to 2.39), cardiovascular diseases (2.92, 1.76 to 4.86 and 1.97, 1.06 to 3.67), and neuromuscular disease (2.68, 1.91 to 3.75 and 3.21, 1.84 to 5.58). The level of evidence was very low for all other risk factors. Some well accepted risk factors such as pregnancy and belonging to an ethnic minority group could not be identified as risk factors. In contrast, women who were less than four weeks post partum had a significantly increased risk of death from pandemic influenza (4.43, 1.24 to 15.81).

CONCLUSION

The level of evidence to support risk factors for influenza related complications is low and some well accepted risk factors, including pregnancy and ethnicity, could not be confirmed as risks. Rigorous and adequately powered studies are needed.

Tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppression for lung transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Lung transplantation is a well-accepted treatment for people with most end-stage lung diseases. Although both tacrolimus and cyclosporin are used as primary immunosuppressive agents in lung transplant recipients, it is unclear which of these drugs is better in reducing rejection and death without causing adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin for primary immunosuppression in lung transplant recipients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 10 April 2013 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched Science Citation Index Expanded and the Transplant Library to 20 April 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared any dose and duration of administration of tacrolimus versus cyclosporin as primary immunosuppressive treatment in lung transplant recipients. Our selection criteria required that all included patients received the same additional immunosuppressive therapy within each study.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors extracted data. For dichotomous data we used risk ratio (RR) and used mean difference (MD) for continuous data, each with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological components of the included studies were used to assess risk of systematic errors (bias). Trial sequential analysis was used to assess risk of random errors (play of chance).

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies that enrolled a total of 413 adult patients that compared tacrolimus with microemulsion or oral solution cyclosporin. All studies were found to be at high risk of bias. Tacrolimus seemed to be significantly superior to cyclosporin regarding the incidence of bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74), lymphocytic bronchitis score (MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.16), treatment withdrawal (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.46), and arterial hypertension (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.89). However, the finding for arterial hypertension was not confirmed when analysed using a random-effects model (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.73). Furthermore, trial sequential analysis found that none of the meta-analyses reached the required information sizes and cumulative Z-curves did not cross trial sequential monitoring boundaries. Diabetes mellitus occurred more frequently among people in the tacrolimus group compared with the cyclosporin group when the fixed-effect model was applied (RR 4.24, 95% CI 1.58 to 11.40), but no difference was found when the random-effects model was used for analysis (RR 4.43, 95% CI 0.75 to 26.05). Again, trial sequential analysis found that the required information threshold was not reached and cumulative Z-curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary. No significant difference between treatment groups was observed regarding mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.49), incidence of acute rejection (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.03), numbers of infections/100 patient-days (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.00), cancer (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.16), kidney dysfunction (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.14), kidney failure (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.94), neurotoxicity (RR 7.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 135.19), and hyperlipidaemia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.20). Trial sequential analysis showed the required information thresholds were not reached for any of these outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Tacrolimus may be superior to cyclosporin regarding bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome, lymphocytic bronchitis, treatment withdrawal, and arterial hypertension, but may be inferior regarding development of diabetes. No difference in mortality and acute rejection was observed between patients treated with tacrolimus and cyclosporin. There were few studies comparing tacrolimus and cyclosporin after lung transplantation, and the numbers of patients and events in the included studies were limited. Furthermore, the included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias. Hence, more RCTs are needed to assess the results of the present review. Such studies ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors (bias) and of random errors (play of chance).

Sulphonylurea monotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a growing health problem worldwide. Whether sulphonylureas show better, equal or worse therapeutic effects in comparison with other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of sulphonylurea monotherapy versus placebo, no intervention or other antidiabetic interventions for patients with T2DM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched publications in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS and CINAHL (all until August 2011) to obtain trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria for our review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included clinical trials that randomised patients 18 years old or more with T2DM to sulphonylurea monotherapy with a duration of 24 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were other patient-important outcomes and metabolic variables. Where possible, we used risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) to analyse the treatment effect of dichotomous outcomes. We used mean differences with 95% CI to analyse the treatment effect of continuous outcomes. We evaluated the risk of bias. We conducted trial sequential analyses to assess whether firm evidence could be established for a 10% relative risk reduction (RRR) between intervention groups.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 22,589 participants; 9707 participants randomised to sulphonylureas versus 12,805 participants randomised to control interventions. The duration of the interventions varied from 24 weeks to 10.7 years. We judged none of the included trials as low risk of bias for all bias domains. Patient-important outcomes were seldom reported.First-generation sulphonylureas (FGS) versus placebo or insulin did not show statistical significance for all-cause mortality (versus placebo: RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.45; P = 0.15; 2 trials; 553 participants; high risk of bias (HRB); versus insulin: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.59; P = 0.26; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus placebo showed statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality in favour of placebo (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.22; P = 0.006; 2 trials; 553 participants; HRB). FGS versus insulin did not show statistical significance for cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.71; P = 0.39; 2 trials; 1944 participants; HRB). FGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of FGS for adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.76; P = 0.01; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB) and for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.67; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 246 participants; HRB).Second-generation sulphonylureas (SGS) versus metformin (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.58; P = 0.68; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.41; P = 0.70; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18; P = 0.72; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB), meglitinides (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.42; P = 0.52; 7 trials; 2038 participants; HRB), or incretin-based interventions (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.68; P = 0.51; 2 trials; 1503 participants; HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding all-cause mortality in a random-effects model. SGS versus metformin (RR 1.47; 95% CI 0.54 to 4.01; P = 0.45; 6 trials; 3528 participants; HRB), thiazolidinediones (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; P = 0.55; 7 trials; 4955 participants; HRB), insulin (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.28; P = 0.80; 4 trials; 1642 participants; HRB) or meglitinide (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.53; P = 0.97; 7 trials, 2038 participants, HRB) showed no statistically significant effects regarding cardiovascular mortality. Mortality data for the SGS versus placebo were sparse. SGS versus thiazolidinediones and meglitinides did not show statistically significant differences for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes. SGS versus metformin showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for a composite of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; P = 0.02; 3018 participants; 3 trials; HRB). The definition of non-fatal macrovascular outcomes varied among the trials. SGS versus metformin, thiazolidinediones and meglitinides showed no statistical significance for non-fatal myocardial infarction. No meta-analyses could be performed for microvascular outcomes. SGS versus placebo, metformin, thiazolidinediones, alpha-glucosidase inhibitors or meglitinides showed no statistical significance for adverse events. SGS versus alpha-glucosidase inhibitors showed statistical significance in favour of SGS for drop-outs due to adverse events (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96; P = 0.04; 9 trials; 870 participants; HRB). SGS versus meglitinides showed no statistical significance for the risk of severe hypoglycaemia. SGS versus metformin and thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance in favour of metformin (RR 5.64, 95% CI 1.22 to 26.00; P = 0.03; 4 trials; 3637 participants; HRB) and thiazolidinediones (RR 6.11, 95% CI 1.57 to 23.79; P = 0.009; 6 trials; 5660 participants; HRB) for severe hypoglycaemia.Third-generation sulphonylureas (TGS) could not be included in any meta-analysis of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes. TGS versus thiazolidinediones showed statistical significance regarding adverse events in favour of TGS (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; P = 0.03; 3 trials; 510 participants; HRB). TGS versus thiazolidinediones did not show any statistical significance for drop-outs due to adverse events. TGS versus other comparators could not be performed due to lack of data.For the comparison of SGS versus FGS no meta-analyses of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal macro- or microvascular outcomes, or adverse events could be performed.Health-related quality of life and costs of intervention could not be meta-analysed due to lack of data.In trial sequential analysis, none of the analyses of mortality outcomes, vascular outcomes or severe hypoglycaemia met the criteria for firm evidence of a RRR of 10% between interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support the decision as to whether to initiate sulphonylurea monotherapy. Data on patient-important outcomes are lacking. Therefore, large-scale and long-term randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias, focusing on patient-important outcomes are required.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants

BACKGROUND

To minimise the risk of implant failures after their placement, dental implants are kept load-free for 3 to 8 months to establish osseointegration (conventional loading). It would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardising implant success. Nowadays implants are loaded early and even immediately and it would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately and early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of (1) immediate (within 1 week), early (between 1 week and 2 months), and conventional (after 2 months) loading of osseointegrated implants; (2) immediate occlusal versus non-occlusal loading and early occlusal versus non-occlusal loading; (3) direct loading versus progressive loading immediately, early and conventionally.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 8 June 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2012, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 June 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 June 2012). Authors of identified trials were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants, having a follow-up of 4 months to 1 year, comparing the same implant type immediately, early or conventionally loaded, occlusally or non-occlusally loaded, or progressively loaded or not. Outcome measures were: prosthesis and implant failures and radiographic marginal bone level changes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by at least two review authors. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Risk of bias was assessed for each trial by at least two review authors, and data were extracted independently, and in duplicate. Results were combined using fixed-effect models with mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A summary of findings table of the main findings was constructed.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs were identified and, from these, 26 trials including a total of 1217 participants and 2120 implants were included. Three trials were at low risk of bias, 12 were at high risk of bias and for the remaining 11 the risk of bias was unclear. In nine of the included studies there were no prosthetic failures within the first year, with no implant failures in 7 studies and the mean rate of implant failure in all 26 trials was a low 2.5%. From 15 RCTs comparing immediate with convential loading there was no evidence of a difference in either prosthesis failure (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.70 to 5.01; 8 trials) or implant failure (RR 1.65; 95% CI 0.68 to 3.98; 10 trials) in the first year, but there is some evidence of a small reduction in bone loss favouring immediate loading (MD -0.10 mm; 95% CI -0.20 to -0.01; P = 0.03; 9 trials), with some heterogeneity (Tau² = 0.01; Chi² = 14.37, df = 8 (P = 0.07); I² = 44%). However, this very small difference may not be clinically important. From three RCTs which compared early loading with conventional loading, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. Six RCTs compared immediate and early loading and found insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. From the two trials which compared occlusal loading with non-occlusal loading there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a clinically important difference in the outcomes of prosthesis failure, implant failure or bone loss. We did not identify any trials which evaluated progressive loading of implants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall there was no convincing evidence of a clinically important difference in prosthesis failure, implant failure, or bone loss associated with different loading times of implants. More well-designed RCTs are needed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org/).

The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in Cochrane reviews

Background

Most meta-analyses include data from one or more small studies that, individually, do not have power to detect an intervention effect. The relative influence of adequately powered and underpowered studies in published meta-analyses has not previously been explored. We examine the distribution of power available in studies within meta-analyses published in Cochrane reviews, and investigate the impact of underpowered studies on meta-analysis results.

Methods and Findings

For 14,886 meta-analyses of binary outcomes from 1,991 Cochrane reviews, we calculated power per study within each meta-analysis. We defined adequate power as ≥50% power to detect a 30% relative risk reduction. In a subset of 1,107 meta-analyses including 5 or more studies with at least two adequately powered and at least one underpowered, results were compared with and without underpowered studies. In 10,492 (70%) of 14,886 meta-analyses, all included studies were underpowered; only 2,588 (17%) included at least two adequately powered studies. 34% of the meta-analyses themselves were adequately powered. The median of summary relative risks was 0.75 across all meta-analyses (inter-quartile range 0.55 to 0.89). In the subset examined, odds ratios in underpowered studies were 15% lower (95% CI 11% to 18%, P<0.0001) than in adequately powered studies, in meta-analyses of controlled pharmacological trials; and 12% lower (95% CI 7% to 17%, P<0.0001) in meta-analyses of controlled non-pharmacological trials. The standard error of the intervention effect increased by a median of 11% (inter-quartile range −1% to 35%) when underpowered studies were omitted; and between-study heterogeneity tended to decrease.

Conclusions

When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little information, and could be left out if a rapid review of the evidence is required. However, underpowered studies made up the entirety of the evidence in most Cochrane reviews.