Common challenges and suggestions for risk of bias tool development: a systematic review of methodological studies

OBJECTIVE

To review the findings of studies that have evaluated the design and/or usability of key risk of bias (RoB) tools for the assessment of RoB in primary studies, as categorised by the LATITUDES Network (a searchable library of RoB tools for evidence synthesis): PROBAST, RoB2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS-2, QUADAS-C, QUAPAS, ROBINS-E, and the COSMIN RoB checklist.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of methodological studies. We conducted a forward citation search from the primary report of each tool, to identify primary studies aiming to evaluate the design and/or usability of the tool. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. We extracted tool features into Microsoft Word and used NVivo for document analysis, comprising a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. We summarised findings within each tool and explored common findings across tools.

RESULTS

We identified 13 tool evaluations meeting our inclusion criteria: PROBAST (3); RoB2 (3); ROBINS-I (4); QUADAS-2 (3). We identified no evaluations for the other tools. Evaluations varied in clinical topic area, methodology, approach to bias assessment and tool user background. Some had limitations affecting generalisability. We identified common findings across tools for 6/14 themes: 1) challenging items (e.g. RoB2/ROBINS-I "deviations from intended interventions" domain), 2) overall RoB judgement (concerns with overall risk calculation in PROBAST/ROBINS-I), 3) tool usability (concerns about complexity), 4) time to complete tool (varying demands on time e.g. depending on number of outcomes assessed), 5) user agreement (varied across tools), and 6) recommendations for future use (e.g. piloting) and development (add intermediate domain answer to QUADAS-2/PROBAST; provide clearer guidance for all tools). Of the other eight themes, seven only had findings for the QUADAS-2 tool, limiting comparison across tools, and one ("re-organisation of questions") had no findings.

CONCLUSION

Evaluations of key RoB tools have posited common challenges and recommendations for tool use and development. These findings may be helpful to people using or developing RoB tools. Guidance is necessary to support the design and implementation of future RoB tool evaluations.

Age- versus clinical pretest probability-adjusted D-dimer to rule out lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis in ambulatory patients with active cancer

BACKGROUND

In patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), D-dimer thresholds adjusted to age or clinical pretest probability (CPTP) increase the proportion of patients in whom DVT can be safely excluded compared to a standard approach using a fixed D-dimer threshold. Performance of these diagnostic strategies among cancer patients is uncertain.

AIM

To compare the performance of age- and CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approaches among cancer outpatients with clinically suspected DVT, and derive a cancer-specific CPTP rule.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive ambulatory patients with active cancer and clinically suspected DVT of the lower extremity underwent CPTP assessment using the Wells rule, D-dimer testing, and whole-leg compression ultrasonography. Patients with normal ultrasonography were followed-up for 3 months for the occurrence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

RESULTS

Upon referral, DVT was diagnosed in 48 of 239 (20.1 %) patients. The age-adjusted approach showed higher specificity and efficiency than the standard approach. Compared to the standard and age-adjusted strategies, the CPTP-adjusted approach had 35 % and 21 % higher specificity, and 34 % and 21 % higher efficiency, respectively. Failure rate, sensitivity, and predictive values were similar across strategies. A simplified CPTP score derived from the Wells rule reduced unnecessary imaging with similar accuracy and efficiency, but higher failure rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective cohort of ambulatory cancer patients with clinically suspected DVT, the CPTP-adjusted D-dimer approach held the highest specificity and efficiency, potentially safely reducing unnecessary ultrasonography examinations compared to other approaches. Additional studies are warranted to evaluate the use of a simplified clinical prediction rule in this setting.

Incidence and characteristics of adverse events in paediatric inpatient care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) cause suffering for hospitalised children, a fragile patient group where the delivery of adequate timely care is of great importance.

OBJECTIVE

To report the incidence and characteristics of AEs, in paediatric inpatient care, as detected with the Global Trigger Tool (GTT), the Trigger Tool (TT) or the Harvard Medical Practice Study (HMPS) method.

METHOD

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 2021, without language restrictions. Studies using manual record review were included if paediatric data were reported separately. We excluded studies reporting: AEs for a specific disease/diagnosis/treatment/procedure, or deceased patients; study protocols with no AE outcomes; conference abstracts, editorials and systematic reviews; clinical incident reports as the primary data source; and studies focusing on specific AEs only. Methodological risk of bias was assessed using a tool based on the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of admissions with ≥1 AEs. All statistical analyses were stratified by record review methodology (GTT/TT or HMPS) and by type of population. Meta-analyses, applying random-effects models, were carried out. The variability of the pooled estimates was characterised by 95% prediction intervals (PIs).

RESULTS

We included 32 studies from 44 publications, conducted in 15 countries totalling 33 873 paediatric admissions. The total number of AEs identified was 8577. The most common types of AEs were nosocomial infections (range, 6.8%-59.6%) for the general care population and pulmonary-related (10.5%-36.7%) for intensive care. The reported incidence rates were highly heterogeneous. The PIs for the primary outcome were 3.8%-53.8% and 6.9%-91.6% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population). The equivalent PI was 0.3%-33.7% for HMPS studies (general care). The PIs for preventable AEs were 7.4%-96.2% and 4.5%-98.9% for GTT/TT studies (general and intensive care population) and 10.4%-91.8% for HMPS studies (general care). The quality assessment indicated several methodological concerns regarding the included studies.

CONCLUSION

The reported incidence of AEs is highly variable in paediatric inpatient care research, and it is not possible to estimate a reliable single rate. Poor reporting standards and methodological differences hinder the comparison of study results.

Variation in detected adverse events using trigger tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Adverse event (AE) detection is a major patient safety priority. However, despite extensive research on AEs, reported incidence rates vary widely.

Objective

This study aimed: (1) to synthesize available evidence on AE incidence in acute care inpatient settings using Trigger Tool methodology; and (2) to explore whether study characteristics and study quality explain variations in reported AE incidence.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

To identify relevant studies, we queried PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and three journals in the patient safety field (last update search 25.05.2022). Eligible publications fulfilled the following criteria: adult inpatient samples; acute care hospital settings; Trigger Tool methodology; focus on specialty of internal medicine, surgery or oncology; published in English, French, German, Italian or Spanish. Systematic reviews and studies addressing adverse drug events or exclusively deceased patients were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted version of the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. Our main outcome of interest was AEs per 100 admissions. We assessed nine study characteristics plus study quality as potential sources of variation using random regression models. We received no funding and did not register this review.

Results

Screening 6,685 publications yielded 54 eligible studies covering 194,470 admissions. The cumulative AE incidence was 30.0 per 100 admissions (95% CI 23.9–37.5; I² = 99.7%) and between study heterogeneity was high with a prediction interval of 5.4–164.7. Overall studies’ risk of bias and applicability-related concerns were rated as low. Eight out of nine methodological study characteristics did explain some variation of reported AE rates, such as patient age and type of hospital. Also, study quality did explain variation.

Conclusion

Estimates of AE studies using trigger tool methodology vary while explaining variation is seriously hampered by the low standards of reporting such as the timeframe of AE detection. Specific reporting guidelines for studies using retrospective medical record review methodology are necessary to strengthen the current evidence base and to help explain between study variation.

Effect of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) on knee pain and physical function in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: the ETRELKA randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of TENS at relieving pain and improving physical function as compared to placebo TENS, and to determine its safety, in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Multi-centre, parallel, 1:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in six outpatient clinics in Switzerland. We included 220 participants with knee osteoarthritis recruited between October 15, 2012, and October 15, 2014. Patients were randomized to 3 weeks of treatment with TENS (n = 108) or placebo TENS (n = 112). Our pre-specified primary endpoint was knee pain at the end of 3-weeks treatment assessed with the WOMAC pain subscale. Secondary outcome measures included WOMAC physical function subscale and safety outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no difference between TENS and placebo TENS in WOMAC pain at the end of treatment (mean difference -0.06; 95%CI -0.41 to 0.29; P = 0.74), nor throughout the trial duration (P = 0.98). Subgroup analyses did not indicate an interaction between patient/treatment characteristics and treatment effect on WOMAC pain at the end of treatment (P-interaction ≥0.22). The occurrence of adverse events was similar across groups, with 10.4% and 10.6% of patients reporting events in the TENS and placebo TENS groups, respectively (P = 0.95). No relevant differences were observed in secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

TENS does not improve knee osteoarthritis pain when compared to placebo TENS. Therapists should consider other potentially more effective treatment modalities to decrease knee osteoarthritis pain and facilitate strengthening and aerobic exercise. Our findings are conclusive and further trials comparing TENS and placebo TENS in this patient population are not necessary.

QUADAS-C: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies assess and compare the accuracy of 2 or more tests in the same study. Although these studies have the potential to yield reliable evidence regarding comparative accuracy, shortcomings in the design, conduct, and analysis may bias their results. The currently recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic test accuracy studies, QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2), is not designed for the assessment of test comparisons. The QUADAS-C (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Comparative) tool was developed as an extension of QUADAS-2 to assess the risk of bias in comparative diagnostic test accuracy studies. Through a 4-round Delphi study involving 24 international experts in test evaluation and a face-to-face consensus meeting, an initial version of the tool was developed that was revised and finalized following a pilot study among potential users. The QUADAS-C tool retains the same 4-domain structure of QUADAS-2 (Patient Selection, Index Test, Reference Standard, and Flow and Timing) and comprises additional questions to each QUADAS-2 domain. A risk-of-bias judgment for comparative accuracy requires a risk-of-bias judgment for the accuracy of each test (resulting from QUADAS-2) and additional criteria specific to test comparisons. Examples of such additional criteria include whether participants either received all index tests or were randomly assigned to index tests, and whether index tests were interpreted with blinding to the results of other index tests. The QUADAS-C tool will be useful for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy addressing comparative questions. Furthermore, researchers may use this tool to identify and avoid risk of bias when designing a comparative diagnostic test accuracy study.

Interventions for preventing falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, from inception until February 27, 2019. Two large RCTs (published in 2020 after the search closed) were included in post hoc analyses. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted.

RESULTS

NMA including 192 studies revealed that the following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fallers: exercise (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.89) and quality improvement strategies (e.g., patient education) (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.98). Exercise as a single intervention was associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86). Common components of multiple interventions significantly associated with a reduction in number of fallers and falls rate were exercise, assistive technology, environmental assessment and modifications, quality improvement strategies, and basic falls risk assessment (e.g., medication review). Multifactorial interventions were associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.95), but not with a reduction in number of fallers (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.01). The following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fall-related fractures: basic falls risk assessment (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.94) and exercise (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In keeping with Tricco et al. (2017), several single and multiple fall prevention interventions are associated with fewer falls. In addition to Tricco, we observe a benefit at the NMA-level of some single interventions on preventing fall-related fractures.

Preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts): checklist, explanation, and elaboration

For many users of the biomedical literature, abstracts may be the only source of information about a study. Hence, abstracts should allow readers to evaluate the objectives, key design features, and main results of the study. Several evaluations have shown deficiencies in the reporting of journal and conference abstracts across study designs and research fields, including systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. Incomplete reporting compromises the value of research to key stakeholders. The authors of this article have developed a 12 item checklist of preferred reporting items for journal and conference abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies (PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts). This article presents the checklist, examples of complete reporting, and explanations for each item of PRISMA-DTA for Abstracts.

Venous thromboembolism in patients with COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) may complicate the course of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Objectives

To evaluate the incidence of VTE in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched up to 24th June 2020 for studies that evaluated the incidence of VTE, including pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI) were calculated by random-effect meta-analysis.

Results

3487 patients from 30 studies were included. Based on very low-quality evidence due to heterogeneity and risk of bias, the incidence of VTE was 26% (95% PI, 6%–66%). PE with or without DVT occurred in 12% of patients (95% PI, 2%–46%) and DVT alone in 14% (95% PI, 1%–75%). Studies using standard algorithms for clinically suspected VTE reported PE in 13% of patients (95% PI, 2%–57%) and DVT in 6% (95% PI, 0%–60%), compared to 11% (95% PI, 2%–46%) and 24% (95% PI, 2%–85%) in studies using other diagnostic strategies or patient sampling. In patients admitted to intensive care units, VTE occurred in 24% (95% PI, 5%–66%), PE in 19% (95% PI, 6%–47%), and DVT alone in 7% (95% PI, 0%–69%). Corresponding values in general wards were respectively 9% (95% PI, 0%–94%), 4% (95% PI, 0%–100%), and 7% (95% CI, 1%–49%).

Conclusions

VTE represents a frequent complication in hospitalized COVID-19 patients and often occurs as PE. The threshold for clinical suspicion should be low to trigger prompt diagnostic testing.

•

Incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) is unclear.

•

A total of 3487 patients with COVID-19 were included in 30 observational studies.

•

VTE incidence varied due to differences in diagnostic protocols and hospital setting.

•

VTE risk was higher in intensive care units, but seemed also substantial in general wards despite prophylaxis.

Acute complications and mortality in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The incidence of acute complications and mortality associated with COVID-19 remains poorly characterized. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to summarize the evidence on clinically relevant outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and medRxiv were searched up to April 20, 2020, for studies including hospitalized symptomatic adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The secondary outcomes included acute cardiac or kidney injury, shock, coagulopathy, and venous thromboembolism. The main analysis was based on data from peer-reviewed studies. Summary estimates and the corresponding 95% prediction intervals (PIs) were obtained through meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 44 peer-reviewed studies with 14,866 COVID-19 patients were included. In general, risk of bias was high. All-cause mortality was 10% overall (95% PI, 2 to 39%; 1687/14203 patients; 43 studies), 34% in patients admitted to intensive care units (95% PI, 8 to 76%; 659/2368 patients; 10 studies), 83% in patients requiring invasive ventilation (95% PI, 1 to 100%; 180/220 patients; 6 studies), and 75% in patients who developed ARDS (95% PI, 35 to 94%; 339/455 patients; 11 studies). On average, ARDS occurred in 14% of patients (95% PI, 2 to 59%; 999/6322 patients; 23 studies), acute cardiac injury in 15% (95% PI, 5 to 38%; 452/2389 patients; 10 studies), venous thromboembolism in 15% (95% PI, 0 to 100%; patients; 3 studies), acute kidney injury in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 41%; 318/4682 patients; 15 studies), coagulopathy in 6% (95% PI, 1 to 39%; 223/3370 patients; 9 studies), and shock in 3% (95% PI, 0 to 61%; 203/4309 patients; 13 studies).

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was very high in critically ill patients based on very low-quality evidence due to striking heterogeneity and risk of bias. The incidence of clinically relevant outcomes was substantial, although reported by only one third of the studies suggesting considerable underreporting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration ID for this study is CRD42020177243 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=177243 ).

Effects of Obesity and Thrombophilia on the Risk of Abortion in Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization

INTRODUCTION

Obesity is associated with a higher risk of abortion in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Whether thrombophilia amplifies this risk is currently unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of thrombophilia on the risk of abortion in obese women treated with IVF.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, presence of inherited or acquired thrombophilia, and comorbidities were prospectively collected before the procedure in consecutive women undergoing IVF. The primary outcome was the incidence of abortion among women who achieved a clinical pregnancy.

RESULTS

A total of 633 non-obese and 49 obese Caucasian women undergoing IVF were included. 204 (32%) women achieved clinical pregnancy, of whom six had an ectopic pregnancy and 63 experienced an abortion. The incidence of abortion was higher in obese women compared to non-obese women after adjusting for age (64.3% vs. 29.3%, odds ratio [OR] 4.41; 95% CI 1.41 to 13.81). Women with one or more thrombophilia were at increased risk of abortion relative to those without thrombophilia (OR 2.70; 95% CI 1.34 to 5.45), and the risk seemed to be higher with hereditary (OR 5.12; 95% CI 1.77 to 14.8) than acquired thrombophilia (OR 1.92; 95% CI 0.52 to 5.12; p for interaction 0.194). Among obese women, the presence of one or more thrombophilia seemed associated with a substantially increased risk of abortion (unadjusted OR 14.00; 95% CI 0.94 to 207.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Obese women undergoing IVF have a high risk of abortion which seems further amplified by the concomitant presence of thrombophilia.

Venous thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Essentials Cancer patients are at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The risk of VTE in less advanced stage cancer on neoadjuvant chemotherapy is unclear. In over 7800 patients, we found a 7% pooled incidence of VTE during neoadjuvant therapy. Highest VTE rates were observed in patients with bladder and esophageal cancer.

SUMMARY

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication in cancer patients receiving adjuvant treatment. The risk of VTE during neoadjuvant chemo-radiotherapy remains unclear. Objectives This systematic review evaluated the incidence of VTE in patients with cancer receiving neoadjuvant treatment. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to October 2017. Search results were supplemented with screening of conference proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2009-2016) and the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (2003-2016). Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, and extracted data onto standardized forms. Results Twenty-eight cohort studies (7827 cancer patients, range 11 to 1398) were included. Twenty-five had a retrospective design. Eighteen cohorts included patients with gastrointestinal cancer, representing over two-thirds of the whole study population (n = 6002, 78%). In total, 508 of 7768 patients were diagnosed with at least one VTE during neoadjuvant treatment, for a pooled VTE incidence of 7% (95% CI, 5% to 10%) in the absence of substantial between-study heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was not explained by site of cancer or study design characteristics. VTE presented as pulmonary embolism in 22% to 96% of cases (16 cohorts), and it was symptomatic in 22% to 100% of patients (11 cohorts). The highest VTE rates were observed in patients with bladder (10.6%) or esophageal (8.4%) cancer. Conclusions This review found a relatively high incidence of VTE in cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy in the presence of some between-study variation, which deserves further evaluation in prospective studies.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement

Importance

Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy.

Objective

To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews.

Design

Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group.

Findings

The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted.

Conclusions and Relevance

The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

Risk of major bleeding in patients with venous thromboembolism treated with rivaroxaban or with heparin and vitamin K antagonists

The study aim was to identify predictive factors for major bleeding in patients receiving the novel oral factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban or enoxaparin-vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the treatment of acute symptomatic venous thromboembolism. We analysed data from patients included in the phase III EINSTEIN DVT and EINSTEIN PE studies. Factors associated with major bleeding events were assessed with best subset variable selection using Cox proportional hazards regression model. Three time windows were considered, i. e. the initial three weeks, after the third week onwards, and the entire duration of the anticoagulant treatment. Model discrimination was estimated using the C-statistic and validated internally by bootstrap techniques. Major bleeding occurred in 40 (1.0 %) of 4130 patients receiving rivaroxaban and in 72 (1.7 %) of 4116 receiving enoxaparin/VKAs, with 44 % of the major bleeding events occurring in the first three weeks of treatment. Significant risk factors for major bleeding were older age, black race, low haemoglobin concentrations, active cancer, and antiplatelet or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. The discrimination of the model for major bleeding was high for the first three weeks (C-statistic 0.73), from the fourth week onwards (C-statistic 0.68), and the entire period of anticoagulant treatment (C-statistic 0.74). This analysis identified risk factors for major bleeding in patients receiving the novel oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban or enoxaparin/VKAs for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism. The prognostic model based on the combination of identified risk factors may be informative to estimate the risk of major bleeding both during the initial and later phases of anticoagulation.

Supplementary Material to this article is available online at www.thrombosis-online.com.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set

AIM

Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers.

RESULTS

Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely.

CONCLUSION

Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.

Does cyclic guanosine monophosphate induce autophagy in thyroid malignant carcinoma through down-regulation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate phosphodiesterase?

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not the expression of cGMP- phosphodiesterases (cGMP-PDE) varies in different thyroid pathologies and to elucidate the relationship between the expression of cGMP-PDE, cGMP, and autophagy. Fifty-four thyroid biopsy samples, excised to perform the biopsy, were split into two parts and randomly assigned: one part was microscopically examined and histological classified, and the other was frozen and analysed in order to evaluate the cGMP-PDE activity. Intracellular cGMP was also measured. A strong expression of intracellular cGMP and cGMP-PDE activity was observed in carcinoma in respect to controls and benign pathologies. The level of cGMP-PDE in papillary carcinoma without lymph node involvement (N-) was approximately four-fold higher compared to those with lymph node invasion (N±). On the contrary, the cGMP was one and a half times higher in N± than N-. Our results are promising, although further epigenetical studies are needed to confirm this association. A correlation between the cGMP-degrading activity and the severity of thyroid pathology has been shown. The decrease of cGMP-PDE and the increase of cGMP in N± papillar carcinoma could be an autophagic stimulus, a defence mechanism of the body, against the cancer that is expanding and invading other tissues and organs.

Anticipating missing reference standard data when planning diagnostic accuracy studies

Results obtained using a reference standard may be missing for some participants in diagnostic accuracy studies. This paper looks at methods for dealing with such missing data when designing or conducting a prospective diagnostic accuracy study

Aspiration Thrombectomy for Treatment of ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a Meta-analysis of 26 Randomized Trials in 11,943 Patients

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

There is continued debate about the routine use of aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Our aim was to evaluate clinical and procedural outcomes of aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials with a total of 11 943 patients. Clinical outcomes were extracted up to maximum follow-up and random effect models were used to assess differences in outcomes.

RESULTS

We observed no difference in the risk of all-cause death (pooled risk ratio = 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.04; P = .124), reinfarction (pooled risk ratio = 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.08; P = .176), target vessel revascularization (pooled risk ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.00; P = .052), or definite stent thrombosis (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.16; P = .202) between the 2 groups at a mean weighted follow-up time of 10.4 months. There were significant reductions in failure to reach Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (pooled risk ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.81; P < .001) or myocardial blush grade 3 (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.89; P = .001), incomplete ST-segment resolution (pooled risk ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.84; P < .001), and evidence of distal embolization (pooled risk ratio = 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.81; P = .001) with aspiration thrombectomy but estimates were heterogeneous between trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Among unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not improve clinical outcomes, despite improved epicardial and myocardial parameters of reperfusion.

Dementia in patients with atrial fibrillation and the value of the Hachinski ischemic score

AIM

To assess the prevalence of vascular dementia, mixed dementia and Alzheimer's disease in patients with atrial fibrillation, and to evaluate the accuracy of the Hachinski ischemic score for these subtypes of dementia.

METHODS

A nested case-control study was carried out. A total of 103 of 784 consecutive patients evaluated for cognitive status at the Ambulatory Geriatric Clinic had a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Controls without atrial fibrillation were randomly selected from the remaining 681 patients using a 1:2 matching for sex, age and education.

RESULTS

The prevalence of vascular dementia was twofold in patients with atrial fibrillation compared with controls (21.4% vs 10.7%, P = 0.024). Alzheimer's disease was also more frequent in the group with atrial fibrillation (12.6% vs 7.3%, P = 0.046), whereas mixed dementia had a similar distribution. The Hachinski ischemic score poorly discriminated between dementia subtypes, with misclassification rates between 46% (95% CI 28-66) and 70% (95% CI 55-83). In patients with atrial fibrillation, these rates ranged from 55% (95% CI 32-77) to 69% (95% CI 39-91%). In patients in whom the diagnosis of dementia was excluded, the Hachinski ischemic score suggested the presence of vascular dementia in 11% and mixed dementia in 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

Vascular dementia and Alzheimer's disease, but not mixed dementia, are more prevalent in patients with atrial fibrillation. The discriminative accuracy of the Hachinski ischemic score for dementia subtypes in atrial fibrillation is poor, with a significant proportion of misclassifications.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy, but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in February 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis for VTE in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy compared with placebo or no thromboprophylaxis.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 5), and clinical trials registries (up to June 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any oral or parenteral anticoagulant or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo, or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions, and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 additional RCTs (6323 patients) in the updated search so that this update considered 21 trials with a total of 9861 patients, all evaluating pharmacological interventions and performed mainly in patients with advanced cancer. Overall, the risk of bias varied from low to high. One large trial of 3212 patients found a 64% (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.60) reduction of symptomatic VTE with the ultra-low molecular weight heparin (uLMWH) semuloparin relative to placebo, with no apparent difference in major bleeding (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.00). LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75; no heterogeneity, Tau(2) = 0%) with similar rates of major bleeding events (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23). In patients with multiple myeloma, LMWH was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE when compared with the vitamin K antagonist warfarin (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83), while the difference between LMWH and aspirin was not statistically significant (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.17). No major bleeding was observed in the patients treated with LMWH or warfarin and in less than 1% of those treated with aspirin. Only one study evaluated unfractionated heparin against inactive control and found an incidence of major bleeding of 1% in both study groups while not reporting on VTE. When compared with placebo, warfarin was associated with a statistically insignificant reduction of symptomatic VTE (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). Antithrombin, evaluated in one study involving paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control. The new oral factor Xa inhibitor apixaban was evaluated in a phase-II dose finding study that suggested a promising low rate of major bleeding (2.1% versus 3.3%) and symptomatic VTE (1.1% versus 10%) in comparison with placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update, we confirmed that primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. In addition, the uLMWH semuloparin significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE. However, the broad confidence intervals around the estimates for major bleeding suggest caution in the use of anticoagulation and mandate additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of anticoagulants in this setting. Despite the encouraging results of this review, routine prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients cannot be recommended before safety issues are adequately addressed.

Reporting standards for studies of diagnostic test accuracy in dementia: The STARDdem Initiative

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance on standards for reporting studies of diagnostic test accuracy for dementia disorders.

METHODS

An international consensus process on reporting standards in dementia and cognitive impairment (STARDdem) was established, focusing on studies presenting data from which sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be derived. A working group led the initiative through 4 rounds of consensus work, using a modified Delphi process and culminating in a face-to-face consensus meeting in October 2012. The aim of this process was to agree on how best to supplement the generic standards of the STARD statement to enhance their utility and encourage their use in dementia research.

RESULTS

More than 200 comments were received during the wider consultation rounds. The areas at most risk of inadequate reporting were identified and a set of dementia-specific recommendations to supplement the STARD guidance were developed, including better reporting of patient selection, the reference standard used, avoidance of circularity, and reporting of test-retest reliability.

CONCLUSION

STARDdem is an implementation of the STARD statement in which the original checklist is elaborated and supplemented with guidance pertinent to studies of cognitive disorders. Its adoption is expected to increase transparency, enable more effective evaluation of diagnostic tests in Alzheimer disease and dementia, contribute to greater adherence to methodologic standards, and advance the development of Alzheimer biomarkers.

Safety and feasibility of a diagnostic algorithm combining clinical probability, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis: a prospective management study

BACKGROUND

Although well-established for suspected lower limb deep venous thrombosis, an algorithm combining a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography has not been evaluated for suspected upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and feasibility of a new diagnostic algorithm in patients with clinically suspected UEDVT.

DESIGN

Diagnostic management study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01324037) SETTING: 16 hospitals in Europe and the United States.

PATIENTS

406 inpatients and outpatients with suspected UEDVT.

MEASUREMENTS

The algorithm consisted of the sequential application of a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography. Patients were first categorized as likely or unlikely to have UEDVT; in those with an unlikely score and normal d-dimer levels, UEDVT was excluded. All other patients had (repeated) compression ultrasonography. The primary outcome was the 3-month incidence of symptomatic UEDVT and pulmonary embolism in patients with a normal diagnostic work-up.

RESULTS

The algorithm was feasible and completed in 390 of the 406 patients (96%). In 87 patients (21%), an unlikely score combined with normal d-dimer levels excluded UEDVT. Superficial venous thrombosis and UEDVT were diagnosed in 54 (13%) and 103 (25%) patients, respectively. All 249 patients with a normal diagnostic work-up, including those with protocol violations (n = 16), were followed for 3 months. One patient developed UEDVT during follow-up, for an overall failure rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0% to 2.2%).

LIMITATIONS

This study was not powered to show the safety of the substrategies. d-Dimer testing was done locally.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a clinical decision score, d-dimer testing, and ultrasonography can safely and effectively exclude UEDVT. If confirmed by other studies, this algorithm has potential as a standard approach to suspected UEDVT.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies

OBJECTIVE

To classify the sources of bias and variation and to provide an updated summary of the evidence of the effects of each source of bias and variation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of studies of any design with the main objective of addressing bias or variation in the results of diagnostic accuracy studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, the Cochrane Methodology Register, and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from 2001 to October 2011. Citation searches based on three key papers were conducted, and studies from our previous review (search to 2001) were eligible. One reviewer extracted data on the study design, objective, sources of bias and/or variation, and results. A second reviewer checked the extraction.

RESULTS

We summarized the number of studies providing evidence of an effect arising from each source of bias and variation on the estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

We found consistent evidence for the effects of case-control design, observer variability, availability of clinical information, reference standard, partial and differential verification bias, demographic features, and disease prevalence and severity. Effects were generally stronger for sensitivity than for specificity. Evidence for other sources of bias and variation was limited.

Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence

BACKGROUND

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test may vary with disease prevalence. Our objective was to investigate the associations between disease prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity using studies of diagnostic accuracy.

METHODS

We used data from 23 meta-analyses, each of which included 10-39 studies (416 total). The median prevalence per review ranged from 1% to 77%. We evaluated the effects of prevalence on sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model for each meta-analysis, with prevalence as a covariate. We estimated the overall effect of prevalence by pooling the effects using the inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Within a given review, a change in prevalence from the lowest to highest value resulted in a corresponding change in sensitivity or specificity from 0 to 40 percentage points. This effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for either sensitivity or specificity in 8 meta-analyses (35%). Overall, specificity tended to be lower with higher disease prevalence; there was no such systematic effect for sensitivity.

INTERPRETATION

The sensitivity and specificity of a test often vary with disease prevalence; this effect is likely to be the result of mechanisms, such as patient spectrum, that affect prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. Because it may be difficult to identify such mechanisms, clinicians should use prevalence as a guide when selecting studies that most closely match their situation.

Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Clinicians find standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated from continuous outcomes difficult to interpret. Our objective was to determine the performance of methods in converting SMDs or means to odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) as more intuitive measures of treatment effect.

METHODS

Meta-epidemiological study of large-scale trials (≥ 100 patients per group) comparing active treatment with placebo, sham or non-intervention control. Trials had to use pain or global symptoms as continuous outcomes and report both the percentage of patients with treatment response and mean pain or symptom scores per group. For each trial, we calculated odds ratios of observed treatment response and NNTs and approximated these estimates from SMDs or means using all five currently available conversion methods by Hasselblad and Hedges (HH), Cox and Snell (CS), Furukawa (FU), Suissa (SU) and Kraemer and Kupfer (KK). We compared observed and approximated values within trials by deriving pooled ratios of odds ratios (RORs) and differences in NNTs. ROR <1 and positive differences in NNTs imply that approximations are more conservative than estimates calculated from observed treatment response. As measures of agreement, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

A total of 29 trials in 13 654 patients were included. Four out of five methods were suitable (HH, CS, FU, SU), with RORs between 0.92 for SU [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.86-0.99] and 0.97 for HH (95% CI, 0.91-1.04) and differences in NNTs between 0.5 (95% CI, -0.1 to -1.6) and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.1). Intraclass correlation coefficients were ≥ 0.90 for these four methods, but ≤ 0.76 for the fifth method by KK (P for differences ≤ 0.027).

CONCLUSIONS

The methods by HH, CS, FU and SU are suitable to convert summary treatment effects calculated from continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and NNTs, whereas the method by KK is unsuitable.

Doxycycline for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is a chronic joint disease that involves degeneration of articular cartilage. Pre-clinical data suggest that doxycycline might act as a disease-modifying agent for the treatment of osteoarthritis, with the potential to slow cartilage degeneration. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of doxycycline compared with placebo or no intervention on pain and function in people with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to 28 July 2008, with an update performed at 16 March 2012. In addition, we checked conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared doxycycline at any dosage and any formulation with placebo or no intervention in people with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in duplicate. We contacted investigators to obtain missing outcome information. We calculated differences in means at follow-up between experimental and control groups for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for binary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified one additional trial (232 participants) and included two trials (663 participants) in this update. The methodological quality and the quality of reporting were considered moderate. At end of treatment, clinical outcomes were similar between the two treatment groups, with an effect size of -0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.22 to 0.13), corresponding to a difference in pain scores between doxycycline and control of -0.1 cm (95% CI -0.6 to 0.3 cm) on a 10-cm visual analogue scale, or 32% versus 29% improvement from baseline (difference 3%; 95% CI -5% to 10%). The effect size for function was -0.07 (95% CI -0.25 to 0.10), corresponding to a difference between doxycycline and control of -0.2 (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2) on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability subscale with a range of 0 to 10, or 24% versus 21% improvement (difference 3%; 95% CI -3% to 10%). The difference in changes in minimum joint space narrowing assessed in one trial was in favour of doxycycline (-0.15 mm; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.02 mm), which corresponds to a small effect size of -0.23 standard deviation units (95% CI -0.44 to -0.02). More participants withdrew from the doxycycline group compared with placebo due to adverse events (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 4.90). There was no evidence that participants in the doxycycline group experienced more serious adverse events than those in the placebo group, but the estimate was imprecise (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.68).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update, the strength of evidence for effectiveness outcomes was improved from low to moderate and we confirmed that the symptomatic benefit of doxycycline is minimal to non-existent, while the small benefit in terms of joint space narrowing is of questionable clinical relevance and outweighed by safety problems. The CIs of the summary estimates now exclude any clinically relevant difference in improvement of symptoms and the small benefit in terms of joint space narrowing does not outweigh the harms.

Viscosupplementation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Viscosupplementation, the intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid, is widely used for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE

To assess the benefits and risks of viscosupplementation for adults with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (1966 to January 2012), EMBASE (1980 to January 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1970 to January 2012), and other sources.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials in any language that compared viscosupplementation with sham or nonintervention control in adults with knee osteoarthritis.

DATA EXTRACTION

Primary outcomes were pain intensity and flare-ups. Secondary outcomes included function and serious adverse events. Reviewers used duplicate abstractions, assessed study quality, pooled data by using a random-effects model, examined funnel plots, and explored heterogeneity by using meta-regression.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Eighty-nine trials involving 12 667 adults met inclusion criteria. Sixty-eight had a sham control, 40 had a follow-up duration greater than 3 months, and 22 used cross-linked forms of hyaluronic acid. Overall, 71 trials (9617 patients) showed that viscosupplementation moderately reduced pain (effect size, -0.37 [95% CI, -0.46 to -0.28]). There was important between-trial heterogeneity and an asymmetrical funnel plot: Trial size, blinded outcome assessment, and publication status were associated with effect size. Five unpublished trials (1149 patients) showed an effect size of -0.03 (CI, -0.14 to 0.09). Eighteen large trials with blinded outcome assessment (5094 patients) showed a clinically irrelevant effect size of -0.11 (CI, -0.18 to -0.04). Six trials (811 patients) showed that viscosupplementation increased, although not statistically significantly, the risk for flare-ups (relative risk, 1.51 [CI, 0.84 to 2.72]). Fourteen trials (3667 patients) showed that viscosupplementation increased the risk for serious adverse events (relative risk, 1.41 [CI, 1.02 to 1.97]).

LIMITATIONS

Trial quality was generally low. Safety data were often not reported.

CONCLUSION

In patients with knee osteoarthritis, viscosupplementation is associated with a small and clinically irrelevant benefit and an increased risk for serious adverse events.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Arco Foundation.

Primary prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) often complicates the clinical course of cancer disease. The risk is further increased by chemotherapy but the safety and efficacy of primary thromboprophylaxis in cancer patients treated with chemotherapy is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of primary thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched 3 May 2011) and CENTRAL (2011, Issue 2). The authors searched clinical trials registries and reference lists of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), vitamin K antagonists (VKA), direct thrombin inhibitors, direct factor Xa inhibitors or mechanical intervention to no intervention or placebo; or comparing two different anticoagulants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted on methodological quality, patients, interventions and outcomes including symptomatic VTE and major bleeding as the primary effectiveness and safety outcomes, respectively.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine RCTs with a total of 3538 patients were considered. None of the RCTs tested UFH, fondaparinux, direct factor Xa inhibitors or mechanical interventions. Overall, the risk of bias was low in most of the studies. LMWH, when compared with inactive control, significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.93) with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). The number needed to treat to prevent a symptomatic VTE was 60. LMWH was associated with a 60% increase in major bleeding when compared with inactive control, although this was not statistically significant (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.69 to 3.60; I(2) = 10%). There was a 45% reduction in overall VTE (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; I(2) = 0%) while for symptomatic pulmonary embolism, asymptomatic VTE, minor bleeding and one-year mortality the differences between the LMWH and control groups were not statistically significant. The effect of the vitamin K antagonist warfarin on preventing symptomatic VTE, measured in only one study, was not statistically significant (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.20). In one RCT of patients with myeloma, LMWH was associated with a 67% reduction in symptomatic VTE (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.83) compared with warfarin, with no differences in major bleeding. Antithrombin, evaluated in one study on paediatric patients, had no significant effect on VTE nor major bleeding when compared with inactive control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Primary thromboprophylaxis with LMWH significantly reduced the incidence of symptomatic VTE in ambulatory cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. However, the lack of power hampers definite conclusions on the effects on major safety outcomes, which mandates additional studies to determine the risk to benefit ratio of LMWH in this setting.

QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies

In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.

Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: bibliographic study

Objectives Appropriate reporting is central to the application of findings from research to clinical practice. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations consist of a checklist of 22 items that provide guidance on the reporting of cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies, in order to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. STROBE was published in October 2007 in several journals including The Lancet, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine. Within the framework of the revision of the STROBE recommendations, the authors examined the context and circumstances in which the STROBE statement was used in the past. Design The authors searched the Web of Science database in August 2010 for articles which cited STROBE and examined a random sample of 100 articles using a standardised, piloted data extraction form. The use of STROBE in observational studies and systematic reviews (including meta-analyses) was classified as appropriate or inappropriate. The use of STROBE to guide the reporting of observational studies was considered appropriate. Inappropriate uses included the use of STROBE as a tool to assess the methodological quality of studies or as a guideline on how to design and conduct studies. Results The authors identified 640 articles that cited STROBE. In the random sample of 100 articles, about half were observational studies (32%) or systematic reviews (19%). Comments, editorials and letters accounted for 15%, methodological articles for 8%, and recommendations and narrative reviews for 26% of articles. Of the 32 observational studies, 26 (81%) made appropriate use of STROBE, and three uses (10%) were considered inappropriate. Among 19 systematic reviews, 10 (53%) used STROBE inappropriately as a tool to assess study quality. Conclusions The STROBE reporting recommendations are frequently used inappropriately in systematic reviews and meta-analyses as an instrument to assess the methodological quality of observational studies.

Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study.

DATA SOURCES

13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients' reported pain as an outcome.

METHODS

We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials.

RESULTS

On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes -0.21, 95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.08, P=0.001). Depending on criteria used, six to eight funnel plots indicated small study effects. In six of 13 meta-analyses, the overall pooled estimate suggested a clinically relevant, significant benefit of treatment, whereas analyses restricted to large trials and predicted effects in large trials yielded smaller non-significant estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Small study effects can often distort results of meta-analyses. The influence of small trials on estimated treatment effects should be routinely assessed.

Accuracy of diagnostic tests for clinically suspected upper extremity deep vein thrombosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The best available test for the diagnosis of upper extremity deep venous thrombosis (UEDVT) is contrast venography. The aim of this systematic review was to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of other tests for clinically suspected UEDVT is high enough to justify their use in clinical practise and to evaluate if any test can replace venography.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to June 2009. Two reviewers independently evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality.

RESULTS

We identified 17 papers, reporting on 793 patients. Overall, the methodological quality was poor, sample sizes were small, and large between-study differences were observed in spectrum and design. The summary estimates of sensitivity (95% confidence interval) were 97% (90-100%) for compression ultrasonography, 84% (72-97%) for Doppler ultrasonography, 91% (85-97%) for Doppler ultrasonography with compression, and 85% (72-99%) for phleboreography. The corresponding summary estimates of specificity were, respectively, 96% (87-100%), 94% (86-100%), 93% (80-100%), and 87% (71-100%). Clinical findings, a clinical score, D-dimer, magnetic resonance imaging, rheography and plethysmography were evaluated in one study each, involving a median number of 46 patients (range 21-214). Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0% to 100% and from 14% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological limitations, large between-study differences and small sample sizes limit the evidence of tests for clinically suspected UEDVT. Compression ultrasonography may be an acceptable alternative to venography. The addition of (color) Doppler does not seem to improve the accuracy. Adequately designed studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

The importance of allocation concealment and patient blinding in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of adequate allocation concealment and patient blinding with estimates of treatment benefits in osteoarthritis trials.

METHODS

We performed a meta-epidemiologic study of 16 meta-analyses with 175 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or nonintervention control in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. We calculated effect sizes from the differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of followup divided by the pooled SD and compared effect sizes between trials with and trials without adequate methodology.

RESULTS

Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 46 trials with adequate allocation concealment compared with 112 trials with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation (difference -0.15; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.31, 0.02). Selection bias associated with inadequate or unclear concealment of allocation was most pronounced in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits (P for interaction < 0.001), meta-analyses with high between-trial heterogeneity (P = 0.009), and meta-analyses of complementary medicine (P = 0.019). Effect sizes tended to be less beneficial in 64 trials with adequate blinding of patients compared with 58 trials without (difference -0.15; 95% CI -0.39, 0.09), but differences were less consistent and disappeared after accounting for allocation concealment. Detection bias associated with a lack of adequate patient blinding was most pronounced for nonpharmacologic interventions (P for interaction < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of osteoarthritis trials may be affected by selection and detection bias. Adequate concealment of allocation and attempts to blind patients will minimize these biases.

The effects of excluding patients from the analysis in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether excluding patients from the analysis of randomised trials are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects and higher heterogeneity between trials.

DESIGN

Meta-epidemiological study based on a collection of meta-analyses of randomised trials.

DATA SOURCES

14 meta-analyses including 167 trials that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or non-intervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patient reported pain as an outcome.

METHODS

Effect sizes were calculated from differences in means of pain intensity between groups at the end of follow-up, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Trials were combined by using random effects meta-analysis. Estimates of treatment effects were compared between trials with and trials without exclusions from the analysis, and the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials without exclusions was assessed.

RESULTS

39 trials (23%) had included all patients in the analysis. In 128 trials (77%) some patients were excluded from the analysis. Effect sizes from trials with exclusions tended to be more beneficial than those from trials without exclusions (difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval -0.29 to 0.04). However, estimates of bias between individual meta-analyses varied considerably (tau(2)=0.07). Tests of interaction between exclusions from the analysis and estimates of treatment effects were positive in five meta-analyses. Stratified analyses indicated that differences in effect sizes between trials with and trials without exclusions were more pronounced in meta-analyses with high between trial heterogeneity, in meta-analyses with large estimated treatment benefits, and in meta-analyses of complementary medicine. Restriction of meta-analyses to trials without exclusions resulted in smaller estimated treatment benefits, larger P values, and considerable decreases in between trial heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

Excluding patients from the analysis in randomised trials often results in biased estimates of treatment effects, but the extent and direction of bias is unpredictable. Results from intention to treat analyses should always be described in reports of randomised trials. In systematic reviews, the influence of exclusions from the analysis on estimated treatment effects should routinely be assessed.

A review of solutions for diagnostic accuracy studies with an imperfect or missing reference standard

OBJECTIVE

In diagnostic accuracy studies, the reference standard may be imperfect or not available in all patients. We systematically reviewed the proposed solutions for these situations and generated methodological guidance.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Review of methodological articles.

RESULTS

We categorized the solutions into four main groups. The first group includes methods that impute or adjust for missing data on the reference standard. The second group consists of methods that correct estimates of accuracy obtained with an imperfect reference standard. In the third group a reference standard is constructed by combining multiple test results through a predefined rule, based on a consensus procedure, or through statistical modeling. In the fourth group, the diagnostic accuracy paradigm is abandoned in favor of validation studies that relate index test results to relevant clinical data, such as history, future clinical events, and response to therapy.

CONCLUSION

Most of the methods try to impute, adjust, or construct a reference standard. In situations that deviate only marginally from the classical diagnostic accuracy paradigm, these are valuable methods. In cases where an acceptable reference standard does not exist, the concept of clinical test validation may provide an alternative paradigm to evaluate a diagnostic test.

Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard. A review of methods

OBJECTIVE

To generate a classification of methods to evaluate medical tests when there is no gold standard.

METHODS

Multiple search strategies were employed to obtain an overview of the different methods described in the literature, including searches of electronic databases, contacting experts for papers in personal archives, exploring databases from previous methodological projects and cross-checking of reference lists of useful papers already identified.

RESULTS

All methods available were classified into four main groups. The first method group, impute or adjust for missing data on reference standard, needs careful attention to the pattern and fraction of missing values. The second group, correct imperfect reference standard, can be useful if there is reliable information about the degree of imperfection of the reference standard and about the correlation of the errors between the index test and the reference standard. The third group of methods, construct reference standard, have in common that they combine multiple test results to construct a reference standard outcome including deterministic predefined rules, consensus procedures and statistical modelling (latent class analysis). In the final group, validate index test results, the diagnostic test accuracy paradigm is abandoned and research examines, using a number of different methods, whether the results of an index test are meaningful in practice, for example by relating index test results to relevant other clinical characteristics and future clinical events.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of methods try to impute, adjust or construct a reference standard in an effort to obtain the familiar diagnostic accuracy statistics, such as sensitivity and specificity. In situations that deviate only marginally from the classical diagnostic accuracy paradigm, these are valuable methods. However, in situations where an acceptable reference standard does not exist, applying the concept of clinical test validation can provide a significant methodological advance. All methods summarised in this report need further development. Some methods, such as the construction of a reference standard using panel consensus methods and validation of tests outwith the accuracy paradigm, are particularly promising but are lacking in methodological research. These methods deserve particular attention in future research.

Diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer test for exclusion of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The reported diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer test for exclusion of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) varies. It is unknown to what extent this is due to differences in study design or patient groups, or to genuine differences between D-dimer assays.

METHODS

Studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of the D-dimer test in the diagnosis of venous thromboembolism were systematically searched for in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to March 2005. Reference lists of all included studies and of reviews related to the topic of the present meta-analysis were manually searched for other additional potentially eligible studies. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics using standardized forms.

RESULTS

In total, 217 D-dimer test evaluations for DVT and 111 for PE were analyzed. Several study design characteristics were associated with systematic differences in diagnostic accuracy. After adjustment for these features, the sensitivities of the D-dimer enzyme-linked immunofluorescence assay (ELFA) (DVT 96%; PE 97%), microplate enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (DVT 94%; PE 95%), and latex quantitative assay (DVT 93%; PE 95%) were superior to those of the whole-blood D-dimer assay (DVT 83%; PE 87%), latex semiquantitative assay (DVT 85%; PE 88%) and latex qualitative assay (DVT 69%; PE 75%). The latex qualitative and whole-blood D-dimer assays had the highest specificities (DVT 99%, 71%; PE 99%, 69%).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to other D-dimer assays, the ELFA, microplate ELISA and latex quantitative assays have higher sensitivity but lower specificity, resulting in a more confident exclusion of the disease at the expense of more additional imaging testing. These conclusions are based on the most up-to-date and extensive systematic review of the topic area, including 184 articles, with 328 D-dimer test evaluations.

The haematocrit and platelet target in polycythemia vera

Polycythemia vera (PV) is a chronic myeloproliferative disorder whose major morbidity and mortality are thrombohaemorragic events and progression to acute leukaemia or myelofibrosis. Whether the haematocrit and platelet count predict such complications remains unclear. The European Collaboration on Low-dose Aspirin in Polycythemia Vera prospective study included 1638 PV patients. A total of 164 deaths (10%), 145 (8.85%) major thrombosis and 226 (13.8%) total thrombosis were encountered during 4393 person-years follow-up (median 2.8 years). In time-dependent multivariable analysis, a haematocrit in the evaluable range of 40-55% was neither associated with the occurrence of thrombotic events, mortality nor with haematological progression in the studied population. The haematocrit of patients in the highest and lowest deciles at baseline was maintained within a narrow interval of haematocrit values ranging from 40% to 47% throughout follow-up. High platelet count was associated with a lower progression rate to acute leukaemia/myelofibrosis, whereas it had no significant relationship with thrombotic events or mortality. Our findings do not suggest that the range of haematocrit (<55%) and platelet counts (<600 x 10(9)/l) we encountered in our population had an impact on the outcome of PV patients treated by current therapeutic strategies.

The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved?

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies has improved since the publication of the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy studies (STARD statement).

METHODS

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies published in 12 medical journals in 2000 (pre-STARD) and 2004 (post-STARD) was evaluated by two reviewers independently. For each article, the number of reported STARD items was counted (range 0 to 25). Differences in completeness of reporting between articles published in 2000 and 2004 were analyzed, using multilevel analyses.

RESULTS

We included 124 articles published in 2000 and 141 articles published in 2004. Mean number of reported STARD items was 11.9 (range 3.5 to 19.5) in 2000 and 13.6 (range 4.0 to 21.0) in 2004, an increase of 1.81 items (95% CI: 0.61 to 3.01). Articles published in 2004 reported the following significantly more often: methods for calculating test reproducibility of the index test (16% vs 35%); distribution of the severity of disease and other diagnoses (23% vs 53%); estimates of variability of diagnostic accuracy between subgroups (39% vs 60%); and a flow diagram (2% vs 12%).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies has improved slightly over time, without a more pronounced effect in journals that adopted the STARD statement. As there is still room for improvement, editors should mention the use of the STARD statement as a requirement in their guidelines for authors, and instruct reviewers to check the STARD items. Authors should include a flow diagram in their manuscript.

Use of methodological search filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to the omission of relevant studies

OBJECTIVE

To determine the usefulness of methodological filters in search strategies for diagnostic studies in systematic reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We made an inventory of existing methodological search filters for diagnostic accuracy studies and applied them in PubMed to a reference set derived from 27 published systematic reviews in a broad range of clinical fields. Outcome measures were the fraction of not identified relevant studies and the reduction in the number of studies to read.

RESULTS

We tested 12 search filters. Of the studies included in the systematic reviews, 2%-28% did not pass the sensitive search filters, 4%-24% did not pass the accurate filters, and 39%-42% did not pass the specific filters. Decrease in number-needed-to-read when a search filter was used in a search strategy for a diagnostic systematic review varied from 0% to 77%.

CONCLUSION

The use of methodological filters to identify diagnostic accuracy studies can lead to omission of a considerable number of relevant studies that would otherwise be included. When preparing a systematic review, it may be preferable to avoid using methodological filters.