Management of chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the comparative effectiveness of available therapies for chronic pain associated with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)?

CURRENT PRACTICE

TMD are the second most common musculoskeletal chronic pain disorder after low back pain, affecting 6-9% of adults globally. TMD are associated with pain affecting the jaw and associated structures and may present with headaches, earache, clicking, popping, or crackling sounds in the temporomandibular joint, and impaired mandibular function. Current clinical practice guidelines are largely consensus-based and provide inconsistent recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

For patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months) associated with TMD, and compared with placebo or sham procedures, the guideline panel issued: (1) strong recommendations in favour of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) with or without biofeedback or relaxation therapy, therapist-assisted mobilisation, manual trigger point therapy, supervised postural exercise, supervised jaw exercise and stretching with or without manual trigger point therapy, and usual care (such as home exercises, stretching, reassurance, and education); (2) conditional recommendations in favour of manipulation, supervised jaw exercise with mobilisation, CBT with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), manipulation with postural exercise, and acupuncture; (3) conditional recommendations against reversible occlusal splints (alone or in combination with other interventions), arthrocentesis (alone or in combination with other interventions), cartilage supplement with or without hyaluronic acid injection, low level laser therapy (alone or in combination with other interventions), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, gabapentin, botulinum toxin injection, hyaluronic acid injection, relaxation therapy, trigger point injection, acetaminophen (with or without muscle relaxants or NSAIDS), topical capsaicin, biofeedback, corticosteroid injection (with or without NSAIDS), benzodiazepines, and β blockers; and (4) strong recommendations against irreversible oral splints, discectomy, and NSAIDS with opioids.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced these recommendations in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel approached the formulation of recommendations from the perspective of patients, rather than a population or health system perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

Recommendations are informed by a linked systematic review and network meta-analysis summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms of conservative, pharmacologic, and invasive interventions for chronic pain secondary to TMD.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

These recommendations apply to patients living with chronic pain (≥3 months duration) associated with TMD as a group of conditions, and do not apply to the management of acute TMD pain. When considering management options, clinicians and patients should first consider strongly recommended interventions, then those conditionally recommended in favour, then conditionally against. In doing so, shared decision making is essential to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and preference, availability of interventions, and what they may have already tried. Further research is warranted and may alter recommendations in the future.

A novel framework for incorporating patient values and preferences in making guideline recommendations: guideline panel surveys

OBJECTIVE

Universally acknowledged standards for trustworthy guidelines include the necessity to ground recommendations in patient values and preferences. When information is limited-which is typically the case-guideline panels often find it difficult to explicitly integrate patient values and preferences into their recommendations. Our objective was to develop and evaluate a framework for systematically navigating guideline panels in incorporating patient values and preferences in making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

In the context of developing a guideline for colorectal cancer screening, we generated an initial framework for creating panel surveys to elicit guideline panelists' views of patient values and preferences and to inform panel discussions on recommendations. With further applications in guidelines of diverse topic areas, we dynamically refined the framework through iterative discussions and consensus.

RESULTS

The finial framework consists of five steps for creating and implementing panel surveys. The surveys can serve three objectives following from the quantitative information regarding patient values and preferences that guideline panels usually require. An accompanying video provides detailed instructions of the survey.

CONCLUSION

The framework for creating and implementing panel surveys offers explicit guidance for guideline panels considering transparently and systematically incorporating patient values and preferences into guideline recommendations.

Qualitative study of guideline panelists: innovative surveys provided valuable insights regarding patient values and preferences

OBJECTIVES

To explore guideline panelists' understanding of panel surveys for eliciting panels' inferences regarding patient values and preferences, and the influence of the surveys on making recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed sampling and data collection from all four guideline panels that had conducted the surveys through October 2020. We collected the records of all panel meetings and interviewed some panelists in different roles. We applied inductive thematic analysis for analyzing and interpreting data.

RESULTS

We enrolled four guideline panels with 99 panelists in total and interviewed 25 of them. Most panelists found the survey was easy to follow and facilitated the incorporation of patient values and preferences in the tradeoffs between benefits and harms or burdens. The variation of patient preferences and uncertainty regarding patient values and preferences reflected in the surveys helped the panels ponder the strength of recommendations. In doing so, the survey results enhanced a rationale for panels' decision on the recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The panel surveys have proved to help guideline panels explicitly consider and incorporate patient values and preferences in making recommendations. Guideline panels would benefit from widespread use of the panel surveys, particularly when primary evidence regarding patient values and preferences is scarce.

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears)

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy).

MAIN RESULTS

Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I² = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I² = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I² = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I² = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I² = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Plasma exchange and glucocorticoid dosing for patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTIONS

What is the role of plasma exchange and what is the optimal dose of glucocorticoids in the first 6 months of therapy of patients with antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV)? This guideline was triggered by the publication of a new randomised controlled trial.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Existing guideline recommendations vary regarding the use of plasma exchange in AAV and lack explicit recommendations regarding the tapering regimen of glucocorticoids during induction therapy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The guideline panel makes a weak recommendation against plasma exchange in patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing end stage kidney disease (ESKD), and a weak recommendation in favour of plasma exchange in patients with moderate-high or high risk of developing ESKD. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without renal involvement, the panel suggests not using plasma exchange (weak recommendation). The panel made a strong recommendation in favour of a reduced dose rather than standard dose regimen of glucocorticoids, which involves a more rapid taper rate and lower cumulative dose during the first six months of therapy.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, a care giver, clinicians, content experts, and methodologists produced these recommendations using GRADE and in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines. The recommendations are based on two linked systematic reviews. The panel took an individual patient perspective in the development of recommendations.

THE EVIDENCE

The systematic review of plasma exchange identified nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 1060 patients with AAV. Plasma exchange probably has little or no effect on mortality or disease relapse (moderate and low certainty). Plasma exchange probably reduces the one year risk of ESKD (approximately 0.1% reduction in those with low risk, 2.1% reduction in those with low-moderate risk, 4.6% reduction in those with moderate-high risk, and 16.0% reduction in those with high risk or requiring dialysis) but increases the risk of serious infections (approximately 2.7% increase in those with low risk, 4.9% increase in those with low-moderate risk, 8.5% increase in those with moderate-high risk, to 13.5% in high risk group) at 1 year (moderate to high certainty). The guideline panel agreed that most patients with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD would consider the harms to outweigh the benefits, while most of those with moderate-high or high risk would consider the benefits to outweigh the harms. For patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement, based on indirect evidence, plasma exchange may have little or no effect on death (very low certainty) but may have an important increase in serious infections at 1 year (approximately 6.8% increase, low certainty). The systematic review of different dose regimens of glucocorticoids identified two RCTs at low risk of bias with 704 and 140 patients respectively. A reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoid probably reduces the risk of serious infections by approximately 5.9% to 12.8% and probably does not increase the risk of ESKD at the follow-up of 6 months to longer than 1 year (moderate certainty for both outcomes).

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations were made with the understanding that patients would place a high value on reduction in ESKD and less value on avoiding serious infections. The panel concluded that most (50-90%) of fully informed patients with AAV and with low or low-moderate risk of developing ESKD with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would decline plasma exchange, whereas most patients with moderate-high or high risk or requiring dialysis with or without pulmonary haemorrhage would choose to receive plasma exchange. The panel also inferred that the majority of fully informed patients with pulmonary haemorrhage without kidney involvement would decline plasma exchange and that all or almost all (≥90%) fully informed patients with AAV would choose a reduced dose regimen of glucocorticoids during the first 6 months of therapy.

Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021).

STUDY SELECTION

Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm.

RESULTS

As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative.

CONCLUSION

In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321).

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What is the role of medical cannabis or cannabinoids for people living with chronic pain due to cancer or non-cancer causes?

CURRENT PRACTICE

Chronic pain is common and distressing and associated with considerable socioeconomic burden globally. Medical cannabis is increasingly used to manage chronic pain, particularly in jurisdictions that have enacted policies to reduce use of opioids; however, existing guideline recommendations are inconsistent, and cannabis remains illegal for therapeutic use in many countries.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline expert panel issued a weak recommendation to offer a trial of non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids, in addition to standard care and management (if not sufficient), for people living with chronic cancer or non-cancer pain.

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

An international guideline development panel including patients, clinicians with content expertise, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation (MAGIC) provided methodological support. The panel applied an individual patient perspective.

THE EVIDENCE

This recommendation is informed by a linked series of four systematic reviews summarising the current body of evidence for benefits and harms, as well as patient values and preferences, regarding medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic pain.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The recommendation is weak because of the close balance between benefits and harms of medical cannabis for chronic pain. It reflects a high value placed on small to very small improvements in self reported pain intensity, physical functioning, and sleep quality, and willingness to accept a small to modest risk of mostly self limited and transient harms. Shared decision making is required to ensure patients make choices that reflect their values and personal context. Further research is warranted and may alter this recommendation.

Prophylaxis against covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

UPDATES

This is the second version (first update) of the living systematic review, replacing the previous version (available as a data supplement). When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

DATA SOURCES

World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 4 March 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were allocated to prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

The second iteration of this living NMA includes 32 randomised trials which enrolled 25 147 participants and addressed 21 different prophylactic drugs; adding 21 trials (66%), 18 162 participants (75%) and 16 (76%) prophylactic drugs. Of the 16 prophylactic drugs analysed, none provided convincing evidence of a reduction in the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. For admission to hospital and mortality outcomes, no prophylactic drug proved different than standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation—risk difference for hydroxychloroquine (RD) 6 more per 1000 (95% credible interval (CrI) 2 more to 10 more); for vitamin C combined with zinc, RD 69 more per 1000 (47 more to 90 more), moderate certainty evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Much of the evidence remains very low certainty and we therefore anticipate future studies evaluating drugs for prophylaxis may change the results for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital and mortality outcomes. Both hydroxychloroquine and vitamin C combined with zinc probably increase adverse effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.

FUNDING

This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).

Risk of dispersion or aerosol generation and infection transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for detection of COVID-19: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

SARS-CoV-2-related disease, referred to as COVID-19, has emerged as a global pandemic since December 2019. While there is growing recognition regarding possible airborne transmission, particularly in the setting of aerosol-generating procedures and treatments, whether nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 generate aerosols remains unclear.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE up to 3 November 2020. We also searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Medical Journal Network, medRxiv and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 29 March 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All comparative and non-comparative studies that evaluated dispersion or aerosolisation of viable airborne organisms, or transmission of infection associated with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing.

RESULTS

Of 7702 citations, only one study was deemed eligible. Using a dedicated sampling room with negative pressure isolation room, personal protective equipment including N95 or higher masks, strict sterilisation protocols, structured training with standardised collection methods and a structured collection and delivery system, a tertiary care hospital proved a 0% healthcare worker infection rate among eight nurses conducting over 11 000 nasopharyngeal swabs. No studies examining transmissibility with other safety protocols, nor any studies quantifying the risk of aerosol generation with nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2, were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited to no published data regarding aerosol generation and risk of transmission with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Field experiments to quantify this risk are warranted. Vigilance in adhering to current standards for infection control is suggested.

High-flow nasal cannula for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19: systematic reviews of effectiveness and its risks of aerosolization, dispersion, and infection transmission

PURPOSE

We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products.

SOURCE

Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density.

CONCLUSIONS

High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.

Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).

DESIGN

Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.

METHODS

After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.

RESULTS

463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.

READERS' NOTE

This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Correction to: Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported a change in the 'Competing interests' section as described below.

Thyroid hormones treatment for subclinical hypothyroidism: a clinical practice guideline

CLINICAL QUESTION

What are the benefits and harms of thyroid hormones for adults with subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH)? This guideline was triggered by a recent systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which could alter practice.

CURRENT PRACTICE

Current guidelines tend to recommend thyroid hormones for adults with thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels >10 mIU/L and for people with lower TSH values who are young, symptomatic, or have specific indications for prescribing.

RECOMMENDATION

The guideline panel issues a strong recommendation against thyroid hormones in adults with SCH (elevated TSH levels and normal free T4 (thyroxine) levels). It does not apply to women who are trying to become pregnant or patients with TSH >20 mIU/L. It may not apply to patients with severe symptoms or young adults (such as those ≤30 years old).

HOW THIS GUIDELINE WAS CREATED

A guideline panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced this recommendation in adherence with standards for trustworthy guidelines using the GRADE approach.

THE EVIDENCE

The systematic review included 21 trials with 2192 participants. For adults with SCH, thyroid hormones consistently demonstrate no clinically relevant benefits for quality of life or thyroid related symptoms, including depressive symptoms, fatigue, and body mass index (moderate to high quality evidence). Thyroid hormones may have little or no effect on cardiovascular events or mortality (low quality evidence), but harms were measured in only one trial with few events at two years' follow-up.

UNDERSTANDING THE RECOMMENDATION

The panel concluded that almost all adults with SCH would not benefit from treatment with thyroid hormones. Other factors in the strong recommendation include the burden of lifelong management and uncertainty on potential harms. Instead, clinicians should monitor the progression or resolution of the thyroid dysfunction in these adults. Recommendations are made actionable for clinicians and their patients through visual overviews. These provide the relative and absolute benefits and harms of thyroid hormones in multilayered evidence summaries and decision aids available in MAGIC (https://app.magicapp.org/) to support shared decisions and adaptation of this guideline.

Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease

BACKGROUND

Surgery for rotator cuff disease is usually used after non-operative interventions have failed, although our Cochrane Review, first published in 2007, found that there was uncertain clinical benefit following subacromial decompression surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the available evidence of the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery compared with placebo, no intervention or non-surgical interventions in people with rotator cuff disease (excluding full thickness rotator cuff tears).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICRTP registry from 2006 until 22 October 2018, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with rotator cuff disease (excluding full-thickness tears), that compared subacromial decompression surgery with placebo, no treatment, or any other non-surgical interventions. As it is least prone to bias, subacromial decompression compared with placebo was the primary comparison. Other comparisons were subacromial decompression versus exercises or non-operative treatment. Major outcomes were mean pain scores, shoulder function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint for this review was one year. For serious adverse events, we also included data from prospective cohort studies designed to record harms that evaluated subacromial decompression surgery or shoulder arthroscopy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight trials, with a total of 1062 randomised participants with rotator cuff disease, all with subacromial impingement. Two trials (506 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression with arthroscopy only (placebo surgery), with all groups receiving postoperative exercises. These trials included a third treatment group: no treatment (active monitoring) in one and exercises in the other. Six trials (556 participants) compared arthroscopic subacromial decompression followed by exercises with exercises alone. Two of these trials included a third arm: sham laser in one and open subacromial decompression in the other.Trial size varied from 42 to 313 participants. Participant mean age ranged between 42 and 65 years. Only two trials reported mean symptom duration (18 to 22 months in one trial and 30 to 31 months in the other), two did not report duration and four reported it categorically.Both placebo-controlled trials were at low risk of bias for the comparison of surgery versus placebo surgery. The other trials were at high risk of bias for several criteria, most notably at risk of performance or detection bias due to lack of participant and personnel blinding. We have restricted the reporting of results of benefits in the Abstract to the placebo-controlled trials.Compared with placebo, high-certainty evidence indicates that subacromial decompression provides no improvement in pain, shoulder function, or health-related quality of life up to one year, and probably no improvement in global success (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision).At one year, mean pain (on a scale zero to 10, higher scores indicate more pain), was 2.9 points after placebo surgery and 0.26 better (0.84 better to 0.33 worse), after subacromial decompression (284 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (8% better to 3% worse), and relative difference of 4% (12% better to 5% worse). At one year, mean function (on a scale 0 to 100, higher score indicating better outcome), was 69 points after placebo surgery and 2.8 better (1.4 worse to 6.9 better), after surgery (274 participants), an absolute difference of 3% (7% better to 1% worse), and relative difference of 9% (22% better to 4% worse). Global success rate was 97/148 (or 655 per 1000), after placebo and 101/142 (or 708 per 1000) after surgery corresponding to RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). Health-related quality of life was 0.73 units (European Quality of Life EQ-5D, -0.59 to 1, higher score indicating better quality of life), after placebo and 0.03 units worse (0.011 units worse to 0.06 units better), after subacromial decompression (285 participants), an absolute difference of 1.3% (5% worse to 2.5% better), and relative difference of 4% (15% worse to 7% better).Adverse events including frozen shoulder or transient minor complications of surgery were reported in approximately 3% of participants across treatment groups in two randomised controlled trials, but due to low event rates we are uncertain if the risks differ between groups: 5/165 (37 per 1000) reported adverse events with subacromial decompression and 9/241 (34 per 1000) with placebo or non-operative treatment, RR 0.91 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.65) (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to imprecision). The trials did not report serious adverse events.Based upon moderate-certainty evidence from two observational trials from the same prospective surgery registry, which also included other shoulder arthroscopic procedures (downgraded for indirectness), the incidence proportion of serious adverse events within 30 days following surgery was 0.5% (0.4% to 0.7%; data collected 2006 to 2011), or 0.6% (0.5 % to 0.7%; data collected 2011 to 2013). Serious adverse events such as deep infection, pulmonary embolism, nerve injury, and death have been observed in participants following shoulder surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data in this review do not support the use of subacromial decompression in the treatment of rotator cuff disease manifest as painful shoulder impingement. High-certainty evidence shows that subacromial decompression does not provide clinically important benefits over placebo in pain, function or health-related quality of life. Including results from open-label trials (with high risk of bias) did not change the estimates considerably. Due to imprecision, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to moderate for global assessment of treatment success; there was probably no clinically important benefit in this outcome either compared with placebo, exercises or non-operative treatment.Adverse event rates were low, 3% or less across treatment groups in the trials, which is consistent with adverse event rates reported in the two observational studies. Although precise estimates are unknown, the risk of serious adverse events is likely less than 1%.

Methods for trustworthy nutritional recommendations NutriRECS (Nutritional Recommendations and accessible Evidence summaries Composed of Systematic reviews): a protocol

Background

Recent systematic reviews and editorials suggest that many organizations that produce nutritional guideline recommendations do not adhere to internationally recognized standards set forth by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), Guidelines International Network (GIN), Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE), and Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

Methods

The potential solution is an independent group with content expertise and skilled in the methodology of systematic reviews and practice guidelines to produce trustworthy guideline recommendations, recommendations that are supported by publication in a top tier journal. The BMJ Rapid Recommendations project has recently demonstrated the feasibility and utility of this approach. Here, we are proposing trustworthy nutritional guideline recommendations based on internationally accepted guideline development standards, recommendations that will be informed by rigorous and novel systematic reviews of the benefits and harms associated with nutritional exposures, as well as studies on the values and preferences related to dietary behaviors among members of the international community.

Discussion

Adhering to international guideline standards, conducting high quality systematic reviews, and actively assessing the values and preferences of key stakeholders is expected to improve the quality of nutritional guidelines and their relevance to end-users, particularly patients and community members. We will send our work for peer review, and if found acceptable, we will publish our nutritional recommendations in top-tier general medicine journals.

Patent foramen ovale closure, antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis incorporating complementary external evidence

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relative impact of three management options in patients aged <60 years with cryptogenic stroke and a patent foramen ovale (PFO): PFO closure plus antiplatelet therapy, antiplatelet therapy alone and anticoagulation alone.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) supported by complementary external evidence.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing PFO closure and/or medical therapies in patients with PFO and cryptogenic stroke.

REVIEW METHODS

We conducted an NMA complemented with external evidence and rated certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs in eight studies proved eligible (n=4416). Seven RCTs (n=3913) addressed PFO closure versus medical therapy. Of these, three (n=1257) addressed PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy, three (n=2303) addressed PFO closure versus mixed antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies and one (n=353) addressed PFO closure versus anticoagulation. The remaining three RCTs (n=503) addressed anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy. PFO closure versus antiplatelet therapy probably results in substantial reduction in ischaemic stroke recurrence (risk difference per 1000 patients over 5 years (RD): -87, 95% credible interval (CrI) -100 to -33; moderate certainty). Compared with anticoagulation, PFO closure may confer little or no difference in ischaemic stroke recurrence (low certainty) but probably has a lower risk of major bleeding (RD -20, 95% CrI -27 to -2, moderate certainty). Relative to either medical therapy, PFO closure probably increases the risk of persistent atrial fibrillation (RD 18, 95% CI +5 to +56, moderate certainty) and device-related adverse events (RD +36, 95% CI +23 to +50, high certainty). Anticoagulation, compared with antiplatelet therapy, may reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke recurrence (RD -71, 95% CrI -100 to +17, low certainty), but probably increases the risk of major bleeding (RD +12, 95% CrI -5 to +65, moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients aged <60 years, PFO closure probably confers an important reduction in ischaemic stroke recurrence compared with antiplatelet therapy alone but may make no difference compared with anticoagulation. PFO closure incurs a risk of persistent atrial fibrillation and device-related adverse events. Compared with alternatives, anticoagulation probably increases major bleeding.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017081567.

UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey

INTRODUCTION

UpToDate is widely used by clinicians worldwide and includes more than 9400 recommendations that apply the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. GRADE guidance warns against strong recommendations when certainty of the evidence is low or very low (discordant recommendations) but has identified five paradigmatic situations in which discordant recommendations may be justified.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to document the strength of recommendations in UpToDate and assess the frequency and appropriateness of discordant recommendations.

DESIGN

Analytical survey of all recommendations in UpToDate.

METHODS

We identified all GRADE recommendations in UpToDate and examined their strength (strong or weak) and certainty of the evidence (high, moderate or low certainty). We identified all discordant recommendations as of January 2015, and pairs of reviewers independently classified them either into one of the five appropriate paradigms or into one of three categories inconsistent with GRADE guidance, based on the evidence presented in UpToDate.

RESULTS

UpToDate included 9451 GRADE recommendations, of which 6501 (68.8%) were formulated as weak recommendations and 2950 (31.2%) as strong. Among the strong, 844 (28.6%) were based on high certainty in effect estimates, 1740 (59.0%) on moderate certainty and 366 (12.4%) on low certainty. Of the 349 discordant recommendations 204 (58.5%) were judged appropriately (consistent with one of the five paradigms); we classified 47 (13.5%) as good practice statements; 38 (10.9%) misclassified the evidence as low certainty when it was at least moderate and 60 (17.2%) warranted a weak rather than a strong recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of discordant recommendations in UpToDate is small (3.7% of all recommendations) and the proportion that is truly problematic (strong recommendations that would best have been weak) is very small (0.6%). Clinicians should nevertheless be cautious and look for clear explanations-in UpToDate and elsewhere-when guidelines offer strong recommendations based on low certainty evidence.

Guidance for Modifying the Definition of Diseases: A Checklist

IMPORTANCE

No guidelines exist currently for guideline panels and others considering changes to disease definitions. Panels frequently widen disease definitions, increasing the proportion of the population labeled as unwell and potentially causing harm to patients. We set out to develop a checklist of issues, with guidance, for panels to consider prior to modifying a disease definition.

OBSERVATIONS

We assembled a multidisciplinary, multicontinent working group of 13 members, including members from the Guidelines International Network, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group, and the World Health Organisation. We used a 5-step process to develop the checklist: (1) a literature review of issues, (2) a draft outline document, (3) a Delphi process of feedback on the list of issues, (4) a 1-day face-to-face meeting, and (5) further refinement of the checklist. The literature review identified 12 potential issues. From these, the group developed an 8-item checklist that consisted of definition changes, number of people affected, trigger, prognostic ability, disease definition precision and accuracy, potential benefits, potential harms, and the balance between potential harms and benefits. The checklist is accompanied by an explanation of each item and the types of evidence to assess each one. We used a panel's recent consideration of a proposed change in the definition of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) to illustrate use of the checklist.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We propose that the checklist be piloted and validated by groups developing new guidelines. We anticipate that the use of the checklist will be a first step to guidance and better documentation of definition changes prior to introducing modified disease definitions.

Application of minimal important differences in degenerative knee disease outcomes: a systematic review and case study to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most credible anchor-based minimal important differences (MIDs) for patient important outcomes in patients with degenerative knee disease, and to inform BMJ Rapid Recommendations for arthroscopic surgery versus conservative management DESIGN: Systematic review.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Estimates of anchor-based MIDs, and their credibility, for knee symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included original studies documenting the development of anchor-based MIDs for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reported in randomised controlled trials included in the linked systematic review and meta-analysis and judged by the parallel BMJ Rapid Recommendations panel as critically important for informing their recommendation: measures of pain, function and HRQoL.

RESULTS

13 studies reported 95 empirically estimated anchor-based MIDs for 8 PRO instruments and/or their subdomains that measure knee pain, function or HRQoL. All studies used a transition rating (global rating of change) as the anchor to ascertain the MID. Among PROs with more than 1 estimated MID, we found wide variation in MID values. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. We identified the following most credible MIDs: Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC; pain: 12, function: 13), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS; pain: 12, activities of daily living: 8) and EuroQol five dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D; 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to distinguish between more and less credible MID estimates and provide best estimates for key instruments that informed evidence presentation in the associated systematic review and judgements made by the Rapid Recommendation panel.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016047912.

Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pain, function, adverse events.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

For effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference =5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference =3.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference =4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference =3.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016046242.

Premature Discontinuation of Pediatric Randomized Controlled Trials: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the proportion of pediatric randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are prematurely discontinued, examine the reasons for discontinuation, and compare the risk for recruitment failure in pediatric and adult RCTs.

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of RCTs approved by 1 of 6 Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics, trial discontinuation, and reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, REC files, and a survey of trialists.

RESULTS

We included 894 RCTs, of which 86 enrolled children and 808 enrolled adults. Forty percent of the pediatric RCTs and 29% of the adult RCTs were discontinued. Slow recruitment accounted for 56% of pediatric RCT discontinuations and 43% of adult RCT discontinuations. Multivariable logistic regression analyses suggested that pediatric RCT was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure after adjustment for other potential risk factors (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.57-2.63). Independent risk factors were acute care setting (aOR, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31), nonindustry sponsorship (aOR, 4.45; 95% CI, 2.59-7.65), and smaller planned sample size (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI 1.01-1.09, in decrements of 100 participants).

CONCLUSION

Forty percent of pediatric RCTs were discontinued prematurely, owing predominately to slow recruitment. Enrollment of children was not an independent risk factor for recruitment failure.

Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background and Purpose—

Silent ischemic embolic lesions are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The use of embolic protection devices (EPD) may reduce the occurrence of these embolic lesions. Thus, a quantitative overview and credibility assessment of the literature was necessary to draw a robust message about EPD. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to study whether the use of EPD reduces silent ischemic and clinically evident cerebrovascular events associated with TAVI.

Methods—

We conducted a comprehensive search to identify studies that evaluated patients undergoing TAVI with or without EPD. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the effect of EPD compared with no-EPD during TAVI using aggregate data.

Results—

Sixteen studies involving 1170 patients (865/305 with/without EPD) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The EPD delivery success rate was reported in all studies and was achieved in 94.5% of patients. Meta-analyses evaluating EPD versus without EPD strategies could not confirm or exclude any differences in terms of clinically evident stroke (relative risk, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38–1.29; P =0.26) or 30-day mortality (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.20–1.64; P =0.30). There were no significant differences in new-single, multiple, or total number of lesions. The use of EPD was associated with a significantly smaller ischemic volume per lesion (standardized mean difference, −0.52; 95% CI, −0.85 to −0.20; P =0.002) and smaller total volume of lesions (standardized mean difference, −0.23; 95% CI, −0.42 to −0.03; P =0.02). Subgroup analysis by type of valve showed an overall trend toward significant reduction in new lesions per patient using EPD (standardized mean difference, −0.41; 95% CI, −0.82 to 0.00; P =0.05), driven by self-expanding devices.

Conclusions—

The use of EPD during TAVI may be associated with smaller volume of silent ischemic lesions and smaller total volume of silent ischemic lesions. However, EPD may not reduce the number of new-single, multiple, or total number of lesions. There was only very low quality of evidence showing no significant differences between patients undergoing TAVI with or without EPD with respect to clinically evident stroke and mortality.

Low intensity pulsed ultrasound for bone healing: systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Objective To determine the efficacy of low intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) for healing of fracture or osteotomy.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries up to November 2016.Study selection Randomized controlled trials of LIPUS compared with sham device or no device in patients with any kind of fracture or osteotomy.Review methods Two independent reviewers identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendation) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of outcomes important to patients. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence.Results 26 randomized controlled trials with a median sample size of 30 (range 8-501) were included. The most trustworthy evidence came from four trials at low risk of bias that included patients with tibia or clavicle fractures. Compared with control, LIPUS did not reduce time to return to work (percentage difference: 2.7% later with LIPUS, 95% confidence interval 7.7% earlier to 14.3% later; moderate certainty) or the number of subsequent operations (risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.16; moderate certainty). For pain, days to weight bearing, and radiographic healing, effects varied substantially among studies. For all three outcomes, trials at low risk of bias failed to show a benefit with LIPUS, while trials at high risk of bias suggested a benefit (interaction P<0.001). When only trials at low risk of bias trials were considered, LIPUS did not reduce days to weight bearing (4.8% later, 4.0% earlier to 14.4% later; high certainty), pain at four to six weeks (mean difference on 0-100 visual analogue scale: 0.93 lower, 2.51 lower to 0.64 higher; high certainty), and days to radiographic healing (1.7% earlier, 11.2% earlier to 8.8% later; moderate certainty).Conclusions Based on moderate to high quality evidence from studies in patients with fresh fracture, LIPUS does not improve outcomes important to patients and probably has no effect on radiographic bone healing. The applicability to other types of fracture or osteotomy is open to debate.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016050965.

Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patients' values and preferences regarding aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis.

SETTING

Studies published after transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) became available (2002).

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with aortic stenosis who are considering or have had valve replacement, either TAVI or via surgery (surgical aortic valve replacement, SAVR).

OUTCOME MEASURES

We sought quantitative measurements, or qualitative descriptions, of values and preferences. When reported, we examined correlations between preferences and objective (eg, ejection fraction) or subjective (eg, health-related quality of life) measures of health.

RESULTS

We reviewed 1348 unique citations, of which 2 studies proved eligible. One study of patients with severe aortic stenosis used a standard gamble study to ascertain that the median hypothetical mortality risk patients were willing to tolerate to achieve full health was 25% (IQR 25-50%). However, there was considerable variability; for mortality risk levels defined by current guidelines, 130 participants (30%) were willing to accept low-to-intermediate risk (≤8%), 224 (51%) high risk (>8-50%) and 85 (19%) a risk that guidelines would consider prohibitive (>50%). Study authors did not, however, assess participants' understanding of the exercise, resulting in a potential risk of bias. A second qualitative study of 15 patients identified the following factors that influence patients to undergo assessment for TAVI: symptom burden; expectations; information support; logistical barriers; facilitators; obligations and responsibilities. The study was limited by serious risk of bias due to authors' conflict of interest (5/9 authors industry-funded).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence on patient values and preferences of adults with aortic stenosis is very limited, and no studies have enrolled patients deciding between TAVI and SAVR. On the basis of the data available, there is evidence of variability in individual values and preferences, highlighting the importance of well-informed and shared decision-making with patients facing this decision.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42016041907.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

DESIGN

 Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

 Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

 Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

METHODS

 Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

 In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

CONCLUSION

 Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

OBJECTIVES

Explicit reporting of absolute measures is important to ensure treatment effects are correctly interpreted. We examined the extent to which authors report absolute effects for patient-important outcomes in abstracts of systematic review (SR).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched OVID MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews to identify eligible SRs published in the year 2010. Citations were stratified into Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, with repeated random sampling in a 1:1 ratio. Paired reviewers screened articles and recorded abstract characteristics, including reporting of effect measures for the most patient-important outcomes of benefit and harm.

RESULTS

We included 96 Cochrane and 94 non-Cochrane reviews. About 117 (77.5%) relative measures were reported in abstracts for outcomes of benefit, whereas only 34 (22.5%) absolute measures were reported. Similarly, for outcomes of harm, 41 (87.2%) relative measures were provided in abstracts, compared with only 6 (12.8%) absolute measures. Eighteen (9.5%) abstracts reported both absolute and relative measures for outcomes of benefit, whereas only two (1.1%) abstracts reported both measures for outcomes of harm. Results were similar between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.

CONCLUSION

SR abstracts seldom report measures of absolute effect. Journal editors should insist that authors report both relative and absolute effects for patient-important outcomes.

Agreements between Industry and Academia on Publication Rights: A Retrospective Study of Protocols and Publications of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.

Premature Discontinuation of Randomized Trials in Critical and Emergency Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

Randomized clinical trials that enroll patients in critical or emergency care (acute care) setting are challenging because of narrow time windows for recruitment and the inability of many patients to provide informed consent. To assess the extent that recruitment challenges lead to randomized clinical trial discontinuation, we compared the discontinuation of acute care and nonacute care randomized clinical trials.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort of 894 randomized clinical trials approved by six institutional review boards in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003.

SETTING

Randomized clinical trials involving patients in an acute or nonacute care setting.

SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS

We recorded trial characteristics, self-reported trial discontinuation, and self-reported reasons for discontinuation from protocols, corresponding publications, institutional review board files, and a survey of investigators.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 894 randomized clinical trials, 64 (7%) were acute care randomized clinical trials (29 critical care and 35 emergency care). Compared with the 830 nonacute care randomized clinical trials, acute care randomized clinical trials were more frequently discontinued (28 of 64, 44% vs 221 of 830, 27%; p = 0.004). Slow recruitment was the most frequent reason for discontinuation, both in acute care (13 of 64, 20%) and in nonacute care randomized clinical trials (7 of 64, 11%). Logistic regression analyses suggested the acute care setting as an independent risk factor for randomized clinical trial discontinuation specifically as a result of slow recruitment (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% CI, 1.72-9.31) after adjusting for other established risk factors, including nonindustry sponsorship and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute care randomized clinical trials are more vulnerable to premature discontinuation than nonacute care randomized clinical trials and have an approximately four-fold higher risk of discontinuation due to slow recruitment. These results highlight the need for strategies to reliably prevent and resolve slow patient recruitment in randomized clinical trials conducted in the critical and emergency care setting.

Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis

Background

For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non‐perforated appendicitis.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non‐perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random‐effects meta‐analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Results

Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference −2·6 (95 per cent c.i. –6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low‐quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference −7·2 (−18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low‐quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high‐quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high‐quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non‐perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year.

Conclusion

The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value‐ and preference‐dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision‐making is necessary.

Limitations of each evolving

Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of continuous outcomes typically provide enough information for decision-makers to evaluate the extent to which chance can explain apparent differences between interventions. The interpretation of the magnitude of these differences - from trivial to large - can, however, be challenging. We investigated clinicians' understanding and perceptions of usefulness of 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes from meta-analyses (standardized mean difference, minimal important difference units, mean difference in natural units, ratio of means, relative risk and risk difference).

METHODS

We invited 610 staff and trainees in internal medicine and family medicine programs in 8 countries to participate. Paper-based, self-administered questionnaires presented summary estimates of hypothetical interventions versus placebo for chronic pain. The estimates showed either a small or a large effect for each of the 6 statistical formats for presenting continuous outcomes. Questions addressed participants' understanding of the magnitude of treatment effects and their perception of the usefulness of the presentation format. We randomly assigned participants 1 of 4 versions of the questionnaire, each with a different effect size (large or small) and presentation order for the 6 formats (1 to 6, or 6 to 1).

RESULTS

Overall, 531 (87.0%) of the clinicians responded. Respondents best understood risk difference, followed by relative risk and ratio of means. Similarly, they perceived the dichotomous presentation of continuous outcomes (relative risk and risk difference) to be most useful. Presenting results as a standardized mean difference, the longest standing and most widely used approach, was poorly understood and perceived as least useful.

INTERPRETATION

None of the presentation formats were well understood or perceived as extremely useful. Clinicians best understood the dichotomous presentations of continuous outcomes and perceived them to be the most useful. Further initiatives to help clinicians better grasp the magnitude of the treatment effect are needed.

Corticosteroid Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common and often severe.

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy on mortality, morbidity, and duration of hospitalization in patients with CAP.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 24 May 2015.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized adults with CAP.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Quality of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system by consensus among the authors.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The median age was typically in the 60s, and approximately 60% of patients were male. Adjunctive corticosteroids were associated with possible reductions in all-cause mortality (12 trials; 1974 patients; risk ratio [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.01]; risk difference [RD], 2.8%; moderate certainty), need for mechanical ventilation (5 trials; 1060 patients; RR, 0.45 [CI, 0.26 to 0.79]; RD, 5.0%; moderate certainty), and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (4 trials; 945 patients; RR, 0.24 [CI, 0.10 to 0.56]; RD, 6.2%; moderate certainty). They also decreased time to clinical stability (5 trials; 1180 patients; mean difference, -1.22 days [CI, -2.08 to -0.35 days]; high certainty) and duration of hospitalization (6 trials; 1499 patients; mean difference, -1.00 day [CI, -1.79 to -0.21 days]; high certainty). Adjunctive corticosteroids increased frequency of hyperglycemia requiring treatment (6 trials; 1534 patients; RR, 1.49 [CI, 1.01 to 2.19]; RD, 3.5%; high certainty) but did not increase frequency of gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

LIMITATIONS

There were few events and trials for many outcomes. Trials often excluded patients at high risk for adverse events.

CONCLUSION

For hospitalized adults with CAP, systemic corticosteroid therapy may reduce mortality by approximately 3%, need for mechanical ventilation by approximately 5%, and hospital stay by approximately 1 day.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey

OBJECTIVES

To describe how systematic reviewers are reporting missing data for dichotomous outcomes, handling them in the analysis and assessing the risk of associated bias.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews of randomised trials published in 2010, and reporting a meta-analysis of a dichotomous outcome. We randomly selected 98 Cochrane and 104 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. Teams of 2 reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data independently and in duplicate using standardised, piloted forms with accompanying instructions. We conducted regression analyses to explore factors associated with using complete case analysis and with judging the risk of bias associated with missing participant data.

RESULTS

Of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 47% and 7% (p<0.0001), respectively, reported on the number of participants with missing data, and 41% and 9% reported a plan for handling missing categorical data. The 2 most reported approaches for handling missing data were complete case analysis (8.5%, out of the 202 reviews) and assuming no participants with missing data had the event (4%). The use of complete case analysis was associated only with Cochrane reviews (relative to non-Cochrane: OR=7.25; 95% CI 1.58 to 33.3, p=0.01). 65% of reviews assessed risk of bias associated with missing data; this was associated with Cochrane reviews (relative to non-Cochrane: OR=6.63; 95% CI 2.50 to 17.57, p=0.0001), and the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology (OR=5.02; 95% CI 1.02 to 24.75, p=0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Though Cochrane reviews are somewhat less problematic, most Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews fail to adequately report and handle missing data, potentially resulting in misleading judgements regarding risk of bias.

Longer- Versus Shorter-Duration Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stent Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The appropriate duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement remains controversial.

PURPOSE

To summarize data on clinical outcomes with longer- versus shorter-duration DAPT after DES placement in adults with coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE, 1996 to 27 March 2015, and manual screening of references.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized, controlled trials comparing longer- versus shorter-duration DAPT after DES placement.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers screened potentially eligible articles; extracted data on populations, interventions, and outcomes; assessed risk of bias; and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines to rate overall confidence in effect estimates.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Among 1010 articles identified, 9 trials including 29,531 patients were eligible; data were complete for 28,808 patients. Moderate-quality evidence showed that longer-duration DAPT decreased risk for myocardial infarction (risk ratio [RR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58 to 0.92]) and increased mortality (RR, 1.19 [CI, 1.04 to 1.36]). High-quality evidence showed that DAPT increased risk for major bleeding (RR, 1.63 [CI, 1.34 to 1.99]).

LIMITATION

Confidence in estimates were decreased owing to imprecision for most outcomes (particularly myocardial infarction), risk of bias from limited blinding in 7 of 9 studies, indirectness due to variability in use of first- and second-generation stents, and off-protocol use of DAPT in some studies.

CONCLUSION

Extended DAPT is associated with approximately 8 fewer myocardial infarctions per 1000 treated patients per year but 6 more major bleeding events than shorter-duration DAPT. Because absolute effects are very small and closely balanced, decisions regarding the duration of DAPT therapy must take into account patients' values and preference.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications.

DESIGN

Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications.

SETTING

Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada.

DATA SOURCES

894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications.

RESULTS

Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials

IMPORTANCE

The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P < .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials.