Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a ...formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products.
A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori–defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods articles (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited.
Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods articles were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence.
Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.
Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with ...other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs.
A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs.
Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a “PICAR” statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent.
SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.
There has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. ...We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.
A protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.
After screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.
Results from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.
The protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).
A current assessment of case reports of possible drug-induced pancreatitis is needed. We systematically reviewed the case report literature to identify drugs with potential associations with acute ...pancreatitis and the burden of evidence supporting these associations.
A protocol was developed a priori (PROSPERO CRD42017060473). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and additional sources to identify cases of drug-induced pancreatitis that met accepted diagnostic criteria of acute pancreatitis. Cases caused by multiple drugs or combination therapy were excluded. Established systematic review methods were used for screening and data extraction. A classification system for associated drugs was developed a priori based upon the number of cases, re-challenge, exclusion of non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis, and consistency of latency.
Seven-hundred and thirteen cases of potential drug-induced pancreatitis were identified, implicating 213 unique drugs. The evidence base was poor: exclusion of non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis was incomplete or poorly reported in all cases, 47% had at least one underlying condition predisposing to acute pancreatitis, and causality assessment was not conducted in 81%. Forty-five drugs (21%) were classified as having the highest level of evidence regarding their association with acute pancreatitis; causality was deemed to be probable or definite for 19 of these drugs (42%). Fifty-seven drugs (27%) had the lowest level of evidence regarding an association with acute pancreatitis, being implicated in single case reports, without exclusion of other causes of acute pancreatitis.
Much of the case report evidence upon which drug-induced pancreatitis associations are based is tenuous. A greater emphasis on exclusion of all non-drug causes of acute pancreatitis and on quality reporting would improve the evidence base. It should be recognized that reviews of case reports, are valuable scoping tools but have limited strength to establish drug-induced pancreatitis associations.
CRD42017060473.
We sought to assess the relative effects of individual anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane ...CENTRAL, and grey literature (July 23, 2019) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included participants with ALK- or ROS1-positive NSCLC who received any ALK inhibitor compared with placebo, another ALK inhibitor, or the same ALK inhibitor at a different dose. The primary outcome was treatment-related death. Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and serious adverse events. Data were pooled via meta-analysis and network meta-analysis, and risk of bias was assessed. PROSPERO: CRD42017077046.
Thirteen RCTs reporting outcomes of interest among participants with ALK-positive NSCLC were identified. Treatment-related deaths were rare, with 10 deaths attributed to crizotinib (risk difference v. chemotherapy: 0.49, 95% credible interval CrI -0.16 to 1.46; odds ratio 2.58 (0.76-11.37). All ALK inhibitors improved PSF relative to chemotherapy (hazard ratio 95% CrI: crizotinib 0.46 0.39-0.54; ceritinib 0.52 0.42-0.64; alectinib 300 BID 0.16 0.08-0.33; alectinib 600 BID 0.23 0.17-0.30; brigatinib 0.23 0.15-0.35), while alectinib and brigatinib improved PFS over crizotinib and ceritinib (alectinib v. crizotinib 0.34 0.17-0.70; alectinib v. ceritinib 0.30 0.14-0.64; brigatinib v. crizotinib 0.49 0.33-0.73; brigatinib v. ceritinib 0.43 0.27-0.70). OS was improved with alectinib compared with chemotherapy (HR 0.57 95% CrI 0.39-0.83) and crizotinib (0.68 0.48-0.96). Use of crizotinib (odds ratio 2.08 95% CrI 1.56-2.79) and alectinib (1.60 1.00-2.58) but not ceritinib (1.25 0.90-1.74), increased the risk of serious adverse events compared with chemotherapy. Results were generally consistent among treatment-experienced or naïve participants.
Treatment-related deaths were infrequent among ALK-positive NSCLC. PFS may be improved by alectinib and brigatinib relative to other ALK inhibitors; however, the assessment of OS is likely confounded by treatment crossover and should be interpreted with caution.
Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. ...As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.
The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.
Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.
Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.
Preventable adverse drug reactions (PADRs) in inpatients are associated with harm, including increased length of stay and potential loss of life, and result in elevated costs of care. We conducted an ...overview of reviews (i.e., a systematic review of systematic reviews) to determine the incidence of PADRs experienced by inpatients. Secondary review objectives were related to assessment of the effects of patient age, setting, and clinical specialty on PADR incidence.
The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016043220). We performed a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, limiting languages of publication to English and French. We included published systematic reviews that reported quantitative data on the incidence of PADRs in patients receiving acute or ambulatory care in a hospital setting. The full texts of all primary studies for which PADR data were reported in the included reviews were obtained and data relevant to review objectives were extracted. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Both narrative summaries of findings and meta-analyses of primary study data were undertaken.
Thirteen systematic reviews encompassing 37 unique primary studies were included. Across primary studies, the PADR incidence was highly varied, ranging from 0.006 to 13.3 PADRs per 100 patients, with a pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients. Substantial heterogeneity was present across both reviews and primary studies with respect to review/study objectives, patient age, hospital setting, medical discipline, definitions and assessment tools used, event detection methods, endpoints of interest, and units of measure. Thirteen primary studies used prospective event detection methods and had a pooled PADR incidence of 3.13 (2.87-3.38) PADRs per 100 patients; however, extreme statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 97%) indicated this finding should be considered with caution. Subgroup meta-analyses demonstrated that PADR incidence varied significantly with event detection method (prospective > retrospective > voluntary reporting methods), hospital setting (ICU > wards), and medical discipline (medical > surgical). High statistical heterogeneity (I2 > 80%) was present across all analyses, indicating results should be interpreted with caution. Effects of patient age could not be assessed due to poor reporting of age groups used in primary studies.
The method of event detection appeared to significantly influence PADR incidence, with prospective methods having the highest reported PADR rate. This finding is in agreement with the background literature. High methodological and statistical heterogeneity across primary studies evaluating adverse drug events reduces the validity of the overall PADR incidence derived from the meta-analyses of the pooled data. Data pooled from studies using only prospective methods of event detection should provide an overall estimate closest to the true PADR incidence; however, our estimate should be considered with caution due to the statistical heterogeneity found in this group of studies. Future studies should employ prospective methods of detection. This review demonstrates that the true overall incidence of PADRs is likely much greater than the overall pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients obtained when event detection method was not taken into consideration.
The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory ...journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted.
Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n = 90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n = 68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range = 3 to 64) which were not weighted (n = 91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n = 78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n = 91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n = 90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool.
There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to examine the efficacy and completion rates of treatments for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI). While a previous review found ...newer, short-duration regimens to be effective, several included studies did not confirm LTBI, and analyses did not account for variable follow-up or assess completion.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed, and additional sources to identify RCTs in patients with confirmed LTBI that involved a regimen of interest and reported on efficacy or completion. Regimens of interest included isoniazid (INH) with rifapentine once weekly for 12 weeks (INH/RPT-3), 6 and 9 months of daily INH (INH-6; INH-9), 3-4 months daily INH plus rifampicin (INH/RFMP 3-4), and 4 months daily rifampicin alone (RFMP-4). NMAs were performed to compare regimens for both endpoints.
Sixteen RCTs (n = 44,149) and 14 RCTs (n = 44,128) were included in analyses of efficacy and completion. Studies were published between 1968 and 2015, and there was diversity in patient age and comorbidities. All regimens of interest except INH-9 showed significant benefits in preventing active TB compared to placebo. Comparisons between active regimens did not reveal significant differences. While definitions of regimen completion varied across studies, regimens of 3-4 months were associated with a greater likelihood of adequate completion.
Most of the active regimens showed an ability to reduce the risk of active TB relative to no treatment, however important differences between active regimens were not found. Shorter rifamycin-based regimens may offer comparable benefits to longer INH regimens. Regimens of 3-4 months duration are more likely to be completed than longer regimens.
•Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are environmental contaminants in humans.•Serum PFAS concentrations may reduce antibody response after vaccination.•We conducted a systematic review and ...meta-analysis of antibody response and PFAS.•An inverse association was found, e.g, −5% per doubling of perfluorooctanoate.•The association was present across antibodies to multiple different antigens.
Epidemiologic studies of serum per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and antibody response to vaccines have suggested an adverse association, but the consistency and magnitude of this association remain unclear.
The goal of this systematic review was to determine the size of the association between a doubling in perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) serum concentration and difference in loge antibody concentration following a vaccine, with a focus on five PFAS: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), perfluorohexane sulfonate (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA).
We conducted online searches of PubMed and Web of Science through May 17, 2022 and identified 14 eligible reports published from 2012 to 2022.
We included studies conducted in humans, including mother–child pairs, which examined serum PFAS concentration in relation to serum concentration of antibody to a specific antigen following a vaccine.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We used the risk of bias assessment for non-randomized studies of exposure and certainty assessment method proposed by Morgan et al. (2019). Using a multilevel meta-regression model, we quantitatively synthesized the data.
The 14 reports represented 13 unique groups of subjects; the frequency of studies of a given antibody was Tetanus (n = 7); followed by Diphtheria (6); Measles (4); Rubella (3); Haemophilus influenzae type b and Influenza A H1N1 (2 each); and Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, Influenza A H2N3, Influenza B, and Mumps (1 each). There were approximately 4,830 unique participants included in the analyses across the 14 reports. The models of coefficients between antibody concentration and the five principal PFAS showed homogeneity of associations across antibody types for each principal PFAS. In the models with all antibodies treated as one type, evidence of effect modification by life stage was present for PFOA and PFOS, and for consistency, all associations were evaluated for all ages and for children. The summary associations (coefficients for difference in logeantibody concentration per doubling of serum PFAS) with 95% confidence intervals that excluded zero (“statistical support”), and certainty of evidence ratings were as follows: for PFOA and all antibodies treated as one type in all ages, −0.06 (-0.10, −0.01; moderate) and in children, −0.10 (-0.16, −0.03; moderate); for Diphtheria in children, −0.12 (-0.23, −0.00; high); for Rubella in all ages, −0.09 (-0.17, −0.01; moderate), and for Tetanus in children, −0.12 (-0.24, −0.00; moderate). For PFOS the summary associations were, for all antibodies treated as one type in all ages, −0.06 (-0.11, −0.01; moderate) and in children, −0.10 (-0.18, −0.03; moderate); for Rubella in all ages, −0.09 (-0.15, −0.03; high) and in children, −0.12 (-0.20, −0.04; high). For PFHxS the summary associations were, for all antibodies treated as one type in all ages, −0.03 (-0.06, −0.00; moderate) and in children, −0.05 (-0.09, −0.00; low); and for Rubella in children, −0.07 (-0.11, −0.02; high). Summary associations for PFNA and PFDA did not have statistical support, but all PFAS studied tended to have an inverse association with antibody concentrations.
Epidemiologic data on immunosuppression and five principal PFAS suggest an association, with support across antibodies against multiple types of antigens. Data on Diphtheria, Rubella, and Tetanus were more supportive of an association than for other antibodies, and support was greater for associations with PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS, than for PFNA or PFDA. The data on any specific antibody were scarce. Confounding factors that might account for the relation were not identified. Nearly all studies evaluated were judged to have a low or moderate risk of bias.
PDF
