Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta-research study

Efficacy and safety of oral propranolol and topical timolol in the treatment of infantile hemangioma: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Propranolol, a nonselective β-blocker, is the first-line treatment for infantile hemangioma (IH). Topical timolol has recently been proposed as a novel IH treatment with fewer adverse effects. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of oral propranolol and topical timolol for treating IH.

METHODS

Studies were included after searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library via the keywords of "propranolol", "timolol", "infantile hemangioma" and their synonyms. A meta-analysis with pooled odds ratios was performed using the fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

Seven articles with 2071 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with topical timolol, oral propranolol had a greater response rate (OR = 2.12, P < 0.001), but it was also associated with a greater risk of adverse events (OR = 2.31, P < 0.001). For superficial IH, timolol demonstrated similar efficacy to propranolol (OR = 1.28, P = 0.34) but with fewer adverse events (OR = 2.30, P = 0.001). Additionally, compared with topical timolol, propranolol at a dosage of 2 mg/kg/d had a better response rate (OR = 2.62, P < 0.001), whereas the 1.0∼1.5 mg/kg/d propranolol group showed no significant difference (OR = 1.34, P = 0.38).

CONCLUSION

Oral propranolol presents superior therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of IH compared to topical timolol. However, topical timolol can serve as an alternative to oral propranolol for treating superficial IH, providing similar efficacy with fewer adverse effects. Additionally, propranolol at a dosage of 2 mg/kg/d offers greater efficacy with a comparable safety profile, whereas the 1.0∼1.5 mg/kg/d propranolol dosage shows no significant difference in efficacy compared to timolol but is associated with more adverse events.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42024603724, identifier CRD42024603724.

Use of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary research in leading neurosurgical journals: A review of reviews

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) require a comprehensive and reproducible strategy to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. This research-on-research study evaluated the methods used to assess research quality by SRs and MAs published in leading neurosurgical journals, and identified factors associated with the publication of a comprehensive and reproducible assessment. We systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/11/2019 and 31/12/2021. PubMed was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Included SRs were assessed using a standardised data extraction tool. Descriptive statistics were utilised to identify factors associated with methodological and reporting quality of the tool-based quality assessment. A total of 564 SRs were included in the analysis. 326 (57.80%) included MAs, 165 (29.26%) included at least one Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) and 29 (5.14%) included only RCTs. Scales were the most commonly used tool for methodological quality assessment (32.45%), followed by domain-based tools (24.82%) and checklists (9.93%). The number of included studies was inversely associated with multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. A positive association was observed between the number of included patients and multiple methodological quality assessment metrics. We established that the methodological and reporting quality of tool-based quality assessment requires improvement. This issue is particularly pertinent for SRs limited to non-randomised studies, which account for the vast majority of neurosurgical SRs. We recommend the use of domain-based tools for methodological quality assessment as these provide a more nuanced assessment of methodological quality.

Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review

Psychological interventions are complex in nature and have been shown to benefit various clinical outcomes. Gaining insight into current practices would help identify specific aspects that need improvement to enhance the quality of network meta-analysis (NMA) in this field. This scoping review aimed to explore methodological approaches in the NMA of psychological interventions. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL in September 2023. We included NMAs of psychological interventions of randomized controlled trials that reported clinical outcomes. Three independent researchers assessed the eligibility and extracted relevant data. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics. Of the 1827 articles identified, 187 studies were included. Prior protocol registration was reported in 130 studies (69.5%). Forty-six studies (24.6%) attempted to search for gray literature. Ninety-four studies (50.3%) explicitly assessed transitivity. Nearly three-quarters (143 studies, 76.5%) classified treatment nodes by the type of psychological intervention, while 13 studies (7.0%) did so by lumping different intervention types into more broader intervention classes. Seven studies (3.7%) examined active components of the intervention using component NMA. Only three studies (1.6%) classified interventions based on factors affecting intervention practices, specifically intensity, provider, and delivery platform. Meanwhile, 29 studies (15.5%) explored the influential effects of these factors using meta-regression, subgroup analysis, or sensitivity analysis. The certainty of evidence was assessed in 80 studies (42.8%). The methodological approach in NMAs of psychological interventions should be improved, specifically in classifying psychological interventions into treatment nodes, exploring the effects of intervention-related factors, and assessing the certainty of evidence.

Polatuzumab vedotin combined with bendamustine and rituximab for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a significant relapse rate and poor prognosis in relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients. Polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) has demonstrated promising efficacy and safety as salvage therapy for R/R DLBCL. This systematic review protocol aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of Pola-BR for the treatment of R/R DLBCL by synthesizing data from relevant randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

This protocol details the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study selection, data extraction, and analysis methods for the systematic review. Randomized controlled trials comparing Pola-BR with other interventions for R/R DLBCL will be included. The primary endpoint is overall survival, with secondary endpoints being progression-free survival and incidence of adverse events. A comprehensive search will be conducted across databases such as Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov from the January 2000 to April 2024. To assess the potential risk of bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool will be used. Data synthesis will utilize fixed-effect or random-effects models, and subgroup and meta-regression analyses will examine heterogeneity. Additionally, publication bias and sensitivity analyses will be performed, and the GRADE approach will be applied to assess the certainty of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol provides a rigorous framework for evaluating the efficacy of Pola-BR in the treatment of R/R DLBCL. The results will inform clinical decision-making and guideline development, addressing the unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for this challenging patient population. Potential limitations and biases will be acknowledged, and future research directions will be discussed.