Meta-analyses including non-randomized studies of therapeutic interventions: a methodological review

Modern Therapeutic Approaches in Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomised and Single Arm Studies on Efficacy and Survival

Background: Meta-analyses aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of targeted and contemporary therapies utilised in locally advanced and metastatic anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC). Methods: Employing PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were explored from the inception of targeted therapy until December 2024. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effectiveness, toxicity and survival outcomes of various mutationally directed agents, chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced/metastatic ATC cases. Results: A total of 47 studies (26 prospective phase II trials and 21 retrospective studies) involving 980 patients met the inclusion criteria. The pooled results showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 29.7% (95% CI: 25.4-34.2%; I2 = 42.4%; p < 0.0001). A total of 49.9% deaths were reported, although a significant number remained alive compared to baseline (mean difference [MD]: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.90-2.24; I2 = 88.6%; p < 0.0001). The pooled median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 months (95% CI: 4.0-6.7 months; I2 = 97.9%; p < 0.0001). Dabrafenib/trametinib (DT) with and without pembrolizumab and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (LP) were associated with higher ORR rates and improved OS and PFS. About 51.% of studies mentioned bio-marker analysis (BRAFV600 [14.7%], PDL1 [9.2%], RAS [1.1%], PIK3CA [1.0%] and NTRK1/3 [0.7%]). Toxicity was reported in 94.7% of patients. Conclusions: This meta-analysis found that DT could be a promising first-line treatment option for BRAFV600-mutated ATC, with or without immunotherapy. Alternatively, LP shows potential in BRAFV600 wild-type and PDL1-overexpressing cases. Routine biomarker analysis remains critical for optimising ATC management strategies.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgical Approaches for Venous Thoracic Outlet Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

There is currently no consensus on the optimal surgical approach for the treatment of venous thoracic outlet syndrome (vTOS). Surgical exposures for vTOS decompression include infraclavicular (IC), supraclavicular (SC), paraclavicular (PC), and transaxillary (AX) approaches. The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive review of the outcomes and major complications of these four surgical techniques.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We performed a systematic search in the Cochrane Library trials register, Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the US National Library of Medicine clinical trial databases for studies that evaluated the above four surgical exposures for vTOS and included them. Three independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed quality and risk of bias. Primary outcomes of interest were clinical improvement and postoperative primary patency rate. Secondary outcomes included rates of nerve injury, hematoma, hemothorax, pneumothorax, and other complications. Pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of various outcomes were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses according to surgical approach were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of twenty-six studies were included in the final analysis. The cumulative number of studies by surgical approach was 8 IC, 5 SC, 6 PC, and 11 AX. Pooled results from these studies demonstrated a 0.94 clinical improvement following surgical intervention (95% CI, 0.87-1), with a rate of 1 (95% CI, 0.99-1) for IC, 0.84 (95% CI, 0.38-1) for SC, 0.97 (95% CI, 0.76-1) for PC, and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78-0.96) for AX approach. Overall, postoperative patency rate was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.84-0.97), with rate of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.89-1) for IC, 0.95 (95% CI, 0.78-1) for SC, 1 (95% CI, 0.98-1) for PC, and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54-0.82) for AX approach. Subgroup analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of clinical improvement (0.12) in the IC group compared to the AX group. Rates of postoperative primary patency were higher in the IC (0.26), SC (0.26), and PC (0.31) groups than the AX group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the importance of considering different surgical approaches for the decompression of vTOS. While the IC, SC, and PC methods demonstrate comparable postoperative primary patency and clinical improvement, the AX approach shows lower outcomes in these aspects. Surgeons should carefully weigh the benefits and limitations of each approach when determining the most suitable surgical technique for vTOS patients.

Integration of non-randomized studies with randomized controlled trials in meta-analyses of clinical studies: a meta-epidemiological study on effect estimation of interventions

BACKGROUNDS

Syntheses of non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly used in decision-making. This study aimed to summarize when NRSIs are included in evidence syntheses of RCTs, with a particular focus on the methodological issues associated with combining NRSIs and RCTs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to identify clinical systematic reviews published between 9 December 2017 and 9 December 2022, randomly sampling reviews in a 1:1 ratio of Core and non-Core clinical journals. We included systematic reviews with RCTs and NRSIs for the same clinical question. Clinical scenarios for considering the inclusion of NRSIs in eligible studies were classified. We extracted the methodological characteristics of the included studies, assessed the concordance of estimates between RCTs and NRSIs, calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from NRSIs to that from RCTs, and evaluated the impact on the estimates of pooled estimates when NRSIs are included.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty systematic reviews were included in the analysis. The clinical scenarios for including NRSIs were grouped into four main justifications: adverse outcomes (n = 140, 63.6%), long-term outcomes (n = 36, 16.4%), the applicability of RCT results to broader populations (n = 11, 5.0%), and other (n = 33, 15.0%). When conducting a meta-analysis, none of these reviews assessed the compatibility of the different types of evidence prior, 203 (92.3%) combined estimates from RCTs and NRSIs in the same meta-analysis. Of the 203 studies, 169 (76.8%) used crude estimates of NRSIs, and 28 (13.8%) combined RCTs and multiple types of NRSIs. Seventy-seven studies (35.5%) showed "qualitative disagree" between estimates from RCTs and NRSIs, and 101 studies (46.5%) found "important difference". The integration of NRSIs changed the qualitative direction of estimates from RCTs in 72 out of 200 studies (36.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic reviews typically include NRSIs in the context of assessing adverse or long-term outcomes. The inclusion of NRSIs in a meta-analysis of RCTs has a substantial impact on effect estimates, but discrepancies between RCTs and NRSIs are often ignored. Our proposed recommendations will help researchers to consider carefully when and how to synthesis evidence from RCTs and NRSIs.

High Rates of Union Following Arthroscopic Treatment of Scaphoid Non-Union: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To synthesize and analyze the existing literature and report on the outcomes of arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of scaphoid non-union (SNU).

METHODS

This systematic review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The authors conducted a search using Medline and Embase databases. Studies that reported outcomes on arthroscopic nonvascularized bone graft for SNU treatment, with no limits to follow-up, sample sizes or prevalence were included.

RESULTS

We found 17 eligible studies composed of 20 datasets, and all assessed nonvascularized arthroscopic treatment for SNU, with a mean follow-up that ranged from 6 to 38.5 months. Union rates ranged between 86% and 100%, and none of the studies reported any other complications than non-union following arthroscopic SNU.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review found union rates ranging between 86% and 100%, with a time to union ranging from 2.3 to 7.8 months. Furthermore, the included studies reported satisfactory clinical scores, and the complication rate of non-union ranged between 0% and 14%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level II-IV studies.

Synthetic vs nonsynthetic slings for female stress and mixed urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review objective and subjective success and surgical outcomes of suburethral sling surgery for female patients with stress or mixed urinary incontinence using synthetic vs nonsynthetic material with corresponding surgical approaches (retropubic or transobturator).

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science Core Collection using standardized Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) without date restrictions (PROSPERO-registered). We double-screened studies and used backward citation chaining.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies examining outcomes of retropubic or transobturator synthetic vs nonsynthetic (autologous, allograft, or xenograft) slings for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence, with available English or French full texts. We excluded minislings (single insertion point). We allowed slings for recurrent stress or mixed urinary incontinence, and slings concomitant with prolapse surgery, with at least 6 weeks of postoperative follow-up. We excluded systematic reviews, meta-analyses, review studies, case-control studies, case reports, studies that did not describe surgical approach or material, and studies of combination slings.

METHODS

We evaluated study quality using RoB, the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. We used pooled relative risk with 95% confidence intervals to estimate the effect of sling material type on each outcome through meta-analysis and meta-regression, as appropriate.

RESULTS

We screened 4341 abstracts, assessed 104 full texts, and retained 35 articles (30 separate studies). For retropubic synthetic vs nonsynthetic slings, there was no difference in the number of objectively or subjectively continent patients. The rates of reoperation for stress urinary incontinence and overall were higher with nonautologous retropubic slings than with synthetic slings. Compared with autologous slings, retropubic synthetic slings were associated with higher subjective continence in populations with ≥25% recurrent stress urinary incontinence (relative risk, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.43). There were no differences in continence between transobturator synthetic and nonsynthetic slings. Subjective satisfaction was better in the transobturator synthetic group than in the autologous sling group (relative risk, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.94).

CONCLUSION

Synthetic and nonsynthetic slings have comparable objective and subjective success, with synthetic materials generally showing better operative outcomes and fewer complications.

Endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) 980 nm versus 1470 nm and the impact of fiber type: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We sought to assess the efficacy and safety of endovenous laser ablation utilizing a 980 nm device versus a 1470 nm device in the treatment of lower limb venous insufficiency. We performed a systematic review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. A research on PubMed, Scopus and Web of science for articles published by January 2024 was conducted. The primary endpoint was great saphenous vein (GSV) and truncal vein occlusion. Eleven studies encompassing 3061 patients and 3193 truncal veins, were included. The 1470 nm device demonstrated superior truncal vein and GSV occlusion outcomes compared to the 980 nm device at the early, one-year, and medium to long-term follow-up intervals. Odds ratios (OR) were 2.79(95%CI:1.31-5.94), 2.22(95%CI:1.21-4.07), and 2.02(95%CI:1.24-3.29) for truncal veins and 2.54(95%CI:1.119-5.41), 2.06(95%CI:1.07-3.95) and 2.04(95%CI:1.25-3.33) for GSV, across the respective intervals. While both devices demonstrated minimal, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) ≥ 2, and burn estimates, the 1470 nm device exhibited improved paresthesia, risk ratio (RR), 0.51(95%CI:0.34-0.77) and pain outcomes, standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.62(95%CI:-0.99to-0.25). Subgroup analysis displayed enhanced occlusion outcomes with the 1470 nm device for the six-month and one-year intervals, irrespective of fiber type. Radial fibers were associated with improved paresthesia outcomes (β=-0.9520,p = 0.03). This review emphasized the enhanced efficacy of the 1470 nm device over the 980 nm device, regardless of fiber type. Radial fibers showed promise for improved paresthesia outcomes, suggesting similar safety profiles for both systems. Conclusive remarks on pain outcomes were impeded by data limitations.

The Treatment and Management of Oroantral Communications and Fistulas: A Systematic Review and Network Metanalysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work was to systematically review and carry out a statistical metanalysis to identify the best treatment for close oroantral communications and fistulas and to avoid the risk of recurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on the MEDLINE database (Pubmed), Scopus, and Google scholar using the following keywords: "oro antral communication (OAC)" OR "oro antral fistula (OAF)" OR "antro-oral communication" OR "communication between maxillary sinus and oral cavity" OR "oro-sinusal communication" OR "oro-sinusal fistula" OR "sinus communication" OR "sinus fistula" OR "antral communication" AND "treatment" OR "management" OR "surgical treatment" OR "surgical interventions". This work was performed in accordance with the guidelines of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses). After article screening, 9 RCTs (randomized controlled trials), comparing two or more techniques, were included in this review.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was detected in favor of the buccal fat pad compared to the buccal advancement flap and palatal rotational flap.

CONCLUSIONS

With the limitations of this study, the buccal fat pad showed the best results in terms of communication closure and reducing the risk of relapse.

Phenobarbital treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the emergency department: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Despite frequent treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the emergency department (ED), evidence for phenobarbital (PB) as an ED alternative therapy is mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing safety and efficacy of PB to benzodiazepines (BZDs) for treatment of AWS in the ED.

METHODS

We searched articles and references published in English in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase from inception through May 2022. We included randomized trials and cohort studies comparing treatment with PB to BZD controls and excluded studies focused on non-AWS conditions. Review was conducted by two blinded investigators and a third author; eight of 59 (13.6%) abstracts met inclusion criteria for review and meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Treatment superiority was evaluated through utilization, pharmacologic, and clinical outcomes. Primary outcomes for meta-analysis were the proportion of patients (1) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), (2) admitted to the hospital, (3) readmitted to the ED after discharge, and (4) who experienced adverse events.

RESULTS

Eight studies (two randomized controlled trials, six retrospective cohorts) comprised data from 1507 patients in 2012 treatment encounters for AWS. All studies were included in meta-analysis for adverse events, seven for hospital admission, five for ICU admission, and three for readmission to the ED after discharge. Overall methodological quality was low-moderate, risk of bias moderate-high, and statistical heterogeneity moderate. Pooled relative risk of ICU admission for those treated with PB versus BZD was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-1.55). Risk for admission to the hospital was 0.98 (95% CI 0.89-1.07) and for any adverse event was 1.1 (95% CI 0.78-1.57); heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis for ED readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature base does not show that treatment with PB significantly reduces ICU admissions, hospital admissions, ED readmissions, or adverse events in ED patients with AWS compared with BZDs alone.

Testosterone replacement therapy and vascular thromboembolic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis

To evaluate the relationship between testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) and arterial and/or venous thrombosis in patients with pre-treatment total testosterone (TT) <12 nmol l -1 , we performed a meta-analysis following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome model. Population: men with TT <12 nmol l -1 or clear mention of hypogonadism in the inclusion criteria of patients; intervention: TRT; comparison: placebo or no therapy; outcomes: arterial thrombotic events (stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], upper limbs, and lower limbs), VTE (deep vein thrombosis [DVT], portal vein thrombosis, splenic thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism), and mortality. A total of 2423 abstracts were assessed for eligibility. Twenty-four studies, including 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were finally included, with a total of 4027 and 310 288 hypotestosteronemic male patients, from RCTs and from observational studies, respectively. Based on RCT-derived data, TRT did not influence the risk of arterial thrombosis (odds ratio [OR] = 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-3.43, P = 0.64), stroke (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 0.09-18.97, P = 0.83), MI (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.11-2.31, P = 0.39), VTE (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.22-9.03, P = 0.71), pulmonary embolism (OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 0.27-7.04, P = 0.70), and mortality (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.20-2.38, P = 0.56). Meanwhile, when only observational studies are considered, a significant reduction in the risk of developing arterial thrombotic events, MI, venous thromboembolism, and mortality was observed. The risk for DVT remains uncertain, due to the paucity of RCT-based data. TRT in men with TT <12 nmol l -1 is safe from the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Further studies specifically assessing the risk of DVT in men on TRT are needed.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Impact of different surgical and non-surgical interventions on health-related quality of life after thoracolumbar burst fractures without neurological deficit: protocol for a comprehensive systematic review with network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is no international consensus on how to treat thoracolumbar burst fractures (TLBFs) without neurological deficits. The planned systematic review with network meta-analyses (NMA) aims to compare the effects on treatment outcomes, focusing on midterm health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a comprehensive and systematic literature search, identifying studies comparing two or more treatment modalities. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science from January 2000 until July 2023 for publications. We will include (randomised and non-randomised) controlled clinical trials assessing surgical and non-surgical treatment methods for adults with TLBF. Screening of references, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment will be done independently by two reviewers. We will extract relevant studies, participants and intervention characteristics. The RoB will be assessed using the revised Cochrane RoB V.2.0 tool for randomised trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for controlled trials. The OR for dichotomous data and standardised mean differences for continuous data will be presented with their respective 95% CIs. We will conduct a random-effects NMA to assess the treatments and determine the superiority of the therapeutic approaches. Our primary outcomes will be midterm (6 months to 2 years after injury) overall HRQoL and pain. Secondary outcomes will include radiological or clinical findings. We will present network graphs, forest plots and relative rankings on plotted rankograms corresponding to the treatment rank probabilities. The ranking results will be represented by the area under the cumulative ranking curve. Analyses will be performed in Stata V.16.1 and R. The quality of the evidence will be evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required. The research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

THE MARGINAL ACCURACY OF LITHIUM DISILICATE SINGLE CROWNS IS COMPAREABLE WHEN MADE FROM CONVENTIONAL OR DIGITAL (DIRECT OR INDIRECT) WORKFLOWS

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Tabesh M, Nejatidanesh F, Savabi G, Davoudi A, Savabi O. Marginal accuracy of lithium disilicate full coverage crowns made by direct and indirect digital or conventional workflows: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2022;31(9):744-753. doi:10.1111/jopr.13515.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Dental Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Research Grant #298095.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of data.

Lisfranc Sports Injuries: What Do We Know So Far?

Lisfranc sports injuries include tarsometatarsal joint injuries, which may be accompanied by fractures. They most commonly occur due to a blow or axial force. The aim of this review is to assess the current standards for surgical intervention in Lisfranc injuries resulting from sports-related accidents. This evaluation will cover the timing of treatment, the recovery process, and the appropriate timing for a return to normal sporting activities. This research was done via an analytical review of current literature. Methods included a structured search strategy on PubMed, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. The collated literature was processed using formal inclusion or exclusion, data extraction, and validity assessment. Joint involvement and severity were taken into account while classifying Lisfranc injuries. The primary fixation and fusion techniques for Lisfranc injuries were compared, and the surgical management of these injuries was examined in all of the literature. Treatment recovery times were examined, and the results were talked about. A variety of injuries, from minor sprains to serious fractures and rips, make up Lisfranc injuries. Although open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) in combination with primary arthrodesis (PA) is now thought to be the optimum course of treatment, its acceptance has increased. Patients with Lisfranc injuries can usually expect excellent outcomes and the return of joint function to its pre-injury form if the injury is appropriately assessed and treated. Lisfranc injuries are manageable and have a good recovery time if not neglected. The outcomes of management and surgical options are also quite satisfactory.

Cold snare resection for non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims The role of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in curative resection of non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas (NASDA) is debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP for NASDA. Patients and methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified published series of patients with CSP for NASDA by searching PubMed and Google Scholar, which resulted in six papers (205 lesions). The main outcome was the rate of local remission after repeated CSP, the secondary outcomes were rates of local remission at first control and rates for delayed bleeding and immediate perforations. We computed the weighted summary proportions under the fixed and random effects model. Results The pooled proportion of local remission after repeated CSP was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%-100%). The pooled proportion of local remission at first control was 81% (95% CI 55%-98%), the pooled proportion of delayed bleeding was 1% (95% CI 0%-4%) and the pooled proportion of immediate perforation was 0% (95% CI 0%-2%). Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that CSP should be considered as the first-line therapy for NASDA.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

The efficacy of schema therapy for personality disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Personality disorders (PDs) are prevalent and associated with functional impairment and psychological disability. Studies suggest that schema therapy (ST) may be an effective treatment for PDs. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ST in treating PDs.

METHOD

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycInfo, and Ovid Medline. We identified eight randomized controlled trials (587 participants) and seven single-group trials (163 participants).

RESULTS

Meta-analyses revealed that ST had a moderate effect size (g = 0.359) compared to control conditions in reducing symptoms of PDs. Subgroup analysis indicated that the effect of ST on different types of PDs varied slightly, and that group ST (g = 0.859) was more effective than individual ST (g = 0.163) in treating PDs. Secondary outcome analysis revealed a moderate effect size (g = 0.256) for ST compared to control conditions in improving quality of life, and ST was found to reduce early maladaptive schema (g = 0.590). Single-group trials analysis showed that ST had a positive effect on PDs (OR = 0.241).

CONCLUSION

ST appears to be an effective treatment for PDs, as it reduces symptoms and improves quality of life. This review provides support for the use of ST in the treatment of PDs.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Management of shoulder stiffness following rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose was to systematically review and synthesize the literature on treatment modalities for shoulder stiffness following rotator cuff repair (RCR) and investigate which modality provides the greatest postoperative range of motion (ROM). A search was performed on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Clinical case series and comparative studies that report pre- and posttreatment ROM of shoulder stiffness following RCR were included. Studies that exclusively assess idiopathic frozen shoulder or primary shoulder stiffness were excluded. Five eligible studies that reported on a total of 177 patients who underwent treatment for shoulder stiffness following RCR were included. The ranges of postoperative ROM following arthroscopic capsular release were 158°-166° for active forward elevation (AFE) and 53°-59° for external rotation (ER). The ranges of postoperative ROM following infiltration were 146°-163° for AFE and 34°-35° for ER. The ranges of postoperative ROM following rehabilitation were 166° for AFE and 62° for ER. For AFE, 4 studies (5 data sets) were eligible for meta-analysis, which indicated better AFE when treated with a mean difference (MD) of 5.10° with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, CI, 0.83-9.38). For ER, 3 studies (4 data sets) were eligible for meta-analysis, which indicated better ER without treatment with an MD of 4.59° with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, CI, -7.04 to -2.13). For the treatment of shoulder stiffness following RCR, all included treatments improved the ROM, resulting in comparable AFE and ER compared to the comparative group. Among the treatment modalities, arthroscopic capsular release granted the greatest posttreatment AFE, while rehabilitation granted the greatest posttreatment ER.

Insufficient evidence to confirm benefit of adjuvant distal clavicle resection during rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study is to determine whether adjuvant Distal Clavicle Resection (DCR) improves outcomes of Rotator Cuff Repair (RCR) in terms of ROM, clinical scores as well as reducing complications and/or reoperations. This systematic review conforms to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they compared outcomes of RCR with and without adjuvant DCR and reported on postoperative ROM, clinical scores, complications, and/or reoperations. Seven studies that comprised 1572 shoulders which underwent RCR at a follow-up ranged 8-54 months: 398 with adjuvant DCR and 1174 without DCR. No significant differences were found between patients that had DCR versus those that did not have DCR, in terms of postoperative clinical scores (ASES, Constant, pVAS), postoperative ROM (AFE, external and internal rotation), retear rate and reoperation rate. There were no significant differences in ROM, clinical scores, or rates of retears and reoperations between patients that underwent RCR with or without adjuvant DCR. There is insufficient evidence to support routine DCR during RCR; the incidence of new or residual acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) pain after RCR with adjuvant DCR is higher than following isolated RCR, which could in fact induce iatrogenic morbidity and therefore does not justify the additional surgery time and costs of routine adjuvant DCR.

Evaluating the impact of including non-randomised studies of interventions in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

Although interest in including non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSIs) in meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is growing, estimates of effectiveness obtained from NRSIs are vulnerable to greater bias than RCTs. The objectives of this study are to: (1) explore how NRSIs can be integrated into a meta-analysis of RCTs; (2) assess concordance of the evidence from non-randomised and randomised trials and explore factors associated with agreement; and (3) investigate the impact on estimates of pooled bodies of evidence when NRSIs are included.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic survey of 210 systematic reviews that include both RCTs and NRSIs, published from 2017 to 2022. We will randomly select reviews, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by Core vs non-Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine. Teams of paired reviewers will independently determine eligibility and abstract data using standardised, pilot-tested forms. The concordance of the evidence will be assessed by exploring agreement in the relative effect reported by NRSIs and RCT addressing the same clinical question, defined as similarity of the population, intervention/exposure, control and outcomes. We will conduct univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with agreement in the estimates between NRSIs and RCTs. We will calculate the ratio of the relative effect estimate from NRSIs over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% CI. We will use a bias-corrected meta-analysis model to investigate the influence on pooled estimates when NRSIs are included in the evidence synthesis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and condensed summaries for clinicians, health policymakers and guideline developers regarding the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of meta-analysis that integrate RCTs and NRSIs.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy vs. surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a meta-analysis

Background and study aims Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is traditionally treated with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ), which is effective but associated with high rates of morbidity, or endoscopic stenting (ES), which is less invasive but associated with significant risk of stent dysfunction and need for reintervention. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) provides a robust bypass without the invasiveness of surgery. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing EUS-GE to SGJ and ES for MGOO. Electronic databases were searched from inception through February 2022. A meta-analysis was performed with results reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects models. Primary outcomes included clinical success without recurrent GOO and adverse events (AEs). Results Sixteen studies involving 1541 patients were included. EUS-GE was associated with higher clinical success without recurrent GOO compared to ES or SGJ [OR 2.60, 95% CI1.58-4.28] and compared to ES alone [OR 5.08, 95% CI 3.42-7.55], but yielded no significant difference compared to SGJ alone [OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.97-3.88]. AE rates were significantly lower for EUS-GE compared to ES or SGJ grouped together [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.58], or SGJ alone [OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.30] but were not significant different versus ES alone [OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29-1.14]. Conclusions EUS-GE is the most successful approach to treating MGOO, exhibiting a lower risk of recurrent obstruction compared to ES, and fewer AEs compared to SGJ.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

» Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.» A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.» Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

A 7-Step Guideline for Qualitative Synthesis and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Health Sciences

Objectives: To provide a step-by-step, easy-to-understand, practical guide for systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of researchers with extensive experience in observational studies and systematic review and meta-analysis was established. Previous guidelines in evidence synthesis were considered. Results: There is inherent variability in observational study design, population, and analysis, making evidence synthesis challenging. We provided a framework and discussed basic meta-analysis concepts to assist reviewers in making informed decisions. We also explained several statistical tools for dealing with heterogeneity, probing for bias, and interpreting findings. Finally, we briefly discussed issues and caveats for translating results into clinical and public health recommendations. Our guideline complements "A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research" and addresses peculiarities for observational studies previously unexplored. Conclusion: We provided 7 steps to synthesize evidence from observational studies. We encourage medical and public health practitioners who answer important questions to systematically integrate evidence from observational studies and contribute evidence-based decision-making in health sciences.

Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic necrosectomy is limited by the proximity of necrosis to the gastrointestinal tract. Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) is a minimally invasive endoscopic method of percutaneous debridement. Studies regarding its efficacy and safety are lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of PEN in necrotizing pancreatitis.

Methods  Pubmed, Ovid, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science Database were searched from inception through February 2021. Dual extraction and quality assessment of studies using Cochrane risk of bias tool were performed independently by two authors. The primary outcome was defined as clinical success of PEN. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural morbidity, mortality, and long-term morbidity and mortality.

Results  Sixteen observational studies including 282 subjects were analyzed. The average reported age of the participants was 50.3 years. Patients with reported gender included 39 % females and 61 % males. The success rate as defined by complete resolution of necrosis and removal of drainage catheters/stents was 82 % (95 % confidence interval 77–87). The mean size of pancreatic necrosis was 14.86 cm (5–54 cm). The periprocedural morbidity rate was 10 %, while there was no reported periprocedural mortality. The long-term morbidity rate was reported as 23 % and mortality at follow-up was 16 %.

Conclusions  PEN is a novel method of endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis. Based on our meta-analysis of retrospective studies, it represents a safe treatment modality with high rates of clinical success and low rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality. This study supports the use of PEN when conventional endoscopic therapy is not feasible.

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews1

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

Surgical resection rates after neoadjuvant therapy for localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy is increasingly being used before surgery for localized pancreatic cancer. Given the importance of completing multimodal therapy, the aim of this study was to characterize surgical resection rates after neoadjuvant therapy as well as the reasons for, and long-term prognostic impact of, not undergoing resection.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective trials and high-quality retrospective studies since 2010 was performed to calculate pooled resection rates using a generalized random-effects model for potentially resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Median survival times were calculated using random-effects models for patients who did and did not undergo resection.

RESULTS

In 125 studies that met the inclusion criteria, neoadjuvant therapy consisted of chemotherapy (36.8 per cent), chemoradiation (15.2 per cent), or chemotherapy and radiation (48.0 per cent). Among 11 713 patients, the pooled resection rates were 77.4 (95 per cent c.i. 71.3 to 82.5), 60.6 (54.8 to 66.1), and 22.2 (16.7 to 29.0) per cent for potentially resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced pancreatic cancer respectively. The most common reasons for not undergoing resection were distant progression for resectable and borderline resectable cancers, and local unresectability for locally advanced disease. Among 42 studies with survival data available, achieving surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy was associated with improved survival for patients with potentially resectable (median 38.5 versus 13.3 months), borderline resectable (32.3 versus 13.9 months), and locally advanced (30.0 versus 14.6 months) pancreatic cancer (P < 0.001 for all).

CONCLUSION

Although rates of surgical resection after neoadjuvant therapy vary based on anatomical stage, surgery is associated with improved survival for all patients with localized pancreatic cancer. These pooled resection and survival rates may inform patient-provider decision-making and serve as important benchmarks for future prospective trials.

Case studies to explore the optimal use of randomized and nonrandomized studies in evidence syntheses that use GRADE

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the preferred source of evidence for the relative effect of healthcare interventions summarized in knowledge syntheses. Nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSI) may provide replacement, sequential, or complementary evidence to RCTs. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach can provide different options for properly using RCTs and NRSI integrated in health syntheses. In this article, we discuss different implications on the certainty of evidence when authors consider the use of NRSI and RCTs in systematic reviews using GRADE. Although this is a GRADE-related article, it is not an official GRADE guidance or concept article.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We present case studies used during GRADE working group meetings for discussion of the effects of using NRSI and RCTs on GRADE domains and on the certainty of evidence. Several concepts were discussed through iterative feedback with experts in GRADE methods and Cochrane authors. We compared suggested solutions for possible scenarios that can be met in evidence syntheses informing decisions and future guidance.

RESULTS

Different scenarios for the use of RCTs and NRSI in evidence syntheses are presented, focusing on how different GRADE ratings between RCTs and NRSI affect the overall assessment of the evidence and possible health recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering differences and similarities grounded in the GRADE approach between NRSI and RCTs may help complement one another and maximize the value of knowledge syntheses and health recommendations.

Attachment- and Emotion-Focused Parenting Interventions for Child and Adolescent Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis

Attachment- and emotion-focused parenting interventions (AE) have grown in popularity as an alternative to behavioral parent training (BPT) for children and adolescents. AE go beneath behavior by helping parents understand and respond to their child's underlying attachment and emotional needs. Past reviews have examined their effects on attachment security and caregiver sensitivity, though less is known regarding their effects on child mental health symptoms. Reported here is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of individual and group AE on externalizing behavior (EXT) and internalizing behavior (INT) for children aged 0-18 years. A search of four databases prior to July 2021 elicited 43 studies that met eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that AE were superior to waitlist controls for EXT (SMD = - 0.17) and INT (SMD = - 0.34). Effects were sustained at follow-up periods of 6 months and greater, and AE considered to target child mental health were significantly more effective than those that did not in reducing EXT and INT. Two studies retrieved directly compared AE to BPT, which showed no evidence of a difference for follow-up measures of EXT. No studies compared AE to BPT on INT. AE demonstrated no evidence of superiority compared to controls for parent mental health. Findings support the potential for AE to reduce EXT and INT in children and adolescents; however, future research should consider the relative effectiveness of AE.

Post-EMR for colorectal polyps, thermal ablation of defects reduces adenoma recurrence: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Adenoma recurrence is one of the key limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which occurs in 15 % to 30 % of cases during first surveillance colonoscopy. The main hypothesis behind adenoma recurrence is leftover micro-adenomas at the margins of post-EMR defects. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) at the margins of mucosal defects to reduce adenoma recurrence and bleeding complications. Methods  Electronic databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane library were used for systematic literature search. Studies with polyps only resected by piecemeal EMR and active treatment: with STSC, comparator: non-STSC were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the summary of risk ratio and 95 % confidence intervals. The main outcome of the study was to compare the effect of STSC versus non-STSC with respect to adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy after thermal ablation of post-EMR defects. Results  Five studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number patients who completed first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in the STSC group was 534 and in the non-STSC group was 514. The pooled adenoma recurrence rate was 6 % (37 of 534 cases) in the STSC arm and 22 % (115 of 514 cases) in the non-STSC arm, (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.41, P  = 0.001). The pooled delayed post-EMR bleeding rate 19 % (67 of 343) in the STSC arm and 22 % (78 of 341) in the non-STSC arm (OR 0.82, 95 %CI, 0.57-1.18). Conclusions  Thermal ablation of post-EMR defects significantly reduces adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

Computer-assisted surgery and patient-specific instrumentation improve the accuracy of tibial baseplate rotation in total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To determine whether patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS) or robot-assisted surgery (RAS) enable more accurate rotational alignment of the tibial baseplate in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared to conventional instrumentation, in terms of deviation from the planned target and the proportion of outliers from the target zone.

METHODS

The authors independently conducted three structured electronic literature searches using the PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from 2007 to 2020. Studies were included if they compared rotational alignment of the tibial baseplate during TKA using conventional instrumentation versus PSI, CAS, and/or RAS, and reported deviation from preoperatively planned rotational alignment of the tibial baseplate in terms of absolute angles and/or number of outliers. Methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed by two researchers according to the Downs and Black Quality Checklist for Health Care Intervention Studies.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, that reported on 2925 knees, were eligible for this systematic review, of which 6 studies used PSI, and 9 used CAS. No studies were found for RAS. Of the studies that reported on angular deviation from preoperatively planned rotational alignment, most found smaller deviations using PSI (0.5° to 1.4°) compared to conventional instrumentation (1.0° to 1.6°). All studies that reported on proportions of outliers from a target zone (± 3°), found lower rates of outliers using PSI (0 to 22%) compared to conventional instrumentation (5 to 96%). Most studies reported smaller angular deviation from preoperatively planned rotational alignment using CAS (0.1° to 6.9°) compared to conventional instrumentation (1.1° to 7.8°). Of the studies that reported on proportions of outliers from a target zone (± 3°), most found fewer outliers using CAS (10 to 61%) compared to conventional instrumentation (17 to 78%).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that both CAS and PSI can improve the accuracy of rotational alignment of the tibial baseplate by decreasing angular deviation from the preoperatively planned target and reducing the proportion of outliers from the target zone. The clinical relevance is that PSI and CAS can improve alignment, though the thresholds necessary to grant better outcomes and survival remain unclear.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for postoperative ileus following gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Postoperative ileus (POI) is an important complication of gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. Acupuncture has been increasingly used in treating POI. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for POI following GI surgery.

Methods

Seven databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan fang Data, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) and related resources were searched from inception to May 30, 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the acupuncture for POI in GI were included. The quality of RCTs was assessed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. A meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

Eighteen RCTs involving 1413 participants were included. The meta-analysis showed that acupuncture could reduce the time to first flatus (TFF) (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −1.54 to −0.73, P < 0.00001), time to first defecation (TFD) (SMD = −1.31, 95% CI: −1.88 to −0.74, P < 0.00001), time to bowel sounds recovery (TBSR) (SMD = −1.57, 95% CI: −2.14 to −1.01, P < 0.00001), and length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference [MD] = −1.68, 95% CI: −2.55 to −0.80, P = 0.0002) compared with usual care. A subgroup analysis found that acupuncture at distal acupoints once daily after surgery had superior effects on reducing TFF and TFD. A sensitivity analysis supported the validity of the finding. Acupuncture also manifested an effect of reducing TFF, TFD and TBSR compared with sham acupuncture but the result was not stable. Relatively few trials have reported whether adverse events have occurred.

Conclusions

Acupuncture showed a certain effect in reducing POI following GI surgery with very low-to-moderate quality of evidence. The overall safety of acupuncture should be further validated. More high-quality, large-scale, and multicenter original trials are needed in the future.

The effectiveness of e-healthcare interventions for mental health of nurses: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Mental health problems, including burnout among nurses, are common and important. With the rapid development of information and communication technologies and the rise in use of smartphones, the use of e-mental health strategies is increasing in public and clinical settings, and initial clinical trials using this intervention have been conducted. This systematic review evaluated whether e-healthcare interventions improve burnout and other mental health aspects in nurses.

METHODS

Six electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via Elsevier), the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, and PsycARTICLES were searched to collect relevant randomized controlled trials up to January 28, 2021, using e-healthcare interventions for mental health in nurses. The e-healthcare intervention was classified as web-based, smartphone-based, and real-time online interventions. The primary outcome was burnout in this population. Due to the heterogeneity of the interventions used in the included studies, quantitative synthesis was not performed, but included studies were analyzed qualitatively. Also, the details of e-healthcare for the mental health of nurses were analyzed. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The 20-minute session of an online form of the emotional freedom technique was reported to significantly improve burnout severity compared to no intervention (P < .001). Other outcomes, such as career identity, quality of work life, workplace bullying, job stress, turnover intention, distress, anxiety, and resilience in nurses, were also reported to be improved by e-healthcare interventions. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, there was some evidence that e-healthcare interventions may improve mental health outcomes, including burnout in nurses, compared with no intervention. However, due to the poor methodological quality and wide heterogeneity of the interventions and outcomes in the included studies, we were not able to reach sufficiently reliable conclusions. E-healthcare intervention for nurses in the new coronavirus disease era was discussed. High-quality clinical trials in this area should be conducted in the future.

Crossing the Cervicothoracic Junction in Multilevel Cervical Arthrodesis: A Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

In multisegment cervical arthrodeses, a common clinical dilemma for the surgeon is whether to extend the fusion past the cervicothoracic junction (CTJ).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis compares clinical outcomes and radiological parameters when crossing and not crossing the CTJ.

METHODS

Our outcomes of interest included overall reoperation, successful fusion, adjacent segment disease (ASD) leading to revision surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), length of stay (LOS). We also studied the postoperative change in radiological parameters - cervical sagittal vertical axis (cSVA), cervical lordosis (CL), and T1 slope (T1S) - and change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) and neck pain in Visual Analog Scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 1,720 patients were included. There were 974 (56.6%) patients in the non-crossing group and 746 (43.4%) patients in the crossing group. Non-crossing was associated with a higher risk of overall reoperation (RR=1.56; 95% CI:0.98-2.47) and ASD requiring revision surgery (RR=2.82; 95% CI:1.33-5.98; number-needed-to-harm = 22). The non-crossing group had lower EBL by 175 mL and shorter LOS by one day; the latter finding was only trending towards statistical significance. Successful fusion, as well as changes in cSVA, CL, NDI, and VAS were not different between the two groups at a statistically significant level.

CONCLUSIONS

In multilevel cervical arthrodesis, not crossing the CTJ is associated with a higher risk of overall reoperation and ASD requiring reoperation than crossing the CTJ, along with lower EBL and LOS. Differences in successful fusion, patient-reported outcomes, and sagittal radiological parameters were not significant.

Association between polycystic ovarian syndrome and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The results of studies regarding the association between polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are controversial.

DESIGN

This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationship between PCOS and GDM.

METHODS

English language articles published before July 2021 were included by searching in databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Medline and Google Scholar. All these results were computed using STATA 12.0 software. The random-effects models were used to calculate summary odds ratio (OR) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) when the heterogeneity was high; Inversely, the fixed-effects models were used to calculate summary OR/RR and 95% CI when the heterogeneity was low.

RESULTS

The present study showed that PCOS was significantly associated with an increased risk of GDM with a random effects model (OR/RR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.74 to 2.34, I2 = 79.5%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis indicated an elevated risk of GDM in PCOS patients in both retrospective and prospective studies (retrospective studies: OR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.62 to 2.20; prospective studies: RR = 2.85, 95% CI 1.77 to 4.60). In addition, subgroup analysis indicated an elevated risk of GDM in PCOS patients in both Caucasian and Asian populations (Caucasian populations: OR/RR = 2.47, 95% CI 1.99 to 3.07; prospective studies: OR/RR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.02).

CONCLUSION

Overall, findings of the meta-analysis showed that women with PCOS have an elevated risk of GDM compared to women without PCOS.

LIMITATIONS

First, on account of sources of information, the role of several variables including BMI, the severity of GDM and serum lipid level in the association between PCOS and GDM can not be evaluated. Second, only studies published in English and Chinese were included, and the publish bias is impossible to avoid.

GRADE guidance 24 optimizing the integration of randomized and non-randomized studies of interventions in evidence syntheses and health guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This is the 24th in the ongoing series of articles describing the GRADE approach for assessing the certainty of a body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments and how to move from evidence to recommendations in guidelines.

METHODS

Guideline developers and authors of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses use randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) as sources of evidence for questions about health interventions. RCTs with low risk of bias are the most trustworthy source of evidence for estimating relative effects of interventions because of protection against confounding and other biases. However, in several instances, NRSI can still provide valuable information as complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for RCTs.

RESULTS

In this article we offer guidance on the decision regarding when to search for and include either or both types of studies in systematic reviews to inform health recommendations.

CONCLUSION

This work aims to help methodologists in review teams, technology assessors, guideline panelists, and anyone conducting evidence syntheses using GRADE.

Higher rates of surgical and medical complications and mortality following TKA in patients aged ≥ 80 years: a systematic review of comparative studies

The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesize studies published since the last systematic review in 2015 that compare outcomes of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in older patients (≥ 80 years) and in younger patients (< 80 years), in terms of complication rates and mortality.

An electronic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase®, and Cochrane Register. Studies were included if they compared outcomes of primary TKA for osteoarthritis in patients aged 80 years and over to patients aged under 80 years, in terms of complication rates, mortality, or patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Thirteen studies were eligible. Surgical complications in older patients ranged from 0.6–21.1%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.3–14.6%. Wound complications in older patients ranged from 0.5–20%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.8–22.0%. Medical complications (cardiac, respiratory, thromboembolic) in older patients ranged from 0.4–17.3%, while in younger patients they ranged from 0.2–11.5%.

Mortality within 90 days in older patients ranged between 0–2%, while in younger patients it ranged between 0.0–0.03%.

Compared to younger patients, older patients have higher rates of surgical and medical complications, as well as higher mortality following TKA. The literature also reports greater length of stay for older patients, but inconsistent findings regarding PROs. The present findings provide surgeons and older patients with clearer updated evidence, to make informed decisions regarding TKA, considering the risks and benefits within this age group. Patients aged over 80 years should therefore not be excluded from consideration for primary TKA based on age alone.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:1052-1062. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200150

Cognitive behavioural therapy for anxiety in children and young people on the autism spectrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Anxiety is common in youth on the autism spectrum and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been adapted to address associated symptoms. The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the efficacy of CBT for reducing anxiety in autistic youth.

Method

Searches of PubMed and Scopus databases were undertaken from January 1990 until December 2020. Studies were included if they consisted of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using CBT to reduce anxiety in autistic youth. Separate random effects meta-analyses assessed anxiety ratings according to informant (clinician; parent; child), both at end-of-trial and at follow-up.

Results

A total of 19 RCTs met our inclusion criteria (833 participants: CBT N = 487; controls N = 346). Random effects meta-analyses revealed a large effect size for clinician rated symptoms (g = 0.88, 95% CI 0.55, 1.12, k = 11), while those for both parent (g = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24, 0.56; k = 18) and child-reported anxiety (g = 0.25, 95% CI 0.06, 0.43; k = 13) were smaller, but significant. These benefits were not however maintained at follow-up. Moderator analyses showed that CBT was more efficacious for younger children (for clinician and parent ratings) and when delivered as individual therapy (for clinician ratings). Using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, we found concerns about reporting bias across most trials.

Conclusions

The efficacy of CBT for anxiety in autistic youth was supported in the immediate intervention period. However, substantial inconsistency emerged in the magnitude of benefit depending upon who was rating symptoms (clinician, parent or child). Follow-up analyses failed to reveal sustained benefits, though few studies have included this data. It will be important for future trials to address robustness of treatment gains overtime and to further explore inconsistency in efficacy by informant. We also recommend pre-registration of methods by trialists to address concerns with reporting bias.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-021-00658-8.

Parkinson's disease patients benefit from bicycling - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many Parkinson's disease (PD) patients are able to ride a bicycle despite being severely compromised by gait disturbances up to freezing of gait. This review [PROSPERO CRD 42019137386] aimed to find out, which PD-related symptoms improve from bicycling, and which type of bicycling exercise would be most beneficial. Following a systematic database literature search, peer-reviewed studies with randomized control trials (RCT) and with non-randomized trials (NRCT) investigating the interventional effects of bicycling on PD patients were included. A quality analysis addressing reporting, design and possible bias of the studies, as well as a publication bias test was done. Out of 202 references, 22 eligible studies with 505 patients were analysed. An inverse variance-based analysis revealed that primary measures, defined as motor outcomes, benefitted from bicycling significantly more than cognitive measures. Additionally, secondary measures of balance, walking speed and capacity, and the PDQ-39 ratings improved with bicycling. The interventions varied in durations, intensities and target cadences. Conclusively, bicycling is particularly beneficial for the motor performance of PD patients, improving crucial features of gait. Furthermore, our findings suggest that bicycling improves the overall quality-of-life of PD patients.

Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review objective and subjective success and complications of apical suspensions for symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE (2002-2019) were searched using multiple terms for apical POP surgeries, including comparative studies in French and English.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

From 2,665 records, we included randomized controlled trials and comparative studies of interventions with or without hysterectomy, including abdominal apical reconstruction through open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches and vaginal apical reconstructions. Repairs using transvaginal mesh, off-the-market products, procedures without apical suspension, and follow-up less than 6 months were excluded.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Relative risk (RR) was used to estimate the effect of surgical procedure on each outcome. For each outcome and comparison, a meta-analysis was conducted to pool the RRs when possible. Meta-regression and bias tests were performed when appropriate. The GRADE (Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for quality rating and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting were used. Sixty-two articles were included in the review (N=22,792) and 50 studies in the meta-analyses. There was heterogeneity in study quality, techniques used, and outcomes reported. Median follow-up was 1-5 years. Vaginal suspensions showed higher risk of overall and apical anatomic recurrence compared with sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.74 and RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.33-5.50) (moderate), whereas minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy showed less overall and posterior anatomic recurrence compared with open sacrocolpopexy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80, respectively) (low). Different vaginal approaches, and hysterectomy and suspension compared with hysteropexy had similar anatomic success. Subjective POP recurrence, reintervention for POP recurrence and complications were similar between most procedures.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations in anatomic outcomes, subjective outcomes and complications were similar for apical POP procedures at 1-5 years. Standardization of outcome reporting and comparative studies with longer follow-up are urgently needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019133869.

Suicide Prevention Among College Students Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for college-aged individuals worldwide and in the United States. Recent studies have identified preliminary evidence of widening disparities in suicidal behaviors across sex, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, and socioeconomic status among college students. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses offer a comprehensive understanding of on-campus and off-campus suicide interventions, nor is collated information available for different types of screening, assessment, treatment, and postvention plans. Further challenges have been identified since the COVID-19 pandemic, calling for cost-effective and innovative interventions to address increased rates of suicidal behaviors among college students facing unprecedented stressors.

OBJECTIVE

This research protocol describes the first systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the most effective and cost-effective intervention components for universal and targeted (indicated and selected) suicide prevention among college students in a global context. Special attention will be placed on disparities in suicide prevention across sociodemographic subgroups, inclusive interventions beyond campus, global context, and intervention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A sensitive search strategy will be executed across MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest), Scopus, Global Index Medicus, SciELO, African Journals Online, Global Health (CABI), and Google Scholar. Data extraction and evaluation will be conducted by three independent researchers. Risk of bias will be assessed. A multilevel meta-regression model and subgroup analysis will be used to analyze the data and estimate effect sizes.

RESULTS

The initial search was completed in December 2020 and updated with additional other-language studies in March 2020. We expect the results to be submitted for publication in mid-2021.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing rates of suicidal behaviors among college students, few preventative efforts have targeted this population, and fewer focus on factors that might place specific demographic groups at heightened risk. The impact of COVID-19 on suicidal behaviors among college students highlights and exacerbates the urgent need for rapid and effective interventions that might differ from traditional approaches. This equity-focused study will address these gaps and provide a valuable analysis of the effectiveness of suicide prevention programs and interventions. Findings will inform clinicians, researchers, policy makers, families, and organizations about evidence-based interventions for reducing the gaps in the suicide crisis among college students from different sociodemographic groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020225429; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=225429.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/26948.

Does Cup Position at the High Hip Center or Anatomic Hip Center in THA for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Result in Better Harris Hip Scores and Revision Incidence? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

One goal of THA is to restore the anatomic hip center, which can be achieved in hips with developmental dysplasia by placing cups at the level of the native acetabulum. However, this might require adjuvant procedures such as femoral shortening osteotomy. Another option is to place the cup at the high hip center, potentially reducing surgical complexity. Currently, no clear consensus exists regarding which of these cup positions might offer better functional outcomes or long-term survival.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review to determine whether (1) functional outcomes as measured by the Harris hip score, (2) revision incidence, and (3) complications that do not result in revision differ based on the position of the acetabular cup (high hip center versus anatomic hip center) in patients undergoing THA for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including studies comparing the functional outcomes, revision incidence, and complications of primary THA in dysplastic hips with acetabular cups placed at the high hip center versus those placed at the anatomic hip center, over any time frame. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020168183) before commencement. Of 238 records, eight comparative, retrospective nonrandomized studies of interventions were eligible for our systematic review, reporting on 207 hips with cups placed at the high hip center and 268 hips with cups at the anatomic hip center. Risk of bias within eligible studies was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Due to low comparability between studies, data could not be pooled, so these studies were assessed without summary effects.

RESULTS

Six studies compared Harris hip scores, two of which favored high hip center cup placement and three of which favored anatomic hip center cup placement, although none of the differences between cohorts met the minimum clinically important difference. Five studies reliably compared revision incidence, which ranged from 2% to 9% for high hip center at 7 to 15 years and 0% to 5.9% for anatomic hip center at 6 to 16 years. Five studies reported intra- and postoperative complications, with the high hip center being associated with higher incidence of dislocation and lower incidence of neurological complications. No clear difference was observed in intraoperative complications between the high hip center and anatomic hip center.

CONCLUSION

No obvious differences could be observed in Harris hip score or revision incidence after THA for osteoarthritis secondary to DDH between cups placed at the anatomic hip center and those placed at the high hip center. Placement of the acetabular cup in the high hip center may lead to higher risk of dislocation but lower risk of neurologic complications, although no difference in intraoperative complications was observed. Surgeons should be able to achieve satisfactory functional scores and revision incidence using either technique, although they should be aware of how their choice influences hip biomechanics and the need for adjunct procedures and associated risks and operative time. These recommendations should be considered with respect to the several limitations in the studies reviewed, including the presence of serious confounding factors and selection biases, inconsistent definitions of the high hip center, variations in dysplasia severity, small sample sizes, and follow-up periods. These weaknesses should be addressed in well-designed future studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle microforceps biopsy improves diagnostic yield for pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Given variable diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), a through-the-needle (TTN) microforceps biopsy device passed through a 19-gauge FNA needle has been devised to improve tissue sampling. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the feasibility, diagnostic yield, and safety of EUS-guided TTN microforceps biopsy for diagnosis of PCLs. Methods  Individualized searches were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions with rates estimated using random effects models. Measured outcomes included pooled technical success, diagnostic yield, accuracy, and procedure-associated adverse events (AEs) as well as comparison to conventional FNA. Results  Eleven studies (n = 518 patients; mean age 64.13 ± 5.83 years; 58.19 % female) were included. Mean PCL size was 33.39 ± 3.72 mm with the pancreatic head/uncinate (35.50 %) being the most common location. A mean of 2.47 ± 0.92 forceps passes were performed with a mean of 2.79 ± 0.81 microbiopsies obtained per lesion. Pooled technical success was 97.12 % (95 % CI, 93.73-98.71; I ²  = 34.49) with a diagnostic yield of 79.60 % (95 % CI, 72.62-85.16; I ²  = 56.00), and accuracy of 82.76 % [(95 % CI, 77.80-86.80; I ²  = 0.00). The pooled serious adverse event rate was 1.08 % (95 % CI, 0.43-2.69; I ²  = 0.00). Compared to conventional FNA, TTN microforceps biopsy resulted in significant improvement in diagnostic yield [OR 4.79 (95 % CI: 1.52-15.06; P  = 0.007)] and diagnostic accuracy [OR 8.69 (95 % CI, 1.12-67.12; P  = 0.038)], respectively. Conclusions  EUS-guided TTN microforceps biopsy appears to be safe and effective for diagnosis of PCLs with improvement in diagnostic yield and accuracy when compared to FNA alone.

Can MRI differentiate between atypical cartilaginous tumors and high-grade chondrosarcoma? A systematic review

Background and purpose - Adequate staging of chondroid tumors at diagnosis is important as it determines both treatment and outcome. This systematic review provides an overview of MRI criteria used to differentiate between atypical cartilaginous tumors (ACT) and high-grade chondrosarcoma (HGCS).Patients and methods - For this systematic review PubMed and Embase were searched, from inception of the databases to July 12, 2018. All original articles describing MRI characteristics of pathologically proven primary central chondrosarcoma and ACT were included. A quality appraisal of the included papers was performed. Data on MRI characteristics and histological grade were extracted by 2 reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed if possible. The study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018067959.Results - Our search identified 2,132 unique records, of which 14 studies were included. 239 ACT and 140 HGCS were identified. The quality assessment showed great variability in consensus criteria used for both pathologic and radiologic diagnosis. Due to substantial heterogeneity we refrained from pooling the results in a meta-analysis and reported non-statistical syntheses. Loss of entrapped fatty marrow, cortical breakthrough, and extraosseous soft tissue expansion appeared to be present more often in HGCS compared with ACT.Interpretation - This systematic review provides an overview of MRI characteristics used to differentiate between ACT and HGCS. Future studies are needed to develop and assess more reliable imaging methods and/or features to differentiate ACT from HGCS.