Objective To calculate the typical time taken to complete protocols and reviews, to track how often reviews are updated and compare with Collaboration policies, to feed back any gaps in documentation of dates to individual Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups, and to suggest changes to presentation of reviews and to editorial processes.Methods Data were extracted either from The Cochrane Library or a specially constructed database to calculate the age of reviews and protocols, and the frequency of updating of reviews. Issue 1, 2003, with 1 596 reviews and 1 200 protocols, was used as the index issue.Results Median number of issues between a protocol and its completed review being published on The Cochrane Library is 5 (1.25 years). 65% of protocols have appeared on The Cochrane Library for no longer than two years, but the number of protocols more than two years old is probably increasing. One-third of reviews have been substantively updated, but generally only once and often within several months of the first publication of the review. The number of out-of-date reviews is probably increasing. Conclusions While the stage between publishing a protocol and the completed review is usually completed in no longer than two years, the number of out-of-date reviews and protocols requires continuing attention. How up-to-date a review is depends on when the evidence base was last searched and when additional relevant evidence has been integrated into the review. This needs to be reflected in the information provided to readers of Cochrane Reviews and some alternative ways of presenting the components of this information are given. More accurate and complete reporting will also allow the Collaboration to track progress against policy.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the midvastus approach in total knee arthroplasty. Methods We searched The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and CBM to identify clinical controlled trials comparing the midvastus approach with the medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. The quality of the included studies was critically assessed and the data analyses were performed by the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 5.0. Results Eight studies were included, involving 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 2 quasi-RCTs and 2 non-RCTs. Meta-analyses showed that rate of lateral retinacular release (RR=0.75, 95%CI 0.52 to 1.08, P=0.12), range of motion at 6 week postoperation (MD=2.65, 95%CI –1.20 to 6.50, P=0.18), operation time (MD=1.04, 95%CI –3.50 to 5.58), and adverse events postoperation (OR=1.04, 95%CI 0.43 to 2.52, P=0.94) were similar between the midvastus approach and the medial parapatellar approach in total knee arthroplasty. One study showed that there was no significant difference in blood loss interoperation between the two approaches, and two showed that the midvastus approach had less blood loss interoperation than the medial parapatellar approach. There was no statistical analysis about the blood loss interoperation in one study. For the time of straight leg raise, there was no significant difference in two studies. But in one study, it showed that patients needed longer time for straight leg raise. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, the midvastus approach for total knee arthroplasty is as safe and effective as the medial parapatellar approach, but blood loss interoperation and time of straight leg raise are not decided. Due to the poor quality of the included trials, more high-quality RCTs are needed.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of irbesartan for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. Methods The databases such as The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2010), MEDLINE (by the end of April 2010), SCI (by the end of April 2010), CBM (by the end of April 2010) and CNKI (by the end of April 2010) were searched to collected randomized controlled trails (RCTs) on irbesartan for hypertensive combined with hyperuricaemia. Studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria; data were extracted; the methodological quality was evaluated; and meta-analyses were conducted by using RevMan 5.0.0 software. Results Nine studies involving 977 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the control group, irbesartan was superior in decreasing serum uric acid (SUA) (MD=57.12, 95%CI 16.08 to 98.15, P=0.006); it was similar in controlling blood pressure (Systolic pressure: MD= –0.24, 95%CI –2.19 to 1.71, P=0.81; Diastolic pressure: MD=0.46, 95%CI –1.58 to 2.50, P=0.66), and lower in the incidence rate of adverse reaction (RR=0.07, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.24, P=0.000 1). Conclusion The study suggests that irbesartan is effective and safe to control blood pressure and decrease serum uric acid for hypertensive patients with hyperuricaemia. But because all nine included studies are graded C in quality, the conclusion still needs to be further verified by long-term, large scale and high quality studies.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis. Methods We searched CBM (November 1979 to February 2006), Chinese Cochrane Centre Database (2005), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2005), MEDLINE (November 1966 to February 2006) and EMBASE (1975 to February 2006) for randomize controlled trials. Data were extracted and analyzed using The Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2.7. Results Nine randomize controlled trials involving 512 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis showed that the total clinical effective rate and complete remission rate were not significantly higher for MMF than for cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, or both. Renal survival rate and relapse rate of MMF were not significantly different from those for cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, or both. Patient survival rate and safety of MMF were significantly improved compared with cyclophosphamide, azathioprine, or both. Conclusion More large-scale multi-center randomized trials are needed to investigate the role of MMF in the treatment of proliferative lupus nephritis.
Objective To evaluate the safety of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus azathioprine (AZA) for rejection after renal transplantation. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Jun. 2004), EMBASE (1984 to Jun. 2004), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2004) and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM, 1979 to Jun. 2004). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MMF with AZA for rejection after renal transplantation were included. The quality of included studies such as randomization, blinding, allocation concealment was evaluated and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 4.1.1 software. Results Twenty-Four RCTs comparing MMF (2 g/day or 3 g/day) with AZA for rejection after renal transplantation were identified. The digest system morbidity of MMF group was higher than that of AZA group. The incidence of vomiting, bellyache and diarrhea of MMF 3 g/day group was statistical by higher than that of AZA group (P＜0.05). The cytom egalovirus (CMV) infection morbidity of MMF 3 g/day group during 6 months, 1 year and 2 years follow-up was higher than AZA group with statistical difference, but for MMF 2 g/day group, this difference was only seen during 1 year follow-up. Leukopenia incidence of MMF 3g/day group was higher than AZA group with statistical difference, but this difference was not seen in MMF 2 g/day group. Thrombocytopenia incidence of MMF 3 g/day group was lower than AZA group with statistical difference. For skin carcinoma morbidity, no statistical difference was found among MMF 3 g/day, MMF 2 g/day and AZA groups. Conclusions Compared with AZA, MMF represents higher digest system side-effects incidence, higher morbidity of leucopenia and CMV infection and lower incidence of thrombocytopenia. The dose-response relationship of adverse drug reaction is found.
The most important difference between systematic review and traditional narrative review lies in their respective quality, namely the degree of bias control. Generally speaking, the sources of bias include the process of literature searching, study selection, data extraction and original studies. A systematic review may greatly reduce bias, as it takes effective steps such as developing search strategies, undertaking funnel plot analysis, using established criteria for study selection, and assessment of the methodology quality of studies. All these help to control, identify and, describe the possible bias.
Objective To assess the therapeutic effect of acupuncture for shoulder hand syndrome after stroke. Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966 to Sep. 2008), EMbase (1980 to Sept. 2008), CBM (1978 to Sept. 2008), VIP (1989 to Sept. 2008), WANFANG Database (1998 to Sept. 2008), CNKI (1979 to Sept. 2008) and handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of acupuncture treatment for patients with shoulder hand syndrome. We evaluated the internal validity of the RCTs and quasi-RCTs. If all included trials were of high quality and homogeneity, then the meta-analysis was conducted. Results Three RCTs were identified but due to the defects in quality and clinical differences between the trials, data from these trials were not combined through meta-analysis, and a descriptive analysis was performed. The results showed that acupuncture was effective for treating shoulder hand syndrome. Conclusions The results of our review suggest that acupuncture may be effective for treating houlder hand syndrome, but because of the defects in the methodological quality of included trials, further large sample, double-blind RCTs are urgently needed.
Objective To evaluate the effect of prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents and adults compared with the retention of these wisdom teeth. Methods We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register （to 4 August, 2004）, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials （CENTRAL）, PubMed （1966 to 4 August, 2004）, EMBASE （1974 to 4 August, 2004）. There was no restriction to publication of language. Key journals were handsearched. An attempt was made to identify ongoing and unpublished trials. All randomised or controlled clinical trials （KCTs/CCTs） comparing the effect of prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth with no-treatment （retention） were included. Assessment of relevance ,validity and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by three independent reviewers. Where uncertainty existed, authors were contacted for additional information about randomisation and withdrawals. The quality assessments of the trials were carried out. Results Only three trials were identified to fulfill the selection criteria. Two complete RCTs assessed the influence of prophylactic removal on late incisor crowding in adolescents. One ongoing RCT was identified, but the researchers were unable to provide any data and intended to publish in the near future. Although both complete trials met the inclusion criteria, different outcome measures were prevented us from pooling data. Conclusions No evidence has been found to support or refute routine prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adults. There is some reliableevidence that suggests that the prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adolescents neither reduces nor prevents late incisor crowding.
Objective To evaluate clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and maintenance after treatment from mandibular implant-supported overdentures with different attachment types. Methods We searched six electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005), Current Controlled Trials, MEDLINE (1966 to Sept. 2005), EMBASE (1984 to Sept. 2005), and Chinese biomedical database disk (1978 to Sept. 2005). Eleven Chinese professional journals in oral health were also handsearched from their first published issues. Three authors screened and selected the studies, appraised their methodological quality and extracted data from the studies. The results were presented narratively by meta-analysis. Results After strict screening, 12 trials involving 282 patients were included. Two of the trials were included in a meta-analysis with 27 patients in bar-clip group, 29 patients in ball-spring group, and the other trials were described thoroughly. The findings seemed to indicate that the bar-clip group had the highest retention but more oral mucosa complications, while the ball-spring group had good retention and less oral mucosa complications but needed more aftercare treatments, and the magnetic group had less retention but better peri-implant outcomes. Conclusions There is inadequate evidence to prove which is the best choice for mandibular implant-supported overdentures among bar-clip, ball-spring and magnetic attachments. More controlled clinical trials are required to guide clinicians on the choice of the type of attachment in mandibular implant-supported overdenture.