ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the effects of closed drainage and simply closed drainage combined with pleurodesis in the treatment spontaneous pneumothorax. MethodsWe searched PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI from their inception to December 2nd, 2014, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of simple closed drainage versus closed drainage combined with pleurodesis in the treatment of spontaneous pneumothorax. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and evaluated the risk of bias of included studies. Then, RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis. ResultsA total of 5 RCTs including 499 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:Compared with the simple closed drainage, the closed drainage combined with pleurodesis was superior in the effective rate of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=6.85, 95%CI 3.26 to 14.39, P<0.000 01) and the recurrence rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.57, P<0.001). But there were no statistical differences in both groups in the effective rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (OR=1.49, 95%CI 0.71 to 3.14, P=0.29), the hospital stays of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=0.08, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.31, P=0.52), the hospital stays of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=-1.67, 95%CI -3.96 to 0.61, P=0.15), and the duration of drainage of primary spontaneous pneumothorax (SMD=-0.11, 95%CI 0.79 to 0.58, P=0.76). ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that closed drainage combined with pleurodesis could improve the effective rate of recurrence spontaneous pneumothorax and decrease the recurrence rate of primary spontaneous pneumothorax. Due to limited quantity and quality of included studies, the above conclusion should be validated by more high quality studies.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of aspheric intraocular lenses(IOL) versus spherical IOL in the treatment of cataract. Method Randomized controlled trials comparing aspheric IOL with spherical IOL were identified by searching PubMed (2000 to October, 2008), EMbase (2000 to October, 2008), MEDLINE (2000 to October, 2008), and The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008). Two reviewers independently assessed trials for eligibility and quality, as well as the extracted data. Data were synthesized using RevMan software (release 5) provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results A total of 14 trials (1383 eyes) were included for systematic review, and 11 out of 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were used according to different aberrations of aspheric IOL. The results showed a significant difference in the mean best corrected visual acuity at 3 months after cataract surgery in the AcrySof IQ IOL group with WMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01(Plt;0.0001). It showed a significantly worse difference in the mean of the best corrected visual acuity at 3 months after cataract surgery in the AcrySof IQ IOL group with WMD –0.02, 95%CI –0.03 to –0.01 (Plt;0.000 1). It showed a significant worse in the mean the best corrected visual acuity in the Tecnis Z9000 IOL group with WMD 0.02, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.03 (P=0.002); and there was no significant difference between the two groups with WMD 0.00, 95%CI –0.02 to –0.03 (P=0.71). The results did display markedly less spherical aberration and total higher order aberrations than eyes implanted with the traditional spheric IOL in all subgroups (WMD –0.06, 95%CI –0.07 to –0.06, Plt;0.000 01, WMD –0.06, 95%CI –0.07 to –0.02, Plt;0.000 1, respectively). The majority of studies suggested significant improvement in the aspheric IOL group in contrast sensitivity, especially at mesopic low spatial frequencies, although some trials showed no significant difference. Conclusion The effectiveness of aspheric IOL is superior to spherical IOL during cataract surgery. No differences in aspheric IOL with different aberration are found in this series, and further study is required.
Objective To make an individualized treatment plan for newly diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome by means of evidence-based medicine. Methods After clinical problems were put forward, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials were collected from The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2008) and PubMed (1990 to 2008). Treatment protocol was produced by combining the evidence and the values of the patient. Results A total of 114 RCTs and 21 systematic reviews were identified. A rational treatment plan was made upon a serious evaluation of the data to control symptoms and improve the quality of life for the patient. After a sixteen-month follow-up, the plan proved to be optimal. Conclusion The treatment efficacy in diagnosed irritable bowel syndrome has been improved by determining an individualized treatment plan according to evidence-based methods.
ObjectiveTo investigate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses conducted by hospital pharmacists in China, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews/ meta-analyses in this field. MethodsThe literatures were retrieved from CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, CMCI, PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library from the establishment date to March 17th, 2016. According to the inclusive and exclusive criteria, authors independently screened and extracted the published information. Reporting and methodological quality of included reviews were evaluated by PRIMSA statements and AMSTAR checklists. Data analysis was conducted by using Excel 2013 software and SPSS 20.0 software. ResultsOne thousand and eighteen systematic reviews/ meta-analyses were included, including 871 Chinese literatures and 147 English literatures. The average score of PRIMSA was 18.41±2.84, and the average score of AMSTAR was 7.38±1.28. The main problems of PRIMSA were structured summary, objectives, protocol and registration, additional analyses and funding. The main problems of AMSTAR were priori design, status of publication and list of studies (included and excluded). Univariate analysis showed that some factors could improve the quality of methodology and reporting, including studies in English (P<0.000 1), published after checklists' (P<0.000 1), hospital in higher-level (P<0.000 1), illuminating the funding or interest conflict (P<0.000 1). Pearson analysis indicated that linear correlation were detected between PRISMA scores and AMSTAR scores (P<0.000 1), as well as citations and AMSTAR scores (P=0.045). ConclusionEvidenced-based pharmacy in hospital has developed rapidly, the quality of methodology and reporting have increaseed year by year, but further improvement should be considered in different aspects. The methods to evaluate the clinical application of these systematic reviews/ meta-analyses should be developed in the future.
Evidence-informed decision making is one of the most common, objective and important health policy research methods used by policy makers. Its purpose is to promote the application and dissemination of research knowledge on health policy and systems to change traditional and subjective models of health policy making in order to improve national and regional health systems. Three elements will influence the effectiveness of health policy making:research evidence, available health resources and the value of policy formulation. This paper introduces some pragmatic evidence-based approaches, especially systematic reviews, priority setting and a combined approach matrix (CAM). Systematic reviews have a b impact on the decision process for policy makers. We hope that the application and development of evidence-informed methods will increase in China’s health policy research.
Grading the evidence of systematic reviews on animal studies will contribute to the improvement in the feasibility of transforming the results of animal studies into clinical trials or clinical practice. High quality evidence from animal studies is more likely to be successfully applied into clinical practice (i.e. more confident). Therefore, the present study will introduce the principles, methods and challenges of the application of GRADE in systematic reviews on animal studies.
The AMSTAR 2, a critical appraisal tool, was developed for assessing systematic reviews which included randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. It was recently published in BMJ. This paper introduces AMSTAR 2 and interprets its usage by a published systematic review.
Objective To review systematically the effectiveness and safety of astragaulus membranaceus in the treatment of diabetic nephropathy (DN). Methods A Cochrane systematic review of all relevant randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of astragaulus membranaceus for diabetic nephropathy was performed. Clinical trials were searched for in the Cochrane Central Refister of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Chinese Biological Medicine Database, and the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Full-text Database as well as in the references lists of all included trials. Two reviewers works independently to select studies, assess methodological quality and extract data. The following indexes were included to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of astragaulus membranaceus: 24-hour urinary albumin excretion rate (UAER), 24-hour urinary protein, clearance of creatinine (Ccr), serum creatinine (Scr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), triglyceride (TG), total cholesterol (TC), and serious adverse events. Results Thirty-four clinical trials involving 2 356 patients met the inclusion criteria, but most of these trials were small and of low quality . A “funnel plot” showed asymmetry, which indicated possible publication bias, such that trials with negativeresults might not have been published. Meta-analyses showed that astragaulus membranaceus had some effects on the decrease of the 24-hour UAER, 24-hour urinary protein, Scr and BUN, and also on the improvement of Ccr. Therefore, astragaulus membranaceus, to a certain extent, was found to be effective in improving renal functions of DN patients. However, astragaulus membranaceus might have similar effects in decreasing the 24-hour UAER and Scr compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blockers. Compared with other Chinese medicines, astragaulus membranaceus was more effective in decreasing the 24-hour urinary protein. No serious adverse events were observed during the treatment period. Conclusion Astragaulus membranaceus has some effect and is relatively safe in treating patients with diabetic nephropathy. However, the present evidence was not enough to support the recommendation of astragaulus membranaceus as a routine drug in the clinical management of DN.Since most included trials are small and of low quality, high-quality, large-sample, multi-centre, randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled trials of astragaulus membranaceus for DN are needed.
Systematic reviews of the effects of healthcare interventions are now quite common. There are currently more than 2 600 full Cochrane reviews in The Cochrane Library, with protocols published for 1 600 more. There are also thousands of systematic reviews published in other journals. However, the science of systematic reviewing is still relatively young. Most of the reviews available today rely on randomised trials, but there are also some reviews of non-randomised trials and of diagnostic test accuracy and these may become more common in the next few years. In this essay, I discuss some of the challenges of doing these newer types of systematic review, and show how experience gained in the last few decades of systematic reviews of randomised trials might help to meet these challenges.
ObjectiveTo understand the current status of research methods in disease burden systematic reviews, identify limitations and shortcomings of existing research methods, and provide suggestions to address relevant issues. MethodsA computer search of the PubMed database was conducted to collect systematic reviews on disease burden, with search limits set from database inception to December 21, 2023. Two independent researchers utilized Endnote 20 for literature screening and Excel 2019 for data extraction and descriptive analysis. ResultsA total of 216 articles were included in the review, revealing a year-on-year increase in the number of systematic reviews on disease burden since 2004. The journal PharmacoEconomics published the most articles (n=22), while research on certain infectious diseases and parasitic infections was the most prevalent (n=51). Only 31 articles provided a complete account of the entire systematic review process. The reporting rates for inclusion/exclusion criteria, information retrieval, literature screening, and statistical analysis steps were all 100%. However, the rate of protocol registration was relatively low at 19%. Eighty-eight percent of the articles utilized software such as Excel and Epidata for data extraction, yet only 32% adhered to the reproducibility principles outlined in AMSTAR-2. In terms of quality assessment, 105 articles underwent evaluation, with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist and Newcastle-Ottawa scale being the most commonly used quality assessment tools for epidemiological studies, while economic studies preferred the Drummond checklist (n=9). Regarding the details of inclusion/exclusion criteria, only 53% of studies reported their study design in detail, and less than one-sixth provided a comprehensive description of the interventions and control measures. Statistical analyses predominantly employed qualitative methods (80%), with quantitative analyses comprising a minority (20%), all of which were conducted using meta-analysis techniques, primarily utilizing R software (n=15). ConclusionThe number of systematic reviews on disease burden has shown a yearly increasing trend; however, most studies have failed to comprehensively adhere to the fundamental processes of systematic reviews, significantly limiting their quality. Currently, the primary issues include a lack of protocol registration, incomplete supplementary searches, mismatched quality assessment tools, and insufficiently comprehensive outcome measures. To address these challenges, it is essential to develop a methodological guideline for systematic reviews on disease burden that incorporates these concerns. Such a guideline would standardize researchers' practices and ensure strict adherence to systematic review methodologies, thereby enhancing the scientific rigor of the research and its support for clinical decision-making.