Editor's Choice
Am J Sports Med. 2024 Feb 7;3635465231213039 doi: 10.1177/03635465231213039.
POPULATION:
Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (25 studies). INTERVENTION:Systematic review to evaluate the presence of spin bias in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP with rotator cuff repair surgery. COMPARISON: OUTCOME:Each included study was evaluated for the 15 most common forms of spin. Correlations between spin types and study characteristics were evaluated. At least 1 form of spin bias was found in 56% (14/25) of the included studies. In regard to the 3 different categories of spin, a form of misleading interpretation was found in 56% (14/25) of the studies. A form of misleading reporting was found in 48% (12/25) of the studies. A form of inappropriate extrapolation was found in 16% (4/25) of the studies. A significant association was found between misleading interpretation and publication year (odds ratio (OR) 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI [1.04, 1.92]) and misleading reporting and publication year (OR 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI [1.02, 1.95]). An association was found between inappropriate extrapolation and journal impact factor (OR 0.21 per unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI [0.044, 0.99]).
BACKGROUND:
The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in orthopaedics continues to increase. One common use of PRP is as an adjunct in rotator cuff repair surgery. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the data on PRP use in rotator cuff repair surgery. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are subject to spin bias, where authors' interpretations of results influence readers' interpretations. PURPOSE:To evaluate spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP with rotator cuff repair surgery. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS:A PubMed and Embase search was conducted using the terms rotator cuff repair and PRP and systematic review or meta-analysis. After review of 74 initial studies, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were documented, and each study was evaluated for the 15 most common forms of spin and using the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Version 2) rating system. Correlations between spin types and study characteristics were evaluated using binary logistic regression for continuous independent variables and a chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS:At least 1 form of spin was found in 56% (14/25) of the included studies. In regard to the 3 different categories of spin, a form of misleading interpretation was found in 56% (14/25) of the studies. A form of misleading reporting was found in 48% (12/25) of the studies. A form of inappropriate extrapolation was found in 16% (4/25) of the studies. A significant association was found between misleading interpretation and publication year (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI, 1.04-1.92; P = .029) and misleading reporting and publication year (OR, 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI, 1.02-1.95; P = .037). An association was found between inappropriate extrapolation and journal impact factor (OR, 0.21 per unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.044-0.99; P = .048). CONCLUSION:A significant amount of spin was found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP use in rotator cuff repair surgery. Given the increasing use of PRP by clinicians and interest among patients, spin found in these studies may have a significant effect on clinical practice. |
|
|
Editor's Choice
Crit Care. 2023 Sep 12;27(1):354 doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04640-1.
POPULATION:
Adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery such as coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery (86 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) n= 25,855). INTERVENTION:Non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI): Goal directed perfusion (GDP), pulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), minimally invasive extracorporeal circulation (MECC), epidural analgesia, remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPc), tight glycemic control, kidney disease improving global outcomes care bundle, hyperoxia during CPB, restrictive transfusion strategy, high target arterial pressure. COMPARISON:Usual care. OUTCOME:No intervention had high-quality evidence to reduce CSA-AKI. From the included studies, the most frequent intervention was RIPc (31 RCTs, n= 7,738), MECC, (14 RCTs, n= 1,617) and pulsatile blood flow during CPB (10 RCTs, n= 1,993). Three interventions were associated with a significantly reduced risk of CSA-AKI: GDP, RIPc and pulsatile flow during CPB.
BACKGROUND:
Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI) is frequent. While two network meta-analyses assessed the impact of pharmacological interventions to prevent CSA-AKI, none focused on non-pharmacological interventions. We aim to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, Central and clinical trial registries from January 1, 2004 (first consensus definition of AKI) to July 1, 2023. Additionally, we conducted manual screening of abstracts of major anesthesia and intensive care conferences over the last 5 years and reference lists of relevant studies. We selected all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing a non-pharmacological intervention to reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI, without language restriction. We excluded RCTs of heart transplantation or involving a pediatric population. The primary outcome variable was CSA-AKI. Two reviewers independently identified trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS:We included 86 trials (25,855 patients) evaluating 10 non-pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence of CSA-AKI. No intervention had high-quality evidence to reduce CSA-AKI. Two interventions were associated with a significant reduction in CSA-AKI incidence, with moderate quality of evidence: goal-directed perfusion (RR, 0.55 [95% CI 0.40-0.76], I2 = 0%; Phet = 0.44) and remote ischemic preconditioning (RR, 0.86 [0.78-0.95]; I2 = 23%; Phet = 0.07). Pulsatile flow during cardiopulmonary bypass was associated with a significant reduction in CSA-AKI incidence but with very low quality of evidence (RR = 0.69 [0.48; 0.99]; I2 = 53%; Phet < 0.01). We found high quality of evidence for lack of effect of restrictive transfusion strategy (RR, 1.02 [95% CI 0.92; 1.12; Phet = 0.67; I2 = 3%) and tight glycemic control (RR, 0.86 [95% CI 0.55; 1.35]; Phet = 0.25; I2 = 26%). CONCLUSIONS:Two non-pharmacological interventions are likely to reduce CSA-AKI incidence, with moderate quality of evidence: goal-directed perfusion and remote ischemic preconditioning. |
|
|
Editor's Choice
Front Oncol. 2023 Feb 16;13:1092734 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1092734.
POPULATION:
Renal cell carcinoma patients undergoing nephrectomy (10 retrospective studies, n= 19,240). INTERVENTION:Systematic review and meta-analysis to demonstrate whether perioperative blood transfusion affected postoperative survival. COMPARISON: OUTCOME:Perioperative blood transfusion was significantly associated with the decline of overall survival (HR 2.62; 95% CI [1,98, 3.46]), recurrence-free survival (HR 2.55; 95% CI [1.74, 3.75]), and cancer-specific survival (HR 3.15; 95% CI [2.3, 4.31]) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles.
BACKGROUND:
The effect of perioperative blood transfusion (PBT) on postoperative survival in RCC patients who underwent partial nephrectomy (PN) or radical nephrectomy (RN) remains controversial. Two meta-analyses in 2018 and 2019 reported the postoperative mortality of PBT patients with RCC, but they did not investigate the effect on the survival of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature to demonstrate whether PBT affected postoperative survival in RCC patients who received nephrectomy. METHODS:Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched. Studies comparing RCC patients with or without PBT following either RN or PN were included in this analysis. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and cancer-specific survival (CSS), as well as 95% confidence intervals, were considered as effect sizes. All data were processed using Stata 15.1. RESULTS:Ten retrospective studies involving 19,240 patients were included in this analysis, with the publication dates ranging from 2014 to 2022. Evidence revealed that PBT was significantly associated with the decline of OS (HR, 2.62; 95%CI: 1,98-3.46), RFS (HR, 2.55; 95%CI: 1.74-3.75), and CSS (HR, 3.15; 95%CI: 2.3-4.31) values. There was high heterogeneity among the study results due to the retrospective nature and the low quality of the included studies. Subgroup analysis findings suggested that the heterogeneity of this study might be caused by different tumor stages in the included articles. Evidence implied that PBT had no significant influence on RFS and CSS with or without robotic assistance, but it was still linked to worse OS (combined HR; 2.54 95% CI: 1.18, 5.47). Furthermore, the subgroup analysis with intraoperative blood loss lower than 800 ML revealed that PBT had no substantial impact on OS and CSS of postoperative RCC patients, whereas it was correlated with poor RFS (1.42, 95% CI: 1.02-1.97). CONCLUSIONS:RCC patients undergoing PBT after nephrectomy had poorer survival. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022363106. |