Assessing the comparative effects of interventions in COPD: a tutorial on network meta-analysis for clinicians.

To optimize patient outcomes, healthcare decisions should be based on the most up-to-date high-quality evidence. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital for demonstrating the efficacy of interventions; however, information on how an intervention compares to already available treatments and/or fits into treatment algorithms is sometimes limited. Although different therapeutic classes are available for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), assessing the relative efficacy of these treatments is challenging. Synthesizing evidence from multiple RCTs via meta-analysis can help provide a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence and a "global summary" of findings. Pairwise meta-analysis is a well-established method that can be used if two treatments have previously been examined in head-to-head clinical trials. However, for some comparisons, no head-to-head studies are available, for example the efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapies for the treatment of COPD. In such cases, network meta-analysis (NMA) can be used, to indirectly compare treatments by assessing their effects relative to a common comparator using data from multiple studies. However, incorrect choice or application of methods can hinder interpretation of findings or lead to invalid summary estimates. As such, the use of the GRADE reporting framework is an essential step to assess the certainty of the evidence. With an increasing reliance on NMAs to inform clinical decisions, it is now particularly important that healthcare professionals understand the appropriate usage of different methods of NMA and critically appraise published evidence when informing their clinical decisions. This review provides an overview of NMA as a method for evidence synthesis within the field of COPD pharmacotherapy. We discuss key considerations when conducting an NMA and interpreting NMA outputs, and provide guidance on the most appropriate methodology for the data available and potential implications of the incorrect application of methods. We conclude with a simple illustrative example of NMA methodologies using simulated data, demonstrating that when applied correctly, the outcome of the analysis should be similar regardless of the methodology chosen.

Haeussler K ，Ismaila AS ，Malmenäs M ，Noorduyn SG ，Green N ，Compton C ，Thabane L ，Vogelmeier CF ，Halpin DMG ... -  《RESPIRATORY RESEARCH》

Falls prevention interventions for community-dwelling older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

About 20-30% of older adults (≥ 65 years old) experience one or more falls each year, and falls are associated with substantial burden to the health care system, individuals, and families from resulting injuries, fractures, and reduced functioning and quality of life. Many interventions for preventing falls have been studied, and their effectiveness, factors relevant to their implementation, and patient preferences may determine which interventions to use in primary care. The aim of this set of reviews was to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) on fall prevention interventions. We undertook three systematic reviews to address questions about the following: (i) the benefits and harms of interventions, (ii) how patients weigh the potential outcomes (outcome valuation), and (iii) patient preferences for different types of interventions, and their attributes, shown to offer benefit (intervention preferences). We searched four databases for benefits and harms (MEDLINE, Embase, AgeLine, CENTRAL, to August 25, 2023) and three for outcome valuation and intervention preferences (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, to June 9, 2023). For benefits and harms, we relied heavily on a previous review for studies published until 2016. We also searched trial registries, references of included studies, and recent reviews. Two reviewers independently screened studies. The population of interest was community-dwelling adults ≥ 65 years old. We did not limit eligibility by participant fall history. The task force rated several outcomes, decided on their eligibility, and provided input on the effect thresholds to apply for each outcome (fallers, falls, injurious fallers, fractures, hip fractures, functional status, health-related quality of life, long-term care admissions, adverse effects, serious adverse effects). For benefits and harms, we included a broad range of non-pharmacological interventions relevant to primary care. Although usual care was the main comparator of interest, we included studies comparing interventions head-to-head and conducted a network meta-analysis (NMAs) for each outcome, enabling analysis of interventions lacking direct comparisons to usual care. For benefits and harms, we included randomized controlled trials with a minimum 3-month follow-up and reporting on one of our fall outcomes (fallers, falls, injurious fallers); for the other questions, we preferred quantitative data but considered qualitative findings to fill gaps in evidence. No date limits were applied for benefits and harms, whereas for outcome valuation and intervention preferences we included studies published in 2000 or later. All data were extracted by one trained reviewer and verified for accuracy and completeness. For benefits and harms, we relied on the previous review team's risk-of-bias assessments for benefit outcomes, but otherwise, two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias (within and across study). For the other questions, one reviewer verified another's assessments. Consensus was used, with adjudication by a lead author when necessary. A coding framework, modified from the ProFANE taxonomy, classified interventions and their attributes (e.g., supervision, delivery format, duration/intensity). For benefit outcomes, we employed random-effects NMA using a frequentist approach and a consistency model. Transitivity and coherence were assessed using meta-regressions and global and local coherence tests, as well as through graphical display and descriptive data on the composition of the nodes with respect to major pre-planned effect modifiers. We assessed heterogeneity using prediction intervals. For intervention-related adverse effects, we pooled proportions except for vitamin D for which we considered data in the control groups and undertook random-effects pairwise meta-analysis using a relative risk (any adverse effects) or risk difference (serious adverse effects). For outcome valuation, we pooled disutilities (representing the impact of a negative event, e.g. fall, on one's usual quality of life, with 0 = no impact and 1 = death and ~ 0.05 indicating important disutility) from the EQ-5D utility measurement using the inverse variance method and a random-effects model and explored heterogeneity. When studies only reported other data, we compared the findings with our main analysis. For intervention preferences, we used a coding schema identifying whether there were strong, clear, no, or variable preferences within, and then across, studies. We assessed the certainty of evidence for each outcome using CINeMA for benefit outcomes and GRADE for all other outcomes. A total of 290 studies were included across the reviews, with two studies included in multiple questions. For benefits and harms, we included 219 trials reporting on 167,864 participants and created 59 interventions (nodes). Transitivity and coherence were assessed as adequate. Across eight NMAs, the number of contributing trials ranged between 19 and 173, and the number of interventions ranged from 19 to 57. Approximately, half of the interventions in each network had at least low certainty for benefit. The fallers outcome had the highest number of interventions with moderate certainty for benefit (18/57). For the non-fall outcomes (fractures, hip fracture, long-term care [LTC] admission, functional status, health-related quality of life), many interventions had very low certainty evidence, often from lack of data. We prioritized findings from 21 interventions where there was moderate certainty for at least some benefit. Fourteen of these had a focus on exercise, the majority being supervised (for > 2 sessions) and of long duration (> 3 months), and with balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions generally having the most outcomes with at least low certainty for benefit. None of the interventions having moderate certainty evidence focused on walking. Whole-body vibration or home-hazard assessment (HHA) plus exercise provided to everyone showed moderate certainty for some benefit. No multifactorial intervention alone showed moderate certainty for any benefit. Six interventions only had very-low certainty evidence for the benefit outcomes. Two interventions had moderate certainty of harmful effects for at least one benefit outcome, though the populations across studies were at high risk for falls. Vitamin D and most single-component exercise interventions are probably associated with minimal adverse effects. Some uncertainty exists about possible adverse effects from other interventions. For outcome valuation, we included 44 studies of which 34 reported EQ-5D disutilities. Admission to long-term care had the highest disutility (1.0), but the evidence was rated as low certainty. Both fall-related hip (moderate certainty) and non-hip (low certainty) fracture may result in substantial disutility (0.53 and 0.57) in the first 3 months after injury. Disutility for both hip and non-hip fractures is probably lower 12 months after injury (0.16 and 0.19, with high and moderate certainty, respectively) compared to within the first 3 months. No study measured the disutility of an injurious fall. Fractures are probably more important than either falls (0.09 over 12 months) or functional status (0.12). Functional status may be somewhat more important than falls. For intervention preferences, 29 studies (9 qualitative) reported on 17 comparisons among single-component interventions showing benefit. Exercise interventions focusing on balance and/or resistance training appear to be clearly preferred over Tai Chi and other forms of exercise (e.g., yoga, aerobic). For exercise programs in general, there is probably variability among people in whether they prefer group or individual delivery, though there was high certainty that individual was preferred over group delivery of balance/resistance programs. Balance/resistance exercise may be preferred over education, though the evidence was low certainty. There was low certainty for a slight preference for education over cognitive-behavioral therapy, and group education may be preferred over individual education. To prevent falls among community-dwelling older adults, evidence is most certain for benefit, at least over 1-2 years, from supervised, long-duration balance/resistance and group Tai Chi interventions, whole-body vibration, high-intensity/dose education or cognitive-behavioral therapy, and interventions of comprehensive multifactorial assessment with targeted treatment plus HHA, HHA plus exercise, or education provided to everyone. Adding other interventions to exercise does not appear to substantially increase benefits. Overall, effects appear most applicable to those with elevated fall risk. Choice among effective interventions that are available may best depend on individual patient preferences, though when implementing new balance/resistance programs delivering individual over group sessions when feasible may be most acceptable. Data on more patient-important outcomes including fall-related fractures and adverse effects would be beneficial, as would studies focusing on equity-deserving populations and on programs delivered virtually. Not registered.

Pillay J ，Gaudet LA ，Saba S ，Vandermeer B ，Ashiq AR ，Wingert A ，Hartling L ... -  《Systematic Reviews》

Healthcare workers' informal uses of mobile phones and other mobile devices to support their work: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Healthcare workers sometimes develop their own informal solutions to deliver services. One such solution is to use their personal mobile phones or other mobile devices in ways that are unregulated by their workplace. This can help them carry out their work when their workplace lacks functional formal communication and information systems, but it can also lead to new challenges. To explore the views, experiences, and practices of healthcare workers, managers and other professionals working in healthcare services regarding their informal, innovative uses of mobile devices to support their work. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus on 11 August 2022 for studies published since 2008 in any language. We carried out citation searches and contacted study authors to clarify published information and seek unpublished data. We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with a qualitative component. We included studies that explored healthcare workers' views, experiences, and practices regarding mobile phones and other mobile devices, and that included data about healthcare workers' informal use of these devices for work purposes. We extracted data using an extraction form designed for this synthesis, assessed methodological limitations using predefined criteria, and used a thematic synthesis approach to synthesise the data. We used the 'street-level bureaucrat' concept to apply a conceptual lens to our findings and prepare a line of argument that links these findings. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings and the line-of-argument statements. We collaborated with relevant stakeholders when defining the review scope, interpreting the findings, and developing implications for practice. We included 30 studies in the review, published between 2013 and 2022. The studies were from high-, middle- and low-income countries and covered a range of healthcare settings and healthcare worker cadres. Most described mobile phone use as opposed to other mobile devices, such as tablets. We have moderate to high confidence in the statements in the following line of argument. The healthcare workers in this review, like other 'street-level bureaucrats', face a gap between what is expected of them and the resources available to them. To plug this gap, healthcare workers develop their own strategies, including using their own mobile phones, data and airtime. They also use other personal resources, including their personal time when taking and making calls outside working hours, and their personal networks when contacting others for help and advice. In some settings, healthcare workers' personal phone use, although unregulated, has become a normal part of many work processes. Some healthcare workers therefore experience pressure or expectations from colleagues and managers to use their personal phones. Some also feel driven to use their phones at work and at home because of feelings of obligation towards their patients and colleagues. At best, healthcare workers' use of their personal phones, time and networks helps humanise healthcare. It allows healthcare workers to be more flexible, efficient and responsive to the needs of the patient. It can give patients access to individual healthcare workers rather than generic systems and can help patients keep their sensitive information out of the formal system. It also allows healthcare workers to communicate with each other in more personalised, socially appropriate ways than formal systems allow. All of this can strengthen healthcare workers' relationships with community members and colleagues. However, these informal approaches can also replicate existing social hierarchies and deepen existing inequities among healthcare workers. Personal phone use costs healthcare workers money. This is a particular problem for lower-level healthcare workers and healthcare workers in low-income settings as they are likely to be paid less and may have less access to work phones or compensation. Out-of-hours use may also be more of a burden for lower-level healthcare workers, as they may find it harder to ignore calls when they are at home. Healthcare workers with poor access to electricity and the internet are less able to use informal mobile phone solutions, while healthcare workers who lack skills and training in how to appraise unendorsed online information are likely to struggle to identify trustworthy information. Informal digital channels can help healthcare workers expand their networks. But healthcare workers who rely on personal networks to seek help and advice are at a disadvantage if these networks are weak. Healthcare workers' use of their personal resources can also lead to problems for patients and can benefit some patients more than others. For instance, when healthcare workers store and share patient information on their personal phones, the confidentiality of this information may be broken. In addition, healthcare workers may decide to use their personal resources on some types of patients, but not others. Healthcare workers sometimes describe using their personal phones and their personal time and networks to help patients and clients whom they assess as being particularly in need. These decisions are likely to reflect their own values and ideas, for instance about social equity and patient 'worthiness'. But these may not necessarily reflect the goals, ideals and regulations of the formal healthcare system. Finally, informal mobile phone use plugs gaps in the system but can also weaken the system. The storing and sharing of information on personal phones and through informal channels can represent a 'shadow IT' (information technology) system where information about patient flow, logistics, etc., is not recorded in the formal system. Healthcare workers may also be more distracted at work, for instance, by calls from colleagues and family members or by social media use. Such challenges may be particularly difficult for weak healthcare systems. By finding their own informal solutions to workplace challenges, healthcare workers can be more efficient and more responsive to the needs of patients, colleagues and themselves. But these solutions also have several drawbacks. Efforts to strengthen formal health systems should consider how to retain the benefits of informal solutions and reduce their negative effects.

Glenton C ，Paulsen E ，Agarwal S ，Gopinathan U ，Johansen M ，Kyaddondo D ，Munabi-Babigumira S ，Nabukenya J ，Nakityo I ，Namaganda R ，Namitala J ，Neumark T ，Nsangi A ，Pakenham-Walsh NM ，Rashidian A ，Royston G ，Sewankambo N ，Tamrat T ，Lewin S ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Far Posterior Approach for Rib Fracture Fixation: Surgical Technique and Tips.

The present video article describes the far posterior or paraspinal approach to posterior rib fractures. This approach is utilized to optimize visualization intraoperatively in cases of far-posterior rib fractures. This technique is also muscle-sparing, and muscle-sparing posterolateral, axillary, and anterior approaches have been shown to return up to 95% of periscapular strength by 6 months postoperatively1. Like most fractures, the skin incision depends on the fracture position. The vertical incision is made either just medial to a line equidistant between the palpable spinous processes and medial scapular border or directly centered over the fracture line in this region. The incision and superficial dissection must be extended cranially and caudally, approximately 1 or 2 rib levels past the planned levels of instrumentation, in order to allow muscle elevation and soft-tissue retraction. Superficial dissection reveals the trapezius muscle, with its fibers coursing from inferomedial to superolateral caudal to the scapular spine, and generally coursing transversely above this level. The trapezius is split in line with its fibers (or elevated proximally at the caudal-most surface), and the underlying layer will depend on the location of the incision. The rhomboid minor muscle overlies ribs 1 and 2, the rhomboid major muscle overlies ribs 3 to 7, and the latissimus dorsi overlies the remaining rib levels. To avoid muscle transection, the underlying muscle is also split in line with its fibers. Next, the thoracolumbar fascia is encountered and sharply incised, revealing the erector spinae muscles, which comprise the spinalis thoracis, longissimus thoracis, and iliocostalis thoracis muscles. These muscles and their tendons must be sharply elevated from lateral to midline; electrocautery is useful for this because there is a robust blood supply in this region. Medially, while retracting the paraspinal musculature, visualization with this approach can extend to the head and neck of the rib, and even to the spine. Following deep dissection, the fractures are now visualized. During fracture reduction, it is critical to assess reduction of both the costovertebral joint and the costotransverse joint. With fractures closer to the spine, it is recommended to have at least 2 cm between the rib head and tubercle in order to allow 2 plate holes to be positioned on the neck of the rib; if comminution exists and plating onto the transverse process is needed, several screws are required here for stability as well. For appropriate stability if plating onto the spine is not required, a minimum of 3 locking screws on each side of the fracture are recommended. Contouring of the plates to match the curvature of the rib and to allow for proper apposition may be required with posterior rib fractures. Screws must be placed perpendicular to the rib surface. Following operative stabilization of the rib fractures, a layered closure is performed, and a soft dressing is applied. Nonoperative alternatives include non-opioid and opioid medications as well as corticosteroid injections for pain control. Supportive mechanical ventilation and physiotherapy breathing exercises can also be implemented as needed. Operative alternatives include open reduction and internal fixation utilizing conventional locking plates and screws. Rib fractures are often treated nonoperatively when nondisplaced because of the surrounding soft-tissue support2,3. According to Chest Wall Injury Society guidelines, contraindications to surgical fixation of rib fractures include patients requiring ongoing resuscitation; rib fractures involving ribs 1, 2, 11, or 12, which are relative contraindications; severe traumatic brain injury; and acute myocardial infarction. Patient age of <18 years is also a relative contraindication for the operative treatment of rib fractures. The current literature does not recommend surgical fixation in this age group because these fractures typically heal as the patient ages; however, fracture-dislocations may require the use of instrumentation to prevent displacement. Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not approve most plating systems for patients <18 years old4. In certain cases, including those with substantial displacement, persistent respiratory distress, pain, or fracture nonunion, stabilization with open reduction and internal fixation may be appropriate5-7. In cases of flail chest injuries, surgery is often indicated6. Flail chest injuries have been noted in the literature to have an incidence of approximately 150 cases per 100,000 injuries and have been shown to carry a mortality rate of up to 33%8,9. Surgical treatment of rib fractures has been shown to be associated with a decreased hospital length of stay and mortality rate in patients with major trauma1. Expected outcomes of this procedure include low complication rates, decreased hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and reduced mechanical ventilation time10,11. However, as with any procedure, there are also risks involved, including iatrogenic lung injury from long screws or an aortic or inferior vena cava injury with aggressive manipulation of displaced fractured fragments, especially on the left side of the body. During open reduction, there is also a risk of injuring the neurovascular bundle. Tanaka et al. demonstrated a significant reduction in the rate of postoperative pneumonia in their operative group (22%) compared with their nonoperative group (90%)12. Schuette et al. demonstrated a 23% rate of postoperative pneumonia, 0% mortality at 1 year, an average of 6.2 days in the intensive care unit, an average total hospital length of stay of 17.3 days, and an average total ventilator time of 4 days in the operative group10. Prins et al. reported a significantly lower incidence of pneumonia in operative (24%) versus nonoperative patients (47.3%; p = 0.033), as well as a significantly lower 30-day mortality rate (0% versus 17.7%; p = 0.018)3. This procedure utilizes a muscle-sparing technique, which has demonstrated successful results in the literature on the use of the posterolateral, axillary, and anterior approaches, returning up to 95% of periscapular strength, compared with the uninjured shoulder, by 6 months postoperatively1. The use of a muscle-sparing technique with the far-posterior approach represents a topic that requires further study in order to compare the results with the successful results previously shown with other approaches. The ipsilateral extremity can be prepared into the field to allow its intraoperative manipulation in order to achieve scapulothoracic motion and improved subscapular access.For costovertebral fracture-dislocations, the vertical incision line is made just medial to a line equidistant between the palpable spinous processes and medial scapular border.Lateral decubitus positioning can be utilized to allow for simultaneous access to fractures that extend more laterally and warrant a posterolateral approach; however, it is generally more difficult to access the fracture sites near the spine with this approach.This muscle-sparing technique is recommended to optimize postoperative periscapular strength, as previously demonstrated with other approaches.Incision and superficial dissection must be extended cranially and caudally approximately 1 or 2 rib levels past the planned levels of instrumentation in order to allow muscle elevation and soft-tissue retraction.To avoid muscle transection during surgical dissection, the underlying muscle is split in line with its fibers.During deep dissection, it can be difficult to delineate underlying muscles because these muscles have fibers that do not run in line with the trapezius, and some, like the rhomboid major, run nearly perpendicular to it.Electrocautery is useful while elevating the erector spinae muscles and tendons, as there is a robust blood supply in this region.The erector spinae muscle complex is relatively tight and adherent to the underlying ribs, which may make it difficult to achieve adequate visualization; therefore, at least 3 rib levels must be elevated to access a rib for reduction and instrumentation.Although internal rotation deformities are more common in this region, any external displacement of a fracture can lead to a muscle injury that can be utilized for access.During fracture reduction, it is critical to assess reduction of both the costovertebral joint and the costotransverse joint.Special attention must be given to contouring the implants because there are not any commercially available precontoured implants for this region at this time, and plating onto the spine remains an off-label use of any currently available implant.For the more challenging fracture patterns, the use of a right-angled power drill and screwdriver is recommended.Generally, the incision is utilized as previously described to provide access as far medial as the transverse process if needed. However, in cases in which this approach does not allow proper visualization with rib fracture-dislocations involving the posterior ribs or spine, a midline spinal incision can be utilized while working in combination with a spine surgeon.With fractures closer to the spine, it is recommended to have at least 2 cm between the rib head and tubercle in order to allow 2 plate holes to be positioned on the neck of the rib.If comminution exists and plating onto the transverse process is needed, several screws are required for stability.When measuring the length of screws to be placed in the transverse process, preoperative CT scans can be utilized. CT = computed tomographyCWIS = Chest Wall Injury SocietyIVC = inferior vena cava.

Manes TJ ，DeGenova DT ，Taylor BC ，Patel JN ... -  《-》

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling.

Elwenspoek MM ，Thom H ，Sheppard AL ，Keeney E ，O'Donnell R ，Jackson J ，Roadevin C ，Dawson S ，Lane D ，Stubbs J ，Everitt H ，Watson JC ，Hay AD ，Gillett P ，Robins G ，Jones HE ，Mallett S ，Whiting PF ... -  《-》