ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of treprostinil for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). MethodDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2015) , WanFang Data, CBM and CNKI were searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treprostinil for PAH from inception to 1st May 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsA total of seven RCTs including 1 662 participants were finally included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared with placebo, treprostinil could increase patients' 6-min walk distance (MD=19.62, 95%CI 0.55 to 38.69, P=0.63) , reduce Brog score (MD=-0.52, 95%CI -0.96 to -0.07, P=0.06) , decrease pulmonary vascular resistance (MD=-3.23, 95%CI -4.80 to -1.66, P=0.42) and improve cardiac index (MD=0.19, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.30, P=0.44) , but there were no significant differences between two groups in incidence of mortality (OR=0.84, 95%CI 0.47 to 1.50, P=0.82) and clinical deterioration (OR=0.84, 95%CI 0.56 to 1.26, P=0.95) . ConclusionsCurrent evidence reveals that treprostinil can improve excise capacity, respiratory function and ameliorate hemodynamic index, but can't reduce the incidence of mortality and clinical deterioration in patients with PAH.
Testing Treatments is a book to help the public understand how to validate the efficacy of testing treatments and the possible bias and error in clinical trial, as well as to call for help to promote good study thus to improve the quality of health care. No matter for the first or the second edition, this book is very popular around the world, and its second edition has been translated into more than ten languages. To help the readers understand the content of the book, we established a website (www.testingtreatments.org) and other sibling sites in different languages. The website not only provided the full-texts to download, but also collected various popular science resources (videos, audios and cartoons) to help the readers assimilate more knowledge. The editors of all the different language websites have established an TTi Editorial Alliance to share experience and provide each other with mutual support, thus to promote health professionals, patients and public around the world to use reliable research to inform their health decisions.
The approaches of rating the quality of evidence of systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests are different from systematic reviews of interventional studies. This article systematically introduces the application of GRADE in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests by a case interpretation and analysis. In this article we present rating workflow in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests and introduce how to use the GDT website to display the rating results, and interpret the conclusion of systematic reviews based on GRADE results.
Depending on different designs of original studies, systematic reviews of diagnostic studies could be categorized into two kinds:one is based on diagnostic randomized controlled trials, of which the GRADE rating approach is similar to that of interventional systematic reviews; and the other is based on diagnostic accuracy tests, of which the GRADE rating approach is introduced in this article. This article explains the application of GRADE in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy tests mainly from the angle of theoretical analysis, including rationales, methods, and challenges.
ObjectiveTo investigate the updating period, methods and procedures of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in China. MethodsWe searched WanFang Data, VIP, CNKI using the term "guideline" in the title, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) using "guideline" as the topic word up to December 2012. Then we screened and analyzed all included papers. ResultsA total of 380 Chinese CPGs were included. Thirty-eight (10%) guidelines have been updated, among which the longest update period was 10 years and the shortest was 1 year, and the average update period was 5.1 years. Eight (2%) of the updated guidelines had been updated more than once, and the average update time of them was 3, average update period was 4.9 years. There were 42 (12%) of the rest 342 guidelines which have never been updated mentioned that they would be updated. The detailed information of the updated guidelines according to their clinical objectives were as follow:1 (0.3%) was prevention guideline, of which the update period was 4 years; 8 (2%) were treatment guidelines and the average update period was 4.3 years; 5 (1%) were prevention and treatment guidelines, and the average update period was 6.8 years; 18 (5%) were diagnosis and treatment guidelines, and the average update period was 5.3 years; 4 (1%) were technology guidelines and the average update period was 5.5 years; and the average update period of the 2 (0.5%) integrative guidelines was 2.5 years. Forty (10%) of the total 380 guidelines had described their updating methods. ConclusionAccording the analysis of international studies and domestic guidelines, the update rate of Chinese CPGs is low, the update period is comparatively long, with differences found among them. The reporting of the updated CPGs' methods and procedures is insufficient, with less normalization. Big differences have been found in their updating condition among CPGs of different types and institutional developers.
ObjectiveTo investigate primary healthcare workers' knowledge, attitude and behaviour, and explore the way of guidelines' popularization, application and surveillance mechanism in primary healthcare institutions. MethodsHealthcare workers in seven township hospitals in Gaolan county, Gansu province were given a questionnaire to test their knowledge, attitudes and behaviour regarding Clinical practice guidelines. ResultsAmong the 143 distributed questionnaires, 143 valid were retrieved. The results showed that 80% of respondents knew the guidelines and 51% had used guidelines in treatment, 32% obtained guidelines mainly through distribution by affiliations. The most popular type of guidelines was self-developed by native departments. Respondents (37%) considered difficult availability of guidelines major barriers to popularization, 74% failed to receive training about guidelines, 88% looked forward to special organizations in charge of disseminating guidelines and conducting related training on how to apply guidelines. ConclusionPrimary healthcare workers report low awareness of, attention to and compliance with clinical practice guidelines. The greatest challenge for guidelines' popularization in township hospitals is difficult availability and it is of vital importance for primary institutions to enhance guidelines' implementation and strengthen learning and conduct training.
Currently there is no tool designed specifically to assess the risk of bias in the design, conduct or analysis of systematic reviews. ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews), which was developed lately, aims mainly to assess the risk of bias in the conduct and result interpretation of systematic reviews relating to interventions, etiology, diagnosis and prognosis, as well as the relevance of the systematic review questions and the practice questions that their users want to address. This paper aims to introduce the ROBIS tool to Chinese systematic review developers, guideline developers and other researchers to promote the comprehension of it and its application, so as to improve the quality of systematic reviews in China.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in domestic medical journals from 2012 to 2013 and compare with the quality of guidelines published before. MethodsCNKI, CBM and WanFang Data were searched to collect guidelines from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2013. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data. The AGREE Ⅱ instrument was applied to assess methodological quality of included guidelines. ResultsA total of 78 guidelines were identified. Among them, 37 guidelines were published in 2012, and 41 in 2013. The scores of 6 domains' scores of AGREE Ⅱ were as follows:scope and purpose (24%), stakeholder involvement (11%), rigour of development (7%), clarity of presentation (32%), applicability (7%), and editorial independence (4%). The results of subgroup analysis indicated that, the scores in 5 domains (except applicability) of the guidelines published in CSCD journals were higher than those of non CSCD journals; the scores in 4 domains (except stakeholder involvement and applicability) of the guidelines received funds were higher than those of guidelines with no funds; and the scores in 5 domains (except editorial independence) of the guidelines published in 2013 were higher than those in 2012. ConclusionThe guidelines published from 2012 to 2013 have higher quality than guidelines published before 2012, but great discrepancies exist when comparing with international guidelines of average level. Chinese guidelines developers should attach importance to international methodology to develop guidelines, and use the AGREE Ⅱ instrument to develop and report guidelines.
ObjectiveTo interpret ROBIS, a new tool to evaluate the risk of bias in systematic reviews, to promote the comprehension of it and its proper application. MethodsWe explained each item of ROBIS tool, used it to evaluate the risk of bias of a selected intervention review whose title was Cyclophosphamide for Primary Nephrotic Syndrome of Children: A Systematic Review, and judged the risk of bias in the review. ResultsThe selected systematic review as a whole was rated as “high risk of bias”, because there existed high risk of bias in domain 2 to 4, namely identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, synthesis and findings. The risk of bias in domain 1 (study eligibility criteria) was low. The relevance of identified studies and the review’s research question was appropriately considered and the reviewers avoided emphasizing results on the basis of their statistical significance. ConclusionROBIS is a new tool worthy of being recommended to evaluate risk of bias in systematic reviews. Reviewers should use ROBIS items as standards to conduct and produce high quality systematic reviews.
The methodology of conducting systematic review of prognostic studies has received a great deal of interest in recent years. Using GRADE for systematic review of prognostic studies, five aspects should be considered:risk of bias, indirectness, inconsistency, imprecision and publication bias. The methods of using GRADE system in systematic review of prognostic studies are similar to systematic review of interventional studies, meanwhile, there are differences. Not only the uniqueness of prognostic study but also the repeating downgrade should be taken into consideration in the GRADE process. Applying GRADE to systematic review of prognostic studies would be widely accepted along with the methodology development and quality improvement of systematic review of prognostic studies.