Gait parameters in children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of this study was to examine differences in gait kinematics and spatiotemporal parameters in ambulatory children and adolescents with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy (BSCP) among Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I-III. A retrospective review was conducted of individuals with BSCP who had three-dimensional motion analysis (3DGA) at one of seven pediatric hospitals. Means and standard deviations of each gait parameter were stratified by GMFCS levels (I-III) and for a typically developing comparison group. Data from 292 children and adolescents with BSCP (189 males, 103 females; mean age 13 y) were compared to a typically developing comparison group (24 male, 26 female; mean age 10 y 6 mo). Gait patterns differed from typically developing in all GMFCS levels, with increasing deviation as GMFCS level increased in 21 out of 28 parameters. Despite significant differences in selected mean kinematic parameters among GMFCS levels such as knee angle at initial contact of 24°, 29°, and 41° in GMFCS levels I, II and III respectively, there was also substantial overlap among GMFCS levels. GMFCS levels cannot be identified using specific gait kinematics. Treatment decisions should be guided by comprehensive 3DGA that allows measurement of gait impairments at the joint level for each individual.

Multi-strategic community wide interventions for physical activity are increasingly popular but their ability to achieve population level improvements is unknown. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effects of community wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity.

35. Effect of surgical intervention on gait function in patients with symptomatic lumbar canal stenosis

Relationship between spatiotemporal parameters and clinical outcomes in children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: Clinical interpretation proposal

Non-corticosteroid adjuvant therapies for acute bacterial meningitis.

BackgroundSystematic reviews of randomised trials guide policy and healthcare decisions. Yet, we observed that some reviews judge randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias (ROB) for sequence generation, potentially introducing bias. However, to date, the extent of this issue has not been well examined. We evaluated the consistency in the ROB assessment for sequence generation of randomised trials in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, and explored the reviewers’ judgement of the quality of evidence for the related outcomes.MethodsCochrane intervention reviews (01/01/2017–31/03/2017) were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched for systematic reviews in ten general medical journals with highest impact factors (01/01/2016–31/03/2017). We examined the proportion of reviews that rated the sequence generation domain as high, low or unclear risk of selection bias. For reviews that had rated any randomised trials as high or unclear risk of bias, we examined the proportion that had assessed the quality of evidence.ResultsOverall, 100 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. We evaluated 64 Cochrane reviews which comprised of 984 randomised trials; 0.8% (n = 8) and 52.2% (n = 514) were rated as high and unclear ROB for sequence generation respectively. We further evaluated 36 non-Cochrane reviews which comprised of 1376 trials; 5.8% (n = 80) and 39.6% (n = 545) were rated as high and unclear ROB respectively. Ninety percent (n = 10) of non-Cochrane reviews which rated randomised trials as high ROB for sequence generation did not report an underlying reason. All Cochrane reviews assessed the quality of evidence (GRADE). For the non-Cochrane reviews, only just over half had assessed the quality of evidence.ConclusionSystematic reviews of interventions frequently rate randomised trials as high or unclear ROB for sequence generation. In general, Cochrane reviews were more transparent than non-Cochrane reviews in ROB and quality of evidence assessment. The scientific community should more strongly promote consistent ROB assessment for sequence generation to minimise selection bias and support transparent quality of evidence assessment. Consistency ensures that appropriate conclusions are drawn from the data.

Intraoperative local anaesthesia for reduction of postoperative pain following general anaesthesia for dental treatment in children and adolescents.

ABSTRACTBACKGROUND:Multi-strategic community wide interventions for physical activity are increasingly popular but their ability to achieve population level improvements is unknown.OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effects of community-wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity.SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialized Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PsycINFO, ASSIA, The British Nursing Index, Chinese CNKI databases, EPPI Centre (DoPHER, TRoPHI), ERIC, HMIC, Sociological s, SPORT Discus, Transport Database and Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index). We also scanned websites of the EU Platformon Diet, Physical Activity and Health;Health-Evidence.ca; the International Union for Health Promotion and Education; the NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology (NCCHTA) and NICE and SIGN guidelines. Reference lists of all relevant systematic reviews, guidelines and primary studies were followed up. We contacted experts in the field from the National Obesity Observatory Oxford, Oxford University; Queensland Health, Queensland University of Technology, the University of Central Queensland; the University of Tennessee and Washington University; and hand-searched six relevant journals. The searches were last updated to the end of November 2009 and were not restricted by language or publication status.SELECTION CRITERIA:Cluster randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental designs which used a control population for comparison, interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies (PCCS) were included. Only studies with a minimum six-month follow up from the start of the intervention to measurement of outcomes were included. Community-wide interventions had to comprise at least two broad strategies aimed at physical activity for the whole population. Studies which randomized individuals from the same community were excluded.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:At least two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Non-English language papers were reviewed with the assistance of an epidemiologist interpreter. Each study was assessed for the setting, the number of included components and their intensity. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they were dichotomous (physically active, physically active during leisure time and sedentary or physically inactive) or continuous (leisure time physical activity, walking, energy expenditure). For dichotomous measures we calculated the unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. For continuous measures we calculated net percentage change from baseline, unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk.MAIN RESULTS:After the selection process had been completed 25 studies were included in the review. Of the included studies, 19 were set in high income countries, using the World Bank economic classification, and the remaining six were in low income countries. The interventions varied by the number of strategies included and their intensity. Almost all of the interventions included a component of building partnerships with local governments or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (22 studies). None of the studies provided results by socio-economic disadvantage or other markers of equity consideration. However of those included studies undertaken in high income countries, 11 studies were described by the authors as being provided to deprived, disadvantaged, or low socio-economic communities. Fifteen studies were identified as having a high risk of bias, 10 studies were unclear, and no studies had a low risk of bias. Selection bias was a major concern with these studies, with only one study using randomization to allocate communities (Simon 2008). No studies were judged as being at low risk of selection bias although 16 studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Eleven studies had a high risk of detection bias, 10 with an unclear risk and four with no risk. Assessment of detection bias included an assessment of the validity of the measurement tools and quality of outcome measures. The effects reported were inconsistent across the studies and the measures. Some of the better designed studies showed no improvement in measures of physical activity. Publication bias was evident.AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:Although numerous studies have been undertaken, there is a noticeable inconsistency of the findings of the available studies and this is confounded by serious methodological issues within the included studies. The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that multi-component community wide interventions effectively increase population levels of physical activity. There is a clear need for well-designed intervention studies and such studies should focus on the quality of the measurement of physical activity, the frequency of measurement and the allocation to intervention and control communities.

BACKGROUND: Multi-strategic community wide interventions for physical activity are increasingly popular but their ability to achieve population level improvements is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of community wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PsycINFO, ASSIA, The British Nursing Index, Chinese CNKI databases, EPPI Centre (DoPHER, TRoPHI), ERIC, HMIC, Sociological Abstracts, SPORTDiscus, Transport Database and Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index). We also scanned websites of the EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; Health-Evidence.ca; the International Union for Health Promotion and Education; the NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology (NCCHTA) and NICE and SIGN guidelines. Reference lists of all relevant systematic reviews, guidelines and primary studies were followed up. We contacted experts in the field from the National Obesity Observatory Oxford, Oxford University; Queensland Health, Queensland University of Technology, the University of Central Queensland; the University of Tennessee and Washington University; and handsearched six relevant journals. The searches were last updated to the end of November 2009 and were not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster randomised controlled trials, randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental designs which used a control population for comparison, interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies (PCCS) were included. Only studies with a minimum six-month follow up from the start of the intervention to measurement of outcomes were included. Community wide interventions had to comprise at least two broad strategies aimed at physical activity for the whole population. Studies which randomised individuals from the same community were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Non-English language papers were reviewed with the assistance of an epidemiologist interpreter. Each study was assessed for the setting, the number of included components and their intensity. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they were dichotomous (physically active, physically active during leisure time and sedentary or physically inactive) or continuous (leisure time physical activity, walking, energy expenditure). For dichotomous measures we calculated the unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. For continuous measures we calculated net percentage change from baseline, unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. MAIN RESULTS: After the selection process had been completed 25 studies were included in the review. Of the included studies, 19 were set in high income countries, using the World Bank economic classification, and the remaining six were in low income countries. The interventions varied by the number of strategies included and their intensity. Almost all of the interventions included a component of building partnerships with local governments or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (22 studies). None of the studies provided results by socio-economic disadvantage or other markers of equity consideration. However of those included studies undertaken in high income countries, 11 studies were described by the authors as being provided to deprived, disadvantaged, or low socio-economic communities.Fifteen studies were identified as having a high risk of bias, 10 studies were unclear, and no studies had a low risk of bias. Selection bias was a major concern with these studies, with only one study using randomisation to allocate communities (Simon 2008). No studies were judged as being at low risk of selection bias although 16 studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Eleven studies had a high risk of detection bias, 10 with an unclear risk and four with no risk. Assessment of detection bias included an assessment of the validity of the measurement tools and quality of outcome measures. The effects reported were inconsistent across the studies and the measures. Some of the better designed studies showed no improvement in measures of physical activity. Publication bias was evident. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous studies have been undertaken, there is a noticeable inconsistency of the findings of the available studies and this is confounded by serious methodological issues within the included studies. The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that multi-component community wide interventions effectively increase population levels of physical activity. There is a clear need for well-designed intervention studies and such studies should focus on the quality of the measurement of physical activity, the frequency of measurement and the allocation to intervention and control communities. PMID: 21491409

Multi-strategic community wide interventions for physical activity are increasingly popular but their ability to achieve population level improvements is unknown. To evaluate the effects of community wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity. We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PsycINFO, ASSIA, The British Nursing Index, Chinese CNKI databases, EPPI Centre (DoPHER, TRoPHI), ERIC, HMIC, Sociological Abstracts, SPORTDiscus, Transport Database and Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index). We also scanned websites of the EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; Health-Evidence.ca; the International Union for Health Promotion and Education; the NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology (NCCHTA) and NICE and SIGN guidelines.Reference lists of all relevant systematic reviews, guidelines and primary studies were followed up. We contacted experts in the field from the National Obesity Observatory Oxford, Oxford University; Queensland Health, Queensland University of Technology, the University of Central Queensland; the University of Tennessee and Washington University; and handsearched six relevant journals. The searches were last updated to the end of November 2009 and were not restricted by language or publication status. Cluster randomised controlled trials, randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental designs which used a control population for comparison, interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies (PCCS) were included. Only studies with a minimum six-month follow up from the start of the intervention to measurement of outcomes were included. Community wide interventions had to comprise at least two broad strategies aimed at physical activity for the whole population. Studies which randomised individuals from the same community were excluded. At least two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Non-English language papers were reviewed with the assistance of an epidemiologist interpreter. Each study was assessed for the setting, the number of included components and their intensity. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they were dichotomous (physically active, physically active during leisure time and sedentary or physically inactive) or continuous (leisure time physical activity, walking, energy expenditure). For dichotomous measures we calculated the unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. For continuous measures we calculated net percentage change from baseline, unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. After the selection process had been completed 25 studies were included in the review. Of the included studies, 19 were set in high income countries, using the World Bank economic classification, and the remaining six were in low income countries. The interventions varied by the number of strategies included and their intensity. Almost all of the interventions included a component of building partnerships with local governments or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (22 studies). None of the studies provided results by socio-economic disadvantage or other markers of equity consideration. However of those included studies undertaken in high income countries, 11 studies were described by the authors as being provided to deprived, disadvantaged, orlow socio-economic communities.Fifteen studies were identified as having a high risk of bias, 10 studies were unclear, and no studies had a low risk of bias. Selection bias was a major concern with these studies, with only one study using randomisation to allocate communities (Simon 2008). No studies were judged as being at low risk of selection bias although 16 studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Eleven studies had a high risk of detection bias, 10 with an unclear risk and four with no risk. Assessment of detection bias included an assessment of the validity of the measurement tools and quality of outcome measures. The effects reported were inconsistent across the studies and the measures. Some of the better designed studies showed no improvement in measures of physical activity. Publication bias was evident. Although numerous studies have been undertaken, there is a noticeable inconsistency of the findings of the available studies and this is confounded by serious methodological issues within the included studies. The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that multi-component community wide interventions effectively increase population levels of physical activity. There is a clear need for well-designed intervention studies and such studies should focus on the quality of the measurement of physical activity, the frequency of measurement and the allocation to intervention and control communities.

ObjectiveTo examine the association between clinical trial registration and risk of bias in clinical trials that have been included in systematic reviews. As a secondary objective, we evaluated the risk of bias among trials registered prospectively vs. retrospectively. MethodClinical trials published in 2005 or after included in a sample of 100 Cochrane systematic reviews published from 2014-2019. ResultsOf 1,177 clinical trials identified, we verified 368 (31%) had been registered, of which 135 (36.7%) were registered prospectively (i.e., before or up to 1 month after enrollment of the first participant). Across the bias domains (one bias assessment for each domain per trial), the percentage of trials at low risk ranged from 29% to 58%; unclear risk ranged from to 26% to 61% and high risk ranged from 2% to 38%. Trials that had been registered had less high or unclear risk of bias in five domains: random sequence generation (univariate risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.58-0.81), allocation concealment (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57-0.72), performance bias (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58-0.72), detection bias (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.78), and reporting bias (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.73). An association between clinical trial registration and high or unclear risk of attrition bias could not be demonstrated nor refuted (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.89-1.17). It also was observed in terms of overall risk of bias, that registered trials had less high or unclear overall risk of bias than trials that had not been registered (univariate RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.19-0.46). Prospective clinical trial registration was associated with low risks of selection bias due to inadequate allocation concealment, performance bias, and detection bias compared with retrospective clinical trial registration. ConclusionIn a large sample of clinical trials included in recently published systematic reviews of interventions, clinical trial registration was associated with low risk of bias for five of the six domains examined.

BackgroundRobotic-Assisted Gait Training (RAGT) may enable high-intensive and task-specific gait training post-stroke. The effect of RAGT on gait movement patterns has however not been comprehensively reviewed. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence for potentially superior effects of RAGT on biomechanical measures of gait post-stroke when compared with non-robotic gait training alone.MethodsNine databases were searched using database-specific search terms from their inception until January 2021. We included randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of RAGT (e.g., using exoskeletons or end-effectors) on spatiotemporal, kinematic and kinetic parameters among adults suffering from any stage of stroke. Screening, data extraction and judgement of risk of bias (using the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool) were performed by 2–3 independent reviewers. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate the certainty of evidence for the biomechanical gait measures of interest.ResultsThirteen studies including a total of 412 individuals (mean age: 52–69 years; 264 males) met eligibility criteria and were included. RAGT was employed either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies in a subacute or chronic phase post-stroke. The included studies showed a high risk of bias (n = 6), some concerns (n = 6) or a low risk of bias (n = 1). Meta-analyses using a random-effects model for gait speed, cadence, step length (non-affected side) and spatial asymmetry revealed no significant differences between the RAGT and comparator groups, while stride length (mean difference [MD] 2.86 cm), step length (affected side; MD 2.67 cm) and temporal asymmetry calculated in ratio-values (MD 0.09) improved slightly more in the RAGT groups. There were serious weaknesses with almost all GRADE domains (risk of bias, consistency, directness, or precision of the findings) for the included outcome measures (spatiotemporal and kinematic gait parameters). Kinetic parameters were not reported at all.ConclusionThere were few relevant studies and the review synthesis revealed a very low certainty in current evidence for employing RAGT to improve gait biomechanics post-stroke. Further high-quality, robust clinical trials on RAGT that complement clinical data with biomechanical data are thus warranted to disentangle the potential effects of such interventions on gait biomechanics post-stroke.

The pregabalin is approved for the management of persistent pain. The aim of this study is to assess the advantages and disadvantages of the use of pregabalin in eye pain management. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched until January 2022 for randomized controlled trials. Randomized, double-blinded trials comparing pregabalin with placebo in eye pain management were included. The primary outcome was visual analog scale or numerical rating scale at acute (24 hours) and chronic (≥7 days after surgery) timepoints. The secondary outcomes were analgesic medication requirements and pregabalin-related complications (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, and headache). We also compared the effect of pregabalin on dry-eye syndrome. Six relevant articles were identified that studied the use of pregabalin as pain relief for photorefractive keratectomy (n = 2), laser epithelial keratomileusis (n = 1), laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (n = 1), eyelid surgery (n = 1), and dacryocystorhinostomy (n = 1). Pregabalin was associated with a significant reduction in pain scores (95% confidence interval = -0.41 [-0.76--0.06]) 24 hours after surgical procedures. The data were insufficient to draw conclusions regarding dry eye symptoms. Because of the high heterogeneity of outcomes regarding adverse effects, there is no conclusion regarding the safety of pregabalin in eye pain. Pregabalin reduced acute eye pain but had no significant effect on long-term analgesia after ophthalmological surgery in adults. It had no effect on dry-eye symptoms after ocular surgery. Further studies on the safety of pregabalin in eye pain management are required to draw solid conclusions.

Large-scale validation of the prediction model risk of bias assessment Tool (PROBAST) using a short form: high risk of bias models show poorer discrimination

BackgroundThe National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may approve health technologies on condition of more evidence generated only in research (OiR) or only with research (OwR). NICE specifies the information needed to comply with its request, although it may not necessarily guarantee good quality and timely evidence for re-appraisal, before reaching a final decision.AimThis study aimed to critically appraise the methods, quality and risk of bias of evidence generated in response to NICE OiR and OwR technology appraisal (TA) and highly specialised technologies (HSTs) recommendations.MethodsNICE TAs (between March 2000 and September 2020) and HST evaluations (to October 2023) of medicines were reviewed. Conditional recommendations were analysed to identify the evidence requested by NICE for re-appraisal. The new evidence was analysed for compliance with NICE’s request and assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tools for risk of bias in randomised trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised evidence.ResultsNICE made 54 conditional recommendations from TAs (13 OiR and 41 OwR) and five conditional recommendations for HSTs (all OwR). Of these, 16 TAs presented additional evidence for re-appraisal (9 OiR [69%] and 7 OwR [17%]) and three HSTs (3 OwR [60%]). Two of the nine re-appraised TAs with OiR recommendation and four of the seven OwR complied fully with NICE’s request for further evidence, while all three from the HSTs complied. The majority of re-appraised TAs and HSTs included evidence that was deemed to be at serious, high, moderate or unclear risk of bias. Among the 26 randomised controlled trials from TAs assessed, eight were categorised as having low risk of bias in all domains and ten had at least one domain as a high risk of bias. Reporting was unclear for the remainder. Twenty-two non-randomised studies, primarily single-arm studies, were susceptible to biases mostly due to the selection of participants and to confounding. Two HSTs provided evidence from randomised controlled trials which were classified as unclear or high risk of bias. All non-randomised evidence from HSTs were categorised as moderate or serious risk of bias.ConclusionsThere is widespread non-compliance with agreed data requests and important variation in the quality of evidence submitted in response to NICE conditional approval recommendations. Quality standards ought to be stipulated in respect to evidence contributing to re-appraisals following NICE conditional approval recommendations.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-024-01418-3.