Confidence In Effect Estimates Research Articles

Do patients with different craniofacial patterns have differences in upper airway volume? A systematic review with network meta-analysis.

Craniofacial skeletal discrepancies have been associated with upper airway dimensions. To identify differences in upper airway volume across different sagittal and vertical skeletal patterns. Unrestricted literature searches in eight databases/registers for human studies until May 2023. Cross-sectional studies measuring upper airway volumes using three-dimensional imaging in healthy patients of different sagittal (Class I, Class II, and Class III) or vertical (normodivergent, hypodivergent, and hyperdivergent) craniofacial morphology. Duplicate independent study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Random-effects frequentist network meta-analysis was performed followed by subgroup-analyses and assessment of the quality of clinical recommendations (confidence in effect estimates) with the CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis) approach. Seventy publications pertaining to 66 unique studies were included with 56 studies (5734 patients) contributing to meta-analyses. Statistically significant differences were found for total pharyngeal airway volume, with Class II having decreased airway volume (-2256.06mm3; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] -3201.61 to -1310.51mm3) and Class III increased airway volume (1098.93mm3; 95% CI 25.41 to 2172.45mm3) compared to Class I. Significant airway volume reductions for Class II were localized mostly at the oropharynx, followed by the palatopharynx, and the glossopharynx. Significant airway volume increases for Class III were localized mostly at the oropharynx, followed by the intraoral cavity, and hypopharynx. Statistically significant differences according to vertical skeletal configuration were seen only for the oropharynx, where hyperdivergent patients had reduced volumes compared to normodivergent patients (-1716.77mm3; 95% CI -3296.42 to -137.12mm3). Airway differences for Class II and Class III configurations (compared to Class I) were more pronounced in adults than in children and the confidence for all estimates was very low according to CINeMA. Considerable differences in upper airway volume were found between sagittal and vertical skeletal configurations. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to the high risk of bias, owing to the retrospective study design, inconsistencies in anatomic compartment boundaries used, samples of mixed children-adult patients, and incomplete reporting. PROSPERO (CRD42022366928).

Efficacy and acceptability of cognitive-behavioral therapy and serotonin reuptake inhibitors for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder: a network meta-analysis.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are recommended treatments for pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but their relative efficacy and acceptability have not been comprehensively examined. Further, it remains unclear whether the efficacy of in-person CBT is conserved when delivered in other formats, such as over telephone/webcam or as Internet-delivered CBT (ICBT). PubMed, PsycINFO, trial registries, and previous systematic reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CBT (in-person, webcam/telephone-delivered, or ICBT) or SRIs with control conditions or each other. Network meta-analyses were conducted to examine efficacy (post-treatment Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation). Confidence in effect estimates was evaluated with CINeMA (Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). Thirty eligible RCTs and 35 contrasts comprising 2,057 youth with OCD were identified. In-person CBT was significantly more efficacious than ICBT, waitlist, relaxation training, and pill placebo (MD range: 3.95-11.10; CINeMA estimate of confidence: moderate) but did not differ significantly from CBT delivered via webcam/telephone (MD: 0.85 [-2.51, 4.21]; moderate), SRIs (MD: 3.07 [-0.07, 6.20]; low), or the combination of in-person CBT and SRIs (MD: -1.20 [-5.29, 2.91]; low). SRIs were significantly more efficacious than pill placebo (MD: 4.59 [2.70, 6.48]; low) and waitlist (MD: 8.03 [4.24, 11.82]; moderate). No significant differences for acceptability emerged, but confidence in estimates was low. In-person CBT and SRIs produce clear benefits compared to waitlist and pill placebo and should be integral parts of the clinical management of pediatric OCD, with in-person CBT overall having a stronger evidence base. The combination of in-person CBT and SRIs may be most efficacious, but few studies hinder firm conclusions. The efficacy of CBT appears conserved when delivered via webcam/telephone, while more trials evaluating ICBT are needed.

Treatment of Systemic Sclerosis-associated Interstitial Lung Disease: Evidence-based Recommendations. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). To date, clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment for patients with SSc-ILD are primarily consensus based. Methods: An international expert guideline committee composed of 24 individuals with expertise in rheumatology, SSc, pulmonology, ILD, or methodology, and with personal experience with SSc-ILD, discussed systematic reviews of the published evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Predetermined conflict-of-interest management strategies were applied, and recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions exclusively by the nonconflicted panelists. The confidence in effect estimates, importance of outcomes studied, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention, and implications for health equity were all considered in making the recommendations. This was in accordance with the American Thoracic Society guideline development process, which is in compliance with the Institute of Medicine standards for trustworthy guidelines. Results: For treatment of patients with SSc-ILD, the committee: 1) recommends the use of mycophenolate; 2) recommends further research into the safety and efficacy of (a) pirfenidone and (b) the combination of pirfenidone plus mycophenolate; and 3) suggests the use of (a) cyclophosphamide, (b) rituximab, (c) tocilizumab, (d) nintedanib, and (e) the combination of nintedanib plus mycophenolate. Conclusions: The recommendations herein provide an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the treatment of patients with SSc-ILD and are intended to serve as the basis for informed and shared decision making by clinicians and patients.

ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia.

Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and whilst European and non-European guidelines are available for community-acquired pneumonia, there are no specific guidelines for sCAP. The European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID), and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) launched a task force to develop the first international guidelines for sCAP. The panel comprised a total of 18 European and four non-European experts, as well as two methodologists. Eight clinical questions for sCAP diagnosis and treatment were chosen to be addressed. Systematic literature searches were performed in several databases. Meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, whenever possible. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to decide on the direction and strength of recommendations. Recommendations issued were related to diagnosis, antibiotics, organ support, biomarkers and co-adjuvant therapy. After considering the confidence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention and implications to health equity, recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions. In these international guidelines, ERS, ESICM, ESCMID, and ALAT provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for diagnosis, empirical treatment, and antibiotic therapy for sCAP, following the GRADE approach. Furthermore, current knowledge gaps have been highlighted and recommendations for future research have been made.

ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of severe community-acquired pneumonia

Severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and while European and non-European guidelines are available for community-acquired pneumonia, there are no specific guidelines for sCAP. The European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) launched a task force to develop the first international guidelines for sCAP. The panel comprised a total of 18 European and four non-European experts, as well as two methodologists. Eight clinical questions for sCAP diagnosis and treatment were chosen to be addressed. Systematic literature searches were performed in several databases. Meta-analyses were performed for evidence synthesis, whenever possible. The quality of evidence was assessed with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to decide on the direction and strength of recommendations. Recommendations issued were related to diagnosis, antibiotics, organ support, biomarkers and co-adjuvant therapy. After considering the confidence in effect estimates, the importance of outcomes studied, desirable and undesirable consequences of treatment, cost, feasibility, acceptability of the intervention and implications to health equity, recommendations were made for or against specific treatment interventions. In these international guidelines, ERS, ESICM, ESCMID and ALAT provide evidence-based clinical practice recommendations for diagnosis, empirical treatment and antibiotic therapy for sCAP, following the GRADE approach. Furthermore, current knowledge gaps have been highlighted and recommendations for future research have been made.

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders.

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Eating Disorders.

Use of Swedish smokeless tobacco during pregnancy: A systematic review of pregnancy and early life health risk.

Smokeless tobacco is a heterogeneous product group with diverse composition and prevalence globally. Tobacco use during pregnancy is concerning due to the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and effects on child health. Nicotine may mediate several of these effects. This systematic review measured health outcomes from Swedish smokeless tobacco (snus) use during pregnancy. Literature search was conducted by an information specialist in May 2022. We included human studies of snus use during pregnancy compared with no tobacco use, assessed risk of bias, conducted a meta-analysis and assessed confidence in effect-estimates using Gradingof Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). We included 18 cohort studies (42 to 1 006 398 participants). Snus use during pregnancy probably (moderate confidence in risk estimates) increase the risk of neonatal apnea, adjusted odds ratio 95% confidence interval [aOR (95% CI)] 1.96 (1.30 to 2.96). Snus use during pregnancy possibly (low confidence in risk estimates) increase the risk of stillbirths aOR 1.43 (1.02 to 1.99), extremely premature births aOR 1.69 (1.17 to 2.45), moderately premature birth aOR 1.26 (1.15 to 1.38), SGA aOR 1.26 (1.09 to 1.46), reduced birth weight mean difference of 72.47 g (110.58 g to 34.35 g reduction) and oral cleft malformations aOR 1.48 (1.00 to 2.21). It is uncertain (low confidence in risk estimates, CI crossing 1) whether snus use during pregnancy affects risk of preeclampsia aOR 1.11 (0.97 to 1.28), antenatal bleeding aOR 1.15 (0.92 to 1.44) and very premature birth aOR 1.26 (0.95 to 1.66). Risk of early neonatal mortality and altered heart rate variability is uncertain, very low confidence. Snus using mothers had increased prevalence of caesarean sections, low confidence. This systematic review reveals that use of smokeless tobacco (snus) during pregnancy may adversely impact the developing child.

Self-applied topical interventions for melasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trials.

Melasma is a common dermatological condition. Although its relevance as a skin condition is primarily of a cosmetic nature, it may affect the patient's wellbeing and quality of life. A broad range of treatment options is available, which makes it difficult to choose the most appropriate of those treatments. To summarize and critically appraise evidence from investigator-blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of self-applied topical interventions for melasma. We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane CENTRAL trials database for RCTs on topical, self-administered interventions for patients diagnosed with melasma. Eligibility was limited to RCTs that explicitly stated in their methods section (i) how they generated the random allocation sequence, and (ii) that the study outcome assessor was blinded to the participants' group allocation. Outcomes of interest included evaluator-assessed clinical scores (such as the Melasma Area and Severity Index), quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, as well as safety outcomes. The study findings were meta-analysed, pooling data from studies on the same comparisons, if this was possible. We assessed confidence in effect estimates using the GRADE approach. Our searches yielded 1078 hits. We included 36 studies reporting on 47 different comparisons of interventions. These included medical treatments such as 'triple combination cream' (TCC), over-the-counter cosmetic and herbal products, as well as sun creams covering different light spectra. Pooling data was possible for only two comparisons, topical tranexamic acid (TXA) vs. hydroquinone (HQ) and cysteamine vs. placebo. Direct comparisons were available for a variety of interventions; however, the reported outcomes varied greatly. Overall, our confidence in the effect estimates ranged from very low to high. Our findings indicate that TCC and its individual components HQ and tretinoin are effective in lightening melasma. Besides these established self-applied treatment options, we identified further medical treatments as well as promising cosmetic and herbal product treatment approaches. Furthermore, evidence suggests that using broad-spectrum sunscreen covering both the visible and ultraviolet-light spectrum enhances the treatment efficacy of HQ. However, with mostly small RCTs comparing treatments directly using a broad range of outcomes, further research is needed to draw conclusions about which treatment is most effective. What is already known about this topic? Melasma is a common dermatological disease. Although it is primarily a cosmetic condition, it can severely affect the patient's wellbeing and quality of life. Treatment options for melasma include a broad range of medical, cosmetic and herbal products. Given the large number of available interventions, it is difficult for clinicians and for patients to make informed decisions about which treatment to choose. What does this study add? We systematically assessed data from investigator-blinded randomized controlled trials of self-applied topical interventions. Our GRADE evaluations of confidence in the findings ranged from very low to high and may help clinicians and patients navigate treatment decisions. Besides the established self-applied medical treatment options, we identified promising cosmetic and herbal treatment approaches. Evidence suggests sunscreen covering the ultraviolet (UV)- and visible light spectra increases treatment efficacy compared with UV-only protection.

Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review.

Concise definitive review of how to read and critically appraise a systematic review. None. Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias. Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.

Impact of intraoperative intravenous magnesium on spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SummaryBackgroundThe effectiveness and safety of intraoperative intravenous magnesium (IIM) on spine surgery remain uncertain, as recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded conflicting results. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of IIM on spine surgery.MethodsA literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases, ClinicalTrial.gov and Google Scholar on July 12th 2021, and reference lists were examined. We selected RCTs comparing the effects of IIM with placebo treatment on spine surgery. We calculated pooled standard mean difference (SMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confident interval (CI) under a random-effect model. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Jadad score was applied to assess the quality of each included trial. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting each included study one by one from the pooled analysis. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021266170.FindingsFourteen trials of 781 participants were included. Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces postoperative morphine consumption at 24 h (SMD: -1·61 mg, 95% CI: -2·63 to -0·58) and intraoperative remifentanil requirement (SMD: -2·09 ug/h, 95% CI: -3·38 to -0·81). High-quality evidence suggested that IIM reduces the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting compared with placebo (RR: 0·43, 95% CI: 0·26 to 0·71). Besides, moderate-quality evidence suggested that recovery orientation time in the IIM group is longer than control group (SMD: 1·13 min, 95% CI: 0·83 to 1·43).InterpretationIIM as adjuvant analgesics showed overall benefits on spine surgery in terms of reducing analgesic requirement and postoperative nausea and vomiting; however, potential risks of IIM, such as delayed anesthetic awakening, should not be ignored. Future evidence will inform the optimal strategy of IIM administration for patients undergoing spine surgery.FundingThis study was funded by Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (Grant No :7212117).

Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Treating Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) for the treatment of chronic low back pain (CLBP). Methods This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement standard. We identified relevant studies by searching multiple electronic databases, trial registries, and websites up to April 30, 2021, and examining reference lists. We selected RCTs that compared ESWT, in unimodal or multimodal therapeutic approaches, with sham ESWT or other active therapies. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The main outcomes were pain intensity and disability status, examined as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed by using Cochrane Back and Neck (CBN) Group risk of bias tool and Jadad score, and GRADE was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. Heterogeneity was explored using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression. Results Ten RCTs, including a total of 455 young to middle-aged individuals (29.2–55.8 years), were identified. Compared with control, the ESWT group showed lower pain intensity at month 1 (SMD = −0.81, 95% CI −1.21 to −0.42), as well as lower disability score at month 1 (SMD = −1.45, 95% CI −2.68 to −0.22) and at month 3 (SMD = −0.69, 95% CI −1.08 to −0.31). No serious shockwave-related adverse events were reported. Conclusion The use of ESWT in CLBP patients results in significant and quantifiable reductions in pain and disability in the short term. However, further well-conducted RCTs are necessary for building high-quality evidence and promoting the application of ESWT in clinical practice.

Clinical interventions for adults with comorbid alcohol use and depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of treatments for patients diagnosed with both an alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depressive disorder. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions for improving symptoms of adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. We searched CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical interventions for adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level information and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, used frequentist random effects models for network meta-analyses, and rated our confidence in effect estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary outcomes were remission from depression and alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, alcohol use, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes to estimate intervention effects. Overall, 36 RCTs with 2,729 participants evaluated 14 pharmacological and 4 psychological interventions adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). Studies were published from 1971 to 2019, conducted in 13 countries, and had a median sample size of 50 participants (range: 14 to 350 participants). We have very low confidence in all estimates of intervention effects on our primary outcomes (i.e., remission from depression and remission from alcohol use). We have moderate confidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) demonstrated greater benefit than no additional treatment (SMD = -0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -0.63; p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and low confidence (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; p = 0.021) for alcohol use. We have low confidence that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) demonstrated greater benefit than placebo (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02, p = 0.038) for depressive symptoms. Compared with placebo, we have moderate confidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated greater benefit for functional status (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47, p < 0.001) and low confidence for alcohol use (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.039). However, we have moderate confidence that patients receiving SSRIs also were more likely to experience an adverse event (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 5.16, p = 0.07). We have very low confidence in all other effect estimates, and we did not have high confidence in any effect estimates. Limitations include the sparsity of evidence on intervention effects over the long term, risks of attrition bias, and heterogeneous definitions of adverse events in the evidence base. We are very uncertain about the existence (or not) of any non-null effects for our primary outcomes of remission from depression and remission from alcohol use. The available evidence does suggest that CBTs likely reduced, and TCAs may have resulted in a slight reduction of depressive symptoms. SSRIs likely increased functional status, and SSRIs and CBTs may have resulted in a slight reduction of alcohol use. However, patients receiving SSRIs also likely had an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event. In addition, these conclusions only apply to postintervention and are not against active comparators, limiting the understanding of the efficacy of interventions in the long term as well as the comparative effectiveness of active treatments. As we did not have high confidence in any outcomes, additional studies are warranted to provide more conclusive evidence.

Striving for Happily Ever After: Supportive Interventions for Youth Leaving Residential Placement. A Systematic Review of Reviews.

Youth who reenter communities after forensic or residential care are overrepresented in prevalence rates for mental disorders, delinquency, incarceration, low academic achievement, and unemployment. Supportive interventions that aid youth in the reentry to their communities can be crucial for successful reintegration. In systematic reviews (SR) on this topic, only specific interventions or programs are described. Therefore, a summary of evidence about transitional interventions for various groups of reentry youth is needed. This overview of SRs was preregistered in PROSPERO. We searched PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Campbell Library, Web of Science, Sociological Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Social Care Online, and Epistemonikos. SRs that fit the search criteria were evaluated using the AMSTAR checklist for methodological quality and the GRADE tool for assessing confidence in effect estimates. We screened 2,349 publications for eligibility. Eight SRs were included for analysis. The methodological quality of five SRs was critically low, two were of low quality, and one was of moderate quality. Recidivism was reported as the only outcome in five SRs. Detrimental outcomes were reported in five SRs. Confidence in effect estimates was low or very low for all outcomes. Ninety-five percent of primary study populations were from the United States. We offer a rigorous appraisal of SRs on transitional interventions. The gaps of knowledge are vast regarding what works, how it works, and for whom. Development of a knowledge base should include defining the term 'recidivism', systematic reporting of demographics, and identifying effective common elements.

The efficacy and safety of paracetamol for pain relief: an overview of systematic reviews.

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol as an analgesic medication in a range of painful conditions. Systematic review of systematic reviews of the analgesic effects of paracetamol in randomised, placebo-controlled trials. Conduct of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2; confidence in effect estimates (quality of evidence) was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; systematic reviews published 1 January 2010 - 30 April 2020. We extracted pain and adverse events outcomes from 36 systematic reviews that assessed the efficacy of paracetamol in 44 painful conditions. Continuous pain outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs; standardised 0-10-point scale); dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol provides modest pain relief for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis (MD, -0.3 points; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 points) and after craniotomy (MD, -0.8 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to -0.2 points); there is moderate quality evidence for its efficacy in tension-type headache (pain-free at 2 hours: RR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4) and perineal pain soon after childbirth (patients experiencing 50% pain relief: RR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.5-3.8). There is high quality evidence that paracetamol is not effective for relieving acute low back pain (MD, 0.2 points; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.4 points). Evidence regarding efficacy in other conditions was of low or very low quality. Frequency of adverse events was generally similar for people receiving placebo or paracetamol, except that transient elevation of blood liver enzyme levels was more frequent during repeated administration of paracetamol to patients with spinal pain (RR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.9-7.4). For most conditions, evidence regarding the effectiveness of paracetamol is insufficient for drawing firm conclusions. Evidence for its efficacy in four conditions was moderate to strong, and there is strong evidence that paracetamol is not effective for reducing acute low back pain. Investigations that evaluate more typical dosing regimens are required. CRD42015029282 (prospective).

Psychological therapies for adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or BPD features-A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

To review the effectiveness of psychological therapies for adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) or BPD features. We included randomized clinical trials on psychological therapies for adolescents with BPD and BPD features. Data were extracted and assessed for quality according to Cochrane guidelines, and summarized as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and as Odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool for each domain. When possible, we pooled trials into meta-analyses, and used Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control for random errors. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). 10 trials on adolescents with BPD or BPD features were included. All trials were considered at high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence was rated as "very low". We did TSA on the primary outcome and found that the required information size was reached. The risk of random error was thus discarded. Only 10 trials have been conducted on adolescents with BPD or BPD features. Of these only few showed superior outcomes of the experimental intervention compared to the control intervention. No adverse effects of the interventions were mentioned. Attrition rates varied from 15-75% in experimental interventions. The overall quality was very low due to high risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency, which limits the confidence in effect estimates. Due to the high risk of bias, high attrition rates and underpowered studies in this area, it is difficult to derive any conclusions on the efficacy of psychological therapies for BPD in adolescence. There is a need for more high quality trials with larger samples to identify effective psychological therapies for this specific age group with BPD or BPD features.

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia.

(Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Psychiatry 2020; 177:868-872).

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under.

Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under.

AGA Rapid Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Procedures During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abbreviations used in this paper AGAAmerican Gastroenterological AssociationCDCCenters for Disease Control and PreventionCIconfidence intervalCOVID-19coronavirus disease 2019GIgastrointestinalGRADEGrading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and EvaluationMERS-CoVMiddle East respiratory syndrome–related coronavirusORodds ratioPAPRpowered air-purifying respiratorPPEpersonal protective equipmentRRrisk ratioSARS-CoV-2severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2WHOWorld Health Organization

Manipulation and Mobilization for Treating Chronic Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for an Appropriateness Panel

Background: Mobilization and manipulation therapies are widely used by patients with chronic nonspecific neck pain; however, questions remain around efficacy, dosing, and safety, as well as how these approaches compare to other therapies. Objectives: Based on published trials, to determine the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of various mobilization and manipulation therapies for treatment of chronic nonspecific neck pain. Study Design: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Methods: We identified studies published between January 2000 and September 2017, by searching multiple electronic databases, examining reference lists, and communicating with experts. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing manipulation and/or mobilization therapies to sham, no treatment, each other, and other active therapies, or when combined as multimodal therapeutic approaches. We assessed risk of bias by using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network criteria. When possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analysis. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was applied to determine the confidence in effect estimates. This project was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health under award number U19AT007912 and ultimately used to inform an appropriateness panel. Results: A total of 47 randomized trials (47 unique trials in 53 publications) were included in the systematic review. These studies were rated as having low risk of bias and included a total of 4,460 patients with nonspecific chronic neck pain who were being treated by a practitioner using various types of manipulation and/or mobilization interventions. A total of 37 trials were categorized as unimodal approaches and involved thrust or nonthrust compared with sham, no treatment, or other active comparators. Of these, only 6 trials with similar intervention styles, comparators, and outcome measures/timepoints were pooled for meta-analysis at 1, 3, and 6 months, showing a small effect in favor of thrust plus exercise compared to an exercise regimen alone for a reduction in pain and disability. Multimodal approaches appeared to be effective at reducing pain and improving function from the 10 studies evaluated. Health-related quality of life was seldom reported. Some 22/47 studies did not report or mention adverse events. Of the 25 that did, either no or minor events occurred. Limitations: The current evidence is heterogeneous, and sample sizes are generally small. Conclusions: Studies published since January 2000 provide low-moderate quality evidence that various types of manipulation and/or mobilization will reduce pain and improve function for chronic nonspecific neck pain compared to other interventions. It appears that multimodal approaches, in which multiple treatment approaches are integrated, might have the greatest potential impact. The studies comparing to no treatment or sham were mostly testing the effect of a single dose, which may or may not be helpful to inform practice. According to the published trials reviewed, manipulation and mobilization appear safe. However, given the low rate of serious adverse events, other types of studies with much larger sample sizes would be required to fully describe the safety of manipulation and/or mobilization for nonspecific chronic neck pain. Key words: Chronic neck pain, nonspecific, chiropractic, manipulation, mobilization, systematic review, meta-analysis, appropriateness