Citations

When one initially targets the null effect and the point estimate falls close to the null, two challenges exist in rating certainty of evidence. First, when the point estimate is near the null and the data, therefore, suggests little or no effect, rating certainty in a benefit or harm is misleading. Second, since in general the narrower the confidence interval (CI) the more precise the estimate, if the CI is narrow, rating down for imprecision due simply to crossing the null is inappropriate. This paper addresses these issues and provides a solution: to revise the target of certainty rating from a non-zero effect to a little or no effect. This solution requires estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie, and thus establishing a range that represents little or no effect. If GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) users are confident that the point estimate represents an effect less than the smallest plausible MID, they will revise their target and rate certainty to a little or no effect. If the entire CI falls within the range of little or no effect, they will not rate down for imprecision. Otherwise (if the CI includes an important effect), they will rate down. Using the solution provided in this paper GRADE users can make an optimal choice of the target of certainty rating.

Importance The optimal inhaled reliever therapy for asthma remains unclear. Objective To compare short-acting β agonists (SABA) alone with SABA combined with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and with the fast-onset, long-acting β agonist formoterol combined with ICS for asthma. Data Sources The MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from January 1, 2020, to September 27, 2024, without language restrictions. Study Selection Pairs of reviewers independently selected randomized clinical trials evaluating (1) SABA alone, (2) ICS with formoterol, and (3) ICS with SABA (combined or separate inhalers). Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analyses synthesized outcomes. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures Asthma symptom control (5-item Asthma Control Questionnaire; range, 0-6, lower scores indicate better asthma control; minimum important difference [MID], 0.5 points), asthma-related quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire; range, 1-7, higher scores indicate better quality of life; MID, 0.5 points), risk of severe exacerbations, and risk of serious adverse events. Results A total of 27 randomized clinical trials (N = 50 496 adult and pediatric patients; mean age, 41.0 years; 20 288 male [40%]) were included. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with fewer severe exacerbations (ICS-formoterol risk ratio [RR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.60-0.72]; risk difference [RD], −10.3% [95% CI, −11.8% to −8.3%]; ICS-SABA RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.73-0.95]; RD, −4.7% [95% CI, −8.0% to −1.5%]) with high certainty. Compared with SABA alone, both ICS-containing relievers were associated with improved asthma control (ICS-formoterol RR improvement [MID] in total score, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.04-1.10]; RD, 4.1% [95% CI, 2.3%-5.9%]; ICS-SABA RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15]; RD, 5.4% [95% CI, 1.8%-8.5%]) with high certainty. In an indirect comparison with ICS-SABA, ICS-formoterol was associated with fewer severe exacerbations (RR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]; RD, −5.5% [95% CI, −8.4% to −2.0%]) with moderate certainty. Compared with SABA alone, ICS-formoterol (RD, −0.6% [95% CI, −1.3% to 0%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (high certainty) and ICS-SABA (RD, 0% [95% CI, −1.1% to 1.2%]) was not associated with increased risk of serious adverse events (moderate certainty). Conclusions and Relevance In this network meta-analysis of patients with asthma, ICS combined with formoterol and ICS combined with SABA were each associated with reduced asthma exacerbations and improved asthma control compared with SABA alone.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS)-guided resuscitation on clinical outcomes in adult patients with shock. DATA SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and unpublished sources from inception to December 2023. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined the use of POCUS to guide resuscitation in patients with shock. DATA EXTRACTION: We collected data regarding study and patient characteristics, POCUS protocol, control group interventions, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 eligible RCTs. POCUS slightly influences physicians’ plans for IV fluid (IVF) and vasoactive medication prescription (moderate certainty), but results in little to no changes in the administration of IVF (low to high certainty) or inotropes (high certainty). POCUS may result in no change in the number of CT scans performed (low certainty) but probably reduces the number of diagnostic echocardiograms performed (moderate certainty). POCUS-guided resuscitation probably reduces 28-day mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78–0.99), the duration of vasoactive medication (mean difference –0.73 d; 95% CI, –1.16 to –0.30), and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) (RR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63–1.02) (low to moderate certainty evidence), and lactate clearance (high certainty evidence). POCUS-guided resuscitation may results in little to no difference in ICU or hospital admissions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) (low to moderate certainty evidence). There is an uncertain effect on the risk of acute kidney injury and the duration of MV or RRT (very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: POCUS-guided resuscitation in shock may yield important patient and health system benefits. Due to lack of sufficient evidence, we were unable to explore how the thresholds of operator competency, frequency, and timing of POCUS scans impact patient outcomes.

ImportanceTranexamic acid reduces bleeding and blood transfusion in many types of surgery, but its effect in patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication remains unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether tranexamic acid reduces red blood cell transfusion within 7 days of liver resection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter randomized clinical trial of tranexamic acid vs placebo conducted from December 1, 2014, to November 8, 2022, at 10 hepatopancreaticobiliary sites in Canada and 1 site in the United States, with 90-day follow-up. Participants, clinicians, and data collectors were blinded to allocation. A volunteer sample of 1384 patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication met eligibility criteria and consented to randomization.InterventionsTranexamic acid (1-g bolus followed by 1-g infusion over 8 hours; n = 619) or matching placebo (n = 626) beginning at induction of anesthesia.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was receipt of red blood cell transfusion within 7 days of surgery.ResultsThe primary analysis included 1245 participants (mean age, 63.2 years; 39.8% female; 56.1% with a diagnosis of colorectal liver metastases). Perioperative characteristics were similar between groups. Red blood cell transfusion occurred in 16.3% of participants (n = 101) in the tranexamic acid group and 14.5% (n = 91) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.84-1.56]; P = .38; absolute difference, 2% [95% CI, −2% to 6%]). Measured intraoperative blood loss (tranexamic acid, 817.3 mL; placebo, 836.7 mL; P = .75) and total estimated blood loss over 7 days (tranexamic acid, 1504.0 mL; placebo, 1551.2 mL; P = .38) were similar between groups. Participants receiving tranexamic acid experienced significantly more complications compared with placebo (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.02-1.60]; P = .03), with no significant difference in venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 0.95-3.07]; P = .08).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong patients undergoing liver resection for a cancer-related indication, tranexamic acid did not reduce bleeding or blood transfusion but increased perioperative complications.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02261415

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding the treatment of interstitial lung disease (ILD) in adults with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs). Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions. A systematic literature review was then performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A panel of clinicians and patients reached consensus on the direction and strength of the recommendations. Results Thirty‐five recommendations were generated (including two strong recommendations) for first‐line SARD‐ILD treatment, treatment of SARD‐ILD progression despite first‐line ILD therapy, and treatment of rapidly progressive ILD. The strong recommendations were against using glucocorticoids in systemic sclerosis–ILD as a first‐line ILD therapy and after ILD progression. Otherwise, glucocorticoids are conditionally recommended for first‐line ILD treatment in all other SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the treatment of ILD in people with SARDs.