Erwin, Patricia J.

Context Perioperative antibiotics are widely used to improve the outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery. Objective The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effect of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis on outcomes of endoscopic sinus surgery. Data Sources and Review Methods We searched electronic databases from inception through May 2011 for any relevant clinical trials or observational studies. Two reviewers working independently extracted study characteristics, quality, and the outcomes of interest. Random‐effects meta‐analysis was used to pool the relative risks (RRs) and the standardized mean differences (SMDs) across trials. Results We found 4 eligible trials with varying quality, of which 3 were included in the quantitative analysis. Antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of infections (relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09), symptoms scores (SMD, −0.04; 95% CI, −0.46 to 0.38), and endoscopic scores (SMD, −0.09; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.13). The heterogeneity associated with the analysis was significant only for the outcome of change in symptoms score (I‐squared values, 0%, 70%, and 0% for the 3 outcomes, respectively). Conclusions Trial data available to date are unable to demonstrate a statistically significant reduction in infection, symptom scores, or endoscopic scores to support the routine use of postoperative prophylactic antibiotics following endoscopic sinus surgery. Our analysis was limited by the number of published trials related to this topic.

OBJECTIVE The negative results of two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have challenged current guideline recommendations for using aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with diabetes. We therefore sought to determine if the effect of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events and mortality differs between patients with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus since their inceptions until November 2008 for RCTs of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Blinded pairs of reviewers evaluated studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian logistic regression were used to estimate the ratios of relative risks (RRs) of outcomes of interest among patients with and without diabetes. A 95% CI that crosses 1.00 indicates that the effect of aspirin does not differ between patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS Nine RCTs with moderate to high methodological quality contributed data to the analyses. The ratios of RRs comparing the benefit of aspirin among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes for mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke were 1.12 (95% CI 0.92–1.35), 1.19 (0.82–1.17), and 0.70 (0.25–1.97), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Whereas estimates of benefit among patients with diabetes remain imprecise, our analysis suggests that the relative benefit of aspirin is similar in patients with and without diabetes.

Abstract Context: The diagnosis of Cushing’s syndrome (CS) requires the use of tests of unregulated hypercortisolism that have unclear accuracy. Objective: Our objective was to summarize evidence on the accuracy of common tests for diagnosing CS. Data Sources: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and citation search for key articles) from 1975 through September 2007 and sought additional references from experts. Study Selection: Eligible studies reported on the accuracy of urinary free cortisol (UFC), dexamethasone suppression test (DST), and midnight cortisol assays vs. reference standard in patients suspected of CS. Data Extraction: Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics and quality and data to estimate the likelihood ratio (LR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for each result. Data Synthesis: We found 27 eligible studies, with a high prevalence [794 (9.2%) of 8631 patients had CS] and severity of CS. The tests had similar accuracy: UFC (n = 14 studies; LR+ 10.6, CI 5.5–20.5; LR− 0.16, CI 0.08–0.33), salivary midnight cortisol (n = 4; LR+ 8.8, CI 3.5–21.8; LR− 0.07, CI 0–1.2), and the 1-mg overnight DST (n = 14; LR+ 16.4, CI 9.3–28.8; LR− 0.06, CI 0.03–0.14). Combined testing strategies (e.g. a positive result in both UFC and 1-mg overnight DST) had similar diagnostic accuracy (n = 3; LR+ 15.4, CI 0.7–358; LR− 0.11, CI 0.007–1.57). Conclusions: Commonly used tests to diagnose CS appear highly accurate in referral practices with samples enriched with patients with CS. Their performance in usual clinical practice remains unclear.