Citations

Abstract Introduction Effective pain and anxiety management during the perioperative phase remains a challenge for patients undergoing surgeries and other invasive procedures. The current standard of care involves prescribing analgesics to treat these conditions; however, there has been recent interest in applying multimodal strategies that limit the use of these medications. One such modality is meditation, which has been shown to be effective in alleviating various physical and psychological symptoms in other settings. This systematic review aims to assess how current meditative practices affect perioperative pain and anxiety. Methods We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, APA PsycINFO, EBM Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science for all available dates. Our primary outcomes of interest were patient‐reported pain and anxiety scores using the Visual Analog Scale, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). For the HADS and STAI scales, only the anxiety and anxiety‐state subgroups were reported, respectively. Results The literature search yielded 1746 articles. A total of 286 full‐text articles were screened, and 16 studies were included in this systematic review. A total of eight studies assessed pain scores after invasive procedures; five reported improvements in pain scores, and three reported no change after meditative practices. Ten studies assessed anxiety outcomes after invasive procedures: nine reported a decrease in overall anxiety levels as a result of meditation practices while one study reported no change in anxiety scores. Conclusion Data from this limited literature suggests that different meditation practices could be effective in alleviating pain and anxiety within the perioperative phase for patients undergoing various types of invasive procedures. Future prospective studies are needed to determine whether routine meditation in the perioperative setting is effective in mitigating perioperative pain and anxiety.

Abstract Background Risk of bias (RoB) tools are critical in systematic reviews and affect subsequent decision‐making. RoB tools should have adequate interrater reliability and interconsensus agreement. We present an approach of post hoc evaluation of RoB tools using duplicated studies that overlap systematic reviews. Methods Using a back‐citation approach, we identified systematic reviews that used the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies‐of Interventions (ROBINS‐I) tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were appraised by more than one systematic review and calculated observed agreement and unweighted kappa comparing the different systematic reviews' assessments. Results We identified 903 systematic reviews that used the tool with 51,676 cited references, from which we eventually analyzed 171 duplicated studies assessed using ROBINS‐I by different systematic reviewers. The observed agreement on ROBINS‐I domains ranged from 54.9% (missing data domain) to 70.3% (deviations from intended interventions domain), and was 63.0% for overall RoB assessment of the study. Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.131 (measurement of outcome domain) to 0.396 (domains of confounding and deviations from intended interventions), and was 0.404 for overall RoB assessment of the study. Conclusion A post hoc evaluation of RoB tools is feasible by focusing on duplicated studies that overlap systematic review. ROBINS‐I assessments demonstrated considerable variation in interconsensus agreement among various systematic reviewes that assessed the same study and outcome, suggesting the need for more intensive upfront work to calibrate systematic reviewers on how to identify context‐specific information and agree on how to judge it.

Background and Aims: Transient elastography (TE), shear wave elastography, and/or magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), each providing liver stiffness measurement (LSM), are the most studied imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment (NILDA) techniques. To support the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines on NILDA, we summarized the evidence on the accuracy of these LSM methods to stage liver fibrosis (F). Approach and Results: A comprehensive search for studies assessing LSM by TE, shear wave elastography, or MRE for the identification of significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), or cirrhosis (F4), using histopathology as the standard of reference by liver disease etiology in adults or children from inception to April 2022 was performed. We excluded studies with <50 patients with a single disease entity and mixed liver disease etiologies (with the exception of HCV/HIV coinfection). Out of 9447 studies, 240 with 61,193 patients were included in this systematic review. In adults, sensitivities for the identification of F2-4 ranged from 51% to 95%, for F3-4 from 70% to 100%, and for F4 from 60% to 100% across all techniques/diseases, whereas specificities ranged from 36% to 100%, 74% to 100%, and 67% to 99%, respectively. The largest body of evidence available was for TE; MRE appeared to be the most accurate method. Imaging-based NILDA outperformed blood-based NILDA in most comparisons, particularly for the identification of F3-4/F4. In the pediatric population, imaging-based NILDA is likely as accurate as in adults. Conclusions: LSM from TE, shear wave elastography, and MRE shows acceptable to outstanding accuracy for the detection of liver fibrosis across various liver disease etiologies. Accuracy increased from F2-4 to F3-4 and was the highest for F4. Further research is needed to better standardize the use of imaging-based NILDA, particularly in pediatric liver diseases.

Background and Aims: Blood-based biomarkers have been proposed as an alternative to liver biopsy for noninvasive liver disease assessment in chronic liver disease. Our aims for this systematic review were to evaluate the diagnostic utility of selected blood-based tests either alone, or in combination, for identifying significant fibrosis (F2-4), advanced fibrosis (F3-4), and cirrhosis (F4), as compared to biopsy in chronic liver disease. Approach and Results: We included a comprehensive search of databases including Ovid MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Scopus through to April 2022. Two independent reviewers selected 286 studies with 103,162 patients. The most frequently identified studies included the simple aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index and fibrosis (FIB)-4 markers (with low-to-moderate risk of bias) in HBV and HCV, HIV-HCV/HBV coinfection, and NAFLD. Positive (LR+) and negative (LR−) likelihood ratios across direct and indirect biomarker tests for HCV and HBV for F2-4, F3-4, or F4 were 1.66–6.25 and 0.23–0.80, 1.89–5.24 and 0.12–0.64, and 1.32–7.15 and 0.15–0.86, respectively; LR+ and LR− for NAFLD F2-4, F3-4, and F4 were 2.65–3.37 and 0.37–0.39, 2.25–6.76 and 0.07–0.87, and 3.90 and 0.15, respectively. Overall, the proportional odds ratio indicated FIB-4 <1.45 was better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index <0.5 for F2-4. FIB-4 >3.25 was also better than aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index >1.5 for F3-4 and F4. There was limited data for combined tests. Conclusions: Blood-based biomarkers are associated with small-to-moderate change in pretest probability for diagnosing F2-4, F3-4, and F4 in viral hepatitis, HIV-HCV coinfection, and NAFLD, with limited comparative or combination studies for other chronic liver diseases.

Background and Aims: Portal hypertension is a serious complication of cirrhosis, which leads to life-threatening complications. HVPG, a surrogate of portal pressure, is the reference standard test to assess the severity of portal hypertension. However, since HVPG is limited by its invasiveness and availability, noninvasive liver disease assessments to assess portal pressure, especially clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), are needed. Approach and Results: We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE(R) Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from each database’s inception to April 22, 2022. We included only studies in English that examined ≥50 patients in single liver disease etiologies, which compared noninvasive tests (blood and/or imaging) to HVPG for predicting clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; defined as HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg) in patients with chronic liver disease. Outcomes included measures of diagnostic test accuracy. Additionally, a narrative review of studies not eligible for the systematic review is also provided. Nine studies with 2492 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was substantial heterogeneity with regard to liver disease studied and cutoff values used to detect CSPH. Blood-based tests, including aspartate-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) (56% sensitivity and 68% specificity) and FIB-4 (54% sensitivity and 73% specificity) had low accuracy measures. Imaging-based tests (transient elastography and shear wave elastography detection of liver stiffness measurement [LSM]) had better accuracy but also had substantial variation; at 15 kPa, TE sensitivity was 90%–96% and specificity was 48%–50%, while at 25 kPa, its sensitivity and specificity were 57%–85% and 82%–93%, respectively. The narrative review suggested that imaging-based tests are the best available noninvasive liver disease assessment to detect CSPH; CSPH is highly unlikely to be present at an LSM ≤15 kPa and likely to be present at an LSM ≥25 kPa. Conclusions: While imaging-based noninvasive liver disease assessment appeared to have higher accuracy than blood-based tests to detect CSPH, only 9 studies fit the a priori established inclusion criteria for the systematic review. In addition, there was substantial study heterogeneity and variation in cutoffs for LSM to detect CSPH, limiting the ability to establish definitive cutoffs to detect CSPH.

Abstract Background Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI). Methods A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs). Results Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI. Conclusions Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies.

AbstractContextHypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults.MethodsWe searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low.ConclusionThe evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients’ values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations.

Abstract Context Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality. Objective To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia. Methods We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. Results We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels &lt;54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups. Conclusion This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

AbstractBackgroundHistory and physical examination are key features to narrow the differential diagnosis of central versus peripheral causes in patients presenting with acute vertigo. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the diagnostic test accuracy of physical examination findings.MethodsThis study involved a patient–intervention–control–outcome (PICO) question: (P) adult ED patients with vertigo/dizziness; (I) presence/absence of specific physical examination findings; and (O) central (ischemic stroke, hemorrhage, others) versus peripheral etiology. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) was assessed.ResultsFrom 6309 titles, 460 articles were retrieved, and 43 met the inclusion criteria: general neurologic examination—five studies, 869 patients, pooled sensitivity 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32.3%–61.9%, moderate certainty) and specificity 92.8% (95% CI 75.7%–98.1%, low certainty); limb weakness/hemiparesis—four studies, 893 patients, sensitivity 11.4% (95% CI 5.1%–23.6%, high) and specificity 98.5% (95% CI 97.1%–99.2%, high); truncal/gait ataxia—10 studies, 1810 patients (increasing severity of truncal ataxia had an increasing sensitivity for central etiology, sensitivity 69.7% [43.3%–87.9%, low] and specificity 83.7% [95% CI 52.1%–96.0%, low]); dysmetria signs—four studies, 1135 patients, sensitivity 24.6% (95% CI 15.6%–36.5%, high) and specificity 97.8% (94.4%–99.2%, high); head impulse test (HIT)—17 studies, 1366 patients, sensitivity 76.8% (64.4%–85.8%, low) and specificity 89.1% (95% CI 75.8%–95.6%, moderate); spontaneous nystagmus—six studies, 621 patients, sensitivity 52.3% (29.8%–74.0%, moderate) and specificity 42.0% (95% CI 15.5%–74.1%, moderate); nystagmus type—16 studies, 1366 patients (bidirectional, vertical, direction changing, or pure torsional nystagmus are consistent with a central cause of vertigo, sensitivity 50.7% [95% CI 41.1%–60.2%, moderate] and specificity 98.5% [95% CI 91.7%–99.7%, moderate]); test of skew—15 studies, 1150 patients (skew deviation is abnormal and consistent with central etiology, sensitivity was 23.7% [95% CI 15%–35.4%, moderate] and specificity 97.6% [95% CI 96%–98.6%, moderate]); HINTS (head impulse, nystagmus, test of skew)—14 studies, 1781 patients, sensitivity 92.9% (95% CI 79.1%–97.9%, high) and specificity 83.4% (95% CI 69.6%–91.7%, moderate); and HINTS+ (HINTS with hearing component)—five studies, 342 patients, sensitivity 99.0% (95% CI 73.6%–100%, high) and specificity 84.8% (95% CI 70.1%–93.0%, high).ConclusionsMost neurologic examination findings have low sensitivity and high specificity for a central cause in patients with acute vertigo or dizziness. In acute vestibular syndrome (monophasic, continuous, persistent dizziness), HINTS and HINTS+ have high sensitivity when performed by trained clinicians.