Citations

Introduction Chronic neuropathic pain is associated with reduced health-related quality of life and substantial socioeconomic costs. Current research addressing management of chronic neuropathic pain is limited. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for chronic neuropathic pain, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials evaluating therapies for chronic neuropathic pain. We will identify eligible trials, in any language, by a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, DARE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible trials will be: (1) enrol patients presenting with chronic neuropathic pain, and (2) randomise patients to alternative interventions (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) or an intervention and a control arm. Pairs of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts of identified citations, review the full texts of potentially eligible trials and extract information from eligible trials. We will use a modified Cochrane instrument to evaluate risk of bias of eligible studies, recommendations from the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes we will collect, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate our confidence in treatment effects. When possible, we will conduct: (1) in direct comparisons, a random-effects meta-analysis to establish the effect of reported therapies on patient-important outcomes; and (2) a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework to assess the relative effects of treatments. We will define a priori hypotheses to explain heterogeneity between studies, and conduct meta-regression and subgroup analyses consistent with the current best practices. Ethics and Dissemination We do not require ethics approval for our proposed review. We will disseminate our findings through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number PROSPERO (CRD42014009212).

AbstractContext:Exogenous dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) therapy has been proposed to replenish the depletion of endogenous DHEA and its sulfate form, which occurs with advancing age and is thought to be associated with loss of libido and menopausal symptoms.Objective:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence supporting the use of systemic DHEA in postmenopausal women with normal adrenal function.Methods:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through January 2014. Pairs of reviewers, working independently, selected studies and extracted data from eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We used the random-effects model to pool across studies and evaluated heterogeneity using the I2 statistic.Results:We included 23 RCTs with moderate to high risk of bias enrolling 1188 women. DHEA use was not associated with significant improvement in libido or sexual function (standardized mean difference, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, −0.02 to 0.73; P value = .06; I2 = 62%). There was also no significant effect of DHEA on serious adverse effects, serum lipids, serum glucose, weight, body mass index, or bone mineral density. This evidence warranted low confidence in the results, mostly due to imprecision, risk of bias, and inconsistency across RCTs.Conclusions:Evidence warranting low confidence suggests that DHEA administration does not significantly impact sexual symptoms or selected metabolic markers in postmenopausal women with normal adrenal function.

SummaryBackgroundThe presence of germline mutations in sporadic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (SPPs) may change the clinical management of both index patients and their family members. However, the frequency of germline mutations in SPPs is unknown.ObjectiveTo describe the frequency of germline mutations in SPPs and to determine the value of testing index patients and their family members for these mutations.MethodsWe searched databases through June 2012 for observational studies of patients with SPPs who underwent germline genetic testing. The criteria used to define sporadic tumours were (i) the absence of a family history of PCC/PG, (ii) the absence of syndromic features, (iii) the absence of bilateral disease and (iv) the absence of metastatic disease.ResultsWe included 31 studies including 5031 patients (mean age 44). These patients received tests for any of these ten mutations: SDHAF2, RET, SDHD, SDHB, SDHC, VHL, TMEM127, MAX, Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutation (IDH) and NF1. The overall frequency of germline mutation in SPP was 551 of 5031 or 11%; when studies with patients fulfilling four criteria for sporadic tumours were used, the frequency was 171 of 1332 or 13%. The most common germline mutation was SDHB 167 of 3611 (4·6%). Little outcome data were available to assess the benefits of genetic testing in index cases and family members.ConclusionsThe frequency of germline mutations in SPPs is approximately 11–13% and the most common mutations affect less than 1 in 20 patients. The value of testing for germline mutations in patients with SPPs and their family members is unknown, as the balance of potential benefits and harms remains unclear.