Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre

Guidelines are inconsistent in how they rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations. This article explores the advantages of the GRADE system, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide

The most recent European guidelines and task force reports on hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) were published almost 10 years ago. Since then, further randomised clinical trials of HAP and VAP have been conducted and new information has become available. Studies of epidemiology, diagnosis, empiric treatment, response to treatment, new antibiotics or new forms of antibiotic administration and disease prevention have changed old paradigms. In addition, important differences between approaches in Europe and the USA have become apparent.The European Respiratory Society launched a project to develop new international guidelines for HAP and VAP. Other European societies, including the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, were invited to participate and appointed their representatives. The Latin American Thoracic Association was also invited.A total of 15 experts and two methodologists made up the panel. Three experts from the USA were also invited (Michael S. Niederman, Marin Kollef and Richard Wunderink).Applying the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology, the panel selected seven PICO (population-intervention-comparison-outcome) questions that generated a series of recommendations for HAP/VAP diagnosis, treatment and prevention.

Bronchiectasis in adults is a chronic disorder associated with poor quality of life and frequent exacerbations in many patients. There have been no previous international guidelines.The European Respiratory Society guidelines for the management of adult bronchiectasis describe the appropriate investigation and treatment strategies determined by a systematic review of the literature.A multidisciplinary group representing respiratory medicine, microbiology, physiotherapy, thoracic surgery, primary care, methodology and patients considered the most relevant clinical questions (for both clinicians and patients) related to management of bronchiectasis. Nine key clinical questions were generated and a systematic review was conducted to identify published systematic reviews, randomised clinical trials and observational studies that answered these questions. We used the GRADE approach to define the quality of the evidence and the level of recommendations. The resulting guideline addresses the investigation of underlying causes of bronchiectasis, treatment of exacerbations, pathogen eradication, long term antibiotic treatment, anti-inflammatories, mucoactive drugs, bronchodilators, surgical treatment and respiratory physiotherapy.These recommendations can be used to benchmark quality of care for people with bronchiectasis across Europe and to improve outcomes.

#### Summary points Healthcare decision making is complex. Decision-making processes and the factors (criteria) that decision makers should consider vary for different types of decisions, including clinical recommendations, coverage decisions, and health system or public health recommendations or decisions.1 2 3 4 However, some criteria are relevant for all of these decisions, including the anticipated effects of the options being considered, the certainty of the evidence for those effects (also referred to as quality of evidence or confidence in effect estimates), and the costs and feasibility of the options. Decision makers must make judgments about each relevant factor, informed by the best evidence that is available to them. Often, the processes that decision makers use, the criteria that they consider and the evidence that they …

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty). CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the relationship between perioperative high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) measurements and 30-day mortality and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS). OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between perioperative hsTnT measurements and 30-day mortality and potential diagnostic criteria for MINS (ie, myocardial injury due to ischemia associated with 30-day mortality). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective cohort study of patients aged 45 years or older who underwent inpatient noncardiac surgery and had a postoperative hsTnT measurement. Starting in October 2008, participants were recruited at 23 centers in 13 countries; follow-up finished in December 2013. EXPOSURES: Patients had hsTnT measurements 6 to 12 hours after surgery and daily for 3 days; 40.4% had a preoperative hsTnT measurement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A modified Mazumdar approach (an iterative process) was used to determine if there were hsTnT thresholds associated with risk of death and had an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 3.0 or higher and a risk of 30-day mortality of 3% or higher. To determine potential diagnostic criteria for MINS, regression analyses ascertained if postoperative hsTnT elevations required an ischemic feature (eg, ischemic symptom or electrocardiography finding) to be associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 21 842 participants, the mean age was 63.1 (SD, 10.7) years and 49.1% were female. Death within 30 days after surgery occurred in 266 patients (1.2%; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that compared with the reference group (peak hsTnT <5 ng/L), peak postoperative hsTnT levels of 20 to less than 65 ng/L, 65 to less than 1000 ng/L, and 1000 ng/L or higher had 30-day mortality rates of 3.0% (123/4049; 95% CI, 2.6%-3.6%), 9.1% (102/1118; 95% CI, 7.6%-11.0%), and 29.6% (16/54; 95% CI, 19.1%-42.8%), with corresponding adjusted HRs of 23.63 (95% CI, 10.32-54.09), 70.34 (95% CI, 30.60-161.71), and 227.01 (95% CI, 87.35-589.92), respectively. An absolute hsTnT change of 5 ng/L or higher was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted HR, 4.69; 95% CI, 3.52-6.25). An elevated postoperative hsTnT (ie, 20 to <65 ng/L with an absolute change ≥5 ng/L or hsTnT ≥65 ng/L) without an ischemic feature was associated with 30-day mortality (adjusted HR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.37-4.32). Among the 3904 patients (17.9%; 95% CI, 17.4%-18.4%) with MINS, 3633 (93.1%; 95% CI, 92.2%-93.8%) did not experience an ischemic symptom. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, peak postoperative hsTnT during the first 3 days after surgery was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Elevated postoperative hsTnT without an ischemic feature was also associated with 30-day mortality.

The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach provides guidance to grading the quality of underlying evidence and the strength of recommendations in health care. The GRADE system's conceptual underpinnings allow for a detailed stepwise process that defines what role the quality of the available evidence plays in the development of health care recommendations. The merit of GRADE is not that it eliminates judgments or disagreements about evidence and recommendations, but rather that it makes them transparent. This first article in a three-part series describes the GRADE framework in relation to grading the quality of evidence about interventions based on examples from the field of allergy and asthma. In the GRADE system, the quality of evidence reflects the extent to which a guideline panel's confidence in an estimate of the effect is adequate to support a particular recommendation. The system classifies quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low according to factors that include the study methodology, consistency and precision of the results, and directness of the evidence.

These guidelines incorporate the recent advances in chronic cough pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment. The concept of cough hypersensitivity has allowed an umbrella term that explains the exquisite sensitivity of patients to external stimuli such a cold air, perfumes, smoke and bleach. Thus, adults with chronic cough now have a firm physical explanation for their symptoms based on vagal afferent hypersensitivity. Different treatable traits exist with cough variant asthma (CVA)/eosinophilic bronchitis responding to anti-inflammatory treatment and non-acid reflux being treated with promotility agents rather the anti-acid drugs. An alternative antitussive strategy is to reduce hypersensitivity by neuromodulation. Low-dose morphine is highly effective in a subset of patients with cough resistant to other treatments. Gabapentin and pregabalin are also advocated, but in clinical experience they are limited by adverse events. Perhaps the most promising future developments in pharmacotherapy are drugs which tackle neuronal hypersensitivity by blocking excitability of afferent nerves by inhibiting targets such as the ATP receptor (P2X3). Finally, cough suppression therapy when performed by competent practitioners can be highly effective. Children are not small adults and a pursuit of an underlying cause for cough is advocated. Thus, in toddlers, inhalation of a foreign body is common. Persistent bacterial bronchitis is a common and previously unrecognised cause of wet cough in children. Antibiotics (drug, dose and duration need to be determined) can be curative. A paediatric-specific algorithm should be used.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication among patients with cancer. Patients with cancer and VTE are at a markedly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about the prevention and treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The guideline development process was supported by updated or new systematic evidence reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. RESULTS: Recommendations address mechanical and pharmacological prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, those undergoing a surgical procedure, and ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. The recommendations also address the use of anticoagulation for the initial, short-term, and long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Strong recommendations include not using thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients receiving cancer chemotherapy at low risk of VTE and to use low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for initial treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. Conditional recommendations include using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients with cancer, LMWH or fondaparinux for surgical patients with cancer, LMWH or direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving systemic therapy at high risk of VTE and LMWH or DOAC for initial treatment of VTE, DOAC for the short-term treatment of VTE, and LMWH or DOAC for the long-term treatment of VTE in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the MMSE at various thresholds for detecting individuals with baseline MCI who would clinically convert to dementia in general, Alzheimer's disease dementia or other forms of dementia at follow-up. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow-up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer's dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand-alone single-administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to dementia.

When formulating the relevant questions, panels should specify the patients, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO), 9 their perspective, subgroups for which the evidence and their judgments and recommendation might differ from an overall recommendation, and the settings for which the recommendation is intended.

The diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia is often confirmed with standard, albeit complex and expensive, tests. In many cases, however, the diagnosis remains difficult despite the array of sophisticated diagnostic tests. There is no "gold standard" reference test. Hence, a Task Force supported by the European Respiratory Society has developed this guideline to provide evidence-based recommendations on diagnostic testing, especially in light of new developments in such tests, and the need for robust diagnoses of patients who might enter randomised controlled trials of treatments. The guideline is based on pre-defined questions relevant for clinical care, a systematic review of the literature, and assessment of the evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. It focuses on clinical presentation, nasal nitric oxide, analysis of ciliary beat frequency and pattern by high-speed video-microscopy analysis, transmission electron microscopy, genotyping and immunofluorescence. It then used a modified Delphi survey to develop an algorithm for the use of diagnostic tests to definitively confirm and exclude the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia; and to provide advice when the diagnosis was not conclusive. Finally, this guideline proposes a set of quality criteria for future research on the validity of diagnostic methods for primary ciliary dyskinesia.

This document provides clinical recommendations for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations.Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of COPD experts.After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made: 1) a strong recommendation for noninvasive mechanical ventilation of patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory failure; 2) conditional recommendations for oral corticosteroids in outpatients, oral rather than intravenous corticosteroids in hospitalised patients, antibiotic therapy, home-based management, and the initiation of pulmonary rehabilitation within 3 weeks after hospital discharge; and 3) a conditional recommendation against the initiation of pulmonary rehabilitation during hospitalisation.The Task Force provided recommendations related to corticosteroid therapy, antibiotic therapy, noninvasive mechanical ventilation, home-based management, and early pulmonary rehabilitation in patients having a COPD exacerbation. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

This document provides clinical recommendations for the management of severe asthma. Comprehensive evidence syntheses, including meta-analyses, were performed to summarise all available evidence relevant to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society Task Force's questions. The evidence was appraised using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and the results were summarised in evidence profiles. The evidence syntheses were discussed and recommendations formulated by a multidisciplinary Task Force of asthma experts, who made specific recommendations on six specific questions. After considering the balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, quality of evidence, feasibility, and acceptability of various interventions, the Task Force made the following recommendations: 1) suggest using anti-interleukin (IL)-5 and anti-IL-5 receptor α for severe uncontrolled adult eosinophilic asthma phenotypes; 2) suggest using a blood eosinophil cut-point ≥150 μL −1 to guide anti-IL-5 initiation in adult patients with severe asthma; 3) suggest considering specific eosinophil (≥260 μL −1 ) and exhaled nitric oxide fraction (≥19.5 ppb) cut-offs to identify adolescents or adults with the greatest likelihood of response to anti-IgE therapy; 4) suggest using inhaled tiotropium for adolescents and adults with severe uncontrolled asthma despite Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4–5 or National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP) step 5 therapies; 5) suggest a trial of chronic macrolide therapy to reduce asthma exacerbations in persistently symptomatic or uncontrolled patients on GINA step 5 or NAEPP step 5 therapies, irrespective of asthma phenotype; and 6) suggest using anti-IL-4/13 for adult patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and for those with severe corticosteroid-dependent asthma regardless of blood eosinophil levels. These recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from systematic reviews of observational studies suggests that hormone therapy may have beneficial effects in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease events in post-menopausal women, however the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have had mixed results. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of hormone therapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, and whether there are differential effects between use in primary or secondary prevention. Secondary aims were to undertake exploratory analyses to (i) assess the impact of time since menopause that treatment was commenced (≥ 10 years versus < 10 years), and where these data were not available, use age of trial participants at baseline as a proxy (≥ 60 years of age versus < 60 years of age); and (ii) assess the effects of length of time on treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 25 February 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS. We also searched research and trials registers, and conducted reference checking of relevant studies and related systematic reviews to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs of women comparing orally administered hormone therapy with placebo or a no treatment control, with a minimum of six months follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome. We combined results using random effects meta-analyses, and undertook further analyses to assess the effects of treatment as primary or secondary prevention, and whether treatment was commenced more than or less than 10 years after menopause. MAIN RESULTS: We identified six new trials through this update. Therefore the review includes 19 trials with a total of 40,410 post-menopausal women. On the whole, study quality was good and generally at low risk of bias; the findings are dominated by the three largest trials. We found high quality evidence that hormone therapy in both primary and secondary prevention conferred no protective effects for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, angina, or revascularisation. However, there was an increased risk of stroke in those in the hormone therapy arm for combined primary and secondary prevention (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41). Venous thromboembolic events were increased (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.69), as were pulmonary emboli (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.48) on hormone therapy relative to placebo.The absolute risk increase for stroke was 6 per 1000 women (number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 165; mean length of follow-up: 4.21 years (range: 2.0 to 7.1)); for venous thromboembolism 8 per 1000 women (NNTH = 118; mean length of follow-up: 5.95 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)); and for pulmonary embolism 4 per 1000 (NNTH = 242; mean length of follow-up: 3.13 years (range: 1.0 to 7.1)).We performed subgroup analyses according to when treatment was started in relation to the menopause. Those who started hormone therapy less than 10 years after the menopause had lower mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95, moderate quality evidence) and coronary heart disease (composite of death from cardiovascular causes and non-fatal myocardial infarction) (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; moderate quality evidence), though they were still at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.73, high quality evidence) compared to placebo or no treatment. There was no strong evidence of effect on risk of stroke in this group. In those who started treatment more than 10 years after the menopause there was high quality evidence that it had little effect on death or coronary heart disease between groups but there was an increased risk of stroke (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.38, high quality evidence) and venous thromboembolism (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.80, high quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review findings provide strong evidence that treatment with hormone therapy in post-menopausal women overall, for either primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease events has little if any benefit and causes an increase in the risk of stroke and venous thromboembolic events.

BACKGROUND: The major reasons to treat sarcoidosis are to lower the morbidity and mortality risk or to improve quality of life (QoL). The indication for treatment varies depending on which manifestation is the cause of symptoms: lungs, heart, brain, skin or other manifestations. While glucocorticoids remain the first choice for initial treatment of symptomatic disease, prolonged use is associated with significant toxicity. Glucocorticoid-sparing alternatives are available. The presented treatment guidelines aim to provide guidance to physicians treating the very heterogenous sarcoidosis manifestations. METHODS: A European Respiratory Society Task Force committee composed of clinicians, methodologists and patients with experience in sarcoidosis developed recommendations based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) methodology. The committee developed eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions and these were used to make specific evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: The Task Force committee delivered 12 recommendations for seven PICOs. These included treatment of pulmonary, cutaneous, cardiac and neurologic disease as well as fatigue. One PICO question regarding small-fibre neuropathy had insufficient evidence to support a recommendation. In addition to the recommendations, the committee provided information on how they use alternative treatments, when there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: There are many treatments available to treat sarcoidosis. Given the diverse nature of the disease, treatment decisions require an assessment of organ involvement, risk for significant morbidity, and impact on QoL of the disease and treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize short term outcomes in randomized controlled trials comparing glibenclamide or metformin versus insulin or versus each other in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomized controlled trials that fulfilled all the following: (1) published as full text; (2) addressed women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment; (3) compared glibenclamide v insulin, metformin v insulin, or metformin v glibenclamide; and (4) provided information on maternal or fetal outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched up to 20 May 2014. OUTCOMES MEASURES: We considered 14 primary outcomes (6 maternal, 8 fetal) and 16 secondary (5 maternal, 11 fetal) outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 15 articles, including 2509 subjects. Significant differences for primary outcomes in glibenclamide v insulin were obtained in birth weight (mean difference 109 g (95% confidence interval 35.9 to 181)), macrosomia (risk ratio 2.62 (1.35 to 5.08)), and neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 2.04 (1.30 to 3.20)). In metformin v insulin, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference -1.14 kg (-2.22 to -0.06)), gestational age at delivery (mean difference -0.16 weeks (-0.30 to -0.02)), and preterm birth (risk ratio 1.50 (1.04 to 2.16)), with a trend for neonatal hypoglycaemia (risk ratio 0.78 (0.60 to 1.01)). In metformin v glibenclamide, significance was reached for maternal weight gain (mean difference -2.06 kg (-3.98 to -0.14)), birth weight (mean difference -209 g (-314 to -104)), macrosomia (risk ratio 0.33 (0.13 to 0.81)), and large for gestational age newborn (risk ratio 0.44 (0.21 to 0.92)). Four secondary outcomes were better for metformin in metformin v insulin, and one was worse for metformin in metformin v glibenclamide. Treatment failure was higher with metformin than with glibenclamide. CONCLUSIONS: At short term, in women with gestational diabetes requiring drug treatment, glibenclamide is clearly inferior to both insulin and metformin, while metformin (plus insulin when required) performs slightly better than insulin. According to these results, glibenclamide should not be used for the treatment of women with gestational diabetes if insulin or metformin is available.Systematic review registration NCT01998113.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of manuals on how to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) there remain concerns about their quality. The aim of this study was to review the quality of CPGs across a wide range of healthcare topics published since 1980. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search in MEDLINE to identify publications assessing the quality of CPGs with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. For the included guidelines in each study, the authors gathered data about the year of publication, institution, country, healthcare topic, AGREE score per domain and overall assessment. RESULTS: In total, 42 reviews were selected, including a total of 626 guidelines, published between 1980 and 2007, with a median of 25 CPGs. The mean scores were acceptable for the domain 'Scope and purpose' (64%; 95% CI 61.9 to 66.4) and 'Clarity and presentation' (60%; 95% CI 57.9 to 61.9), moderate for domain 'Rigour of development' (43%; 95% CI 41.0 to 45.2), and low for the other domains ('Stakeholder involvement' 35%; 95% CI 33.9 to 37.5, 'Editorial independence' 30%; 95% CI 27.9 to 32.3, and 'Applicability' 22%; 95% CI 20.4 to 23.9). From those guidelines that included an overall assessment, 62% (168/270) were recommended or recommended with provisos. There was a significant improvement over time for all domains, except for 'Editorial independence.' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that despite some increase in quality of CPGs over time, the quality scores as measured with the AGREE Instrument have remained moderate to low over the last two decades. This finding urges guideline developers to continue improving the quality of their products. International collaboration could help increasing the efficiency of the process.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of the original review published in Issue 4, 2004. The use of concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) might be seen as a way of increasing the effectiveness of radical radiotherapy at the same time as reducing the risks of metastatic disease. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of concurrent chemoradiotherapy as compared to radiotherapy alone with regard to overall survival, tumour control and treatment-related morbidity. To determine the effectiveness of concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update we ran a new search in October 2009, using a search strategy adapted from the design in the original review. We searched: CENTRAL (accessed through The Cochrane Library, 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (accessed through PubMed), and EMBASE (accessed through Ovid). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of patients with stage I-III NSCLC undergoing radical radiotherapy and randomised to receive concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone, or concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias was performed independently by two authors. Pooled hazard ratios and relative risks were calculated according to a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen randomised studies (2728 participants) of concurrent chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone were included. Chemoradiotherapy significantly reduced overall risk of death (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.80; I(2) 0%; 1607 participants) and overall progression-free survival at any site (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; I(2) 45%; 1145 participants). Incidence of acute oesophagitis, neutropenia and anaemia were significantly increased with concurrent chemoradiation. Six trials (1024 patients) of concurrent versus sequential chemoradiation were included. A significant benefit of concurrent treatment was shown in overall survival (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; I(2) 0%; 702 participants). This represented a 10% absolute survival benefit at 2 years. More treatment-related deaths (4% vs 2%) were reported in the concurrent arm without statistical significance (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 4.52; I(2) 0%; 950 participants). There was increased severe oesophagitis with concurrent treatment (RR 4.96, 95%CI 2.17 to 11.37; I(2) 66%; 947 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update of the review published in 2004 incorporates additional trials and more mature data. It demonstrates the benefit of concurrent chemoradiation over radiotherapy alone or sequential chemoradiotherapy. Patient selection is an important consideration in view of the added toxicity of concurrent treatment. Uncertainty remains as to how far this is purely due to a radiosensitising effect and whether similar benefits could be achieved by using modern radiotherapy techniques and more dose intensive accelerated and/ or hyperfractionated radiotherapy regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which components of composite end points in randomised controlled trials vary in importance to patients, the frequency of events in the more and less important components, and the extent of variability in the relative risk reductions across components. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Cardiovascular randomised controlled trials published in the Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, Circulation, European Heart Journal, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2003. Component end points of composite end points were categorised according to importance to patients as fatal, critical, major, moderate, or minor. RESULTS: Of 114 identified randomised controlled trials that included a composite end point of importance to patients, 68% (n=77) reported complete component data for the primary composite end point; almost all (98%; n=112) primary composite end points included a fatal end point. Of 84 composite end points for which component data were available, 54% (n=45) showed large or moderate gradients in both importance to patients and magnitude of effect across components. When analysed by categories of importance to patients, the most important components were associated with lower event rates in the control group (medians of 3.3-3.7% for fatal, critical, and major outcomes; 12.3% for moderate outcomes; and 8.0% for minor outcomes). Components of greater importance to patients were associated with smaller treatment effects than less important ones (relative risk reduction of 8% for death and 33% for components of minor importance to patients). CONCLUSION: The use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials is frequently complicated by large gradients in importance to patients and in magnitude of the effect of treatment across component end points. Higher event rates and larger treatment effects associated with less important components may result in misleading impressions of the impact of treatment.