Dataset Information

A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on Anticoagulant Therapy in Sepsis.

ABSTRACT: Many systematic reviews have been published regarding anticoagulant therapy in sepsis, among which there is substantial heterogeneity. This study aimed to provide an overview of existing systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials by using a comprehensive search method. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Of 895 records screened, 19 systematic reviews were included. The target agent was as follows: antithrombin (n = 4), recombinant thrombomodulin (n = 3), heparin (n = 3), recombinant activated protein C (n = 8), and all anticoagulants (n = 1). Antithrombin did not improve mortality in critically ill patients but indicated a beneficial effect in sepsis-induced disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), although the certainty of evidence was judged as low. Recombinant thrombomodulin was associated with a trend in reduced mortality in sepsis with coagulopathy with no increased risk of bleeding, although the difference was not statistically significant and the required information size for any declarative judgement insufficient. Although three systematic reviews showed potential survival benefits of unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin in patients with sepsis, trials with low risk of bias were lacking, and the overall impact remains unclear. None of the meta-analyses of recombinant activated protein C showed beneficial effects in sepsis. In summary, a beneficial effect was not observed in overall sepsis in poorly characterized patient groups but was observed in sepsis-induced DIC or sepsis with coagulopathy in more specific patient groups. This umbrella review of anticoagulant therapy suggests that characteristics of the target populations resulted in heterogeneity among the systematic reviews.

SUBMITTER: Murao S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6912821 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on Anticoagulant Therapy in Sepsis.

Murao Shuhei S Yamakawa Kazuma K

Journal of clinical medicine 20191104 11

Many systematic reviews have been published regarding anticoagulant therapy in sepsis, among which there is substantial heterogeneity. This study aimed to provide an overview of existing systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials by using a comprehensive search method. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Of 895 records screened, 19 systematic reviews were included. The target agent was as follows: antithrombin (<i>n</i> = 4), recombinant thrombomodul ...[more]

PMID: 31689983

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA large volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has been published on the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs.PurposeTo provide a qualitative summary of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have examined the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs on reducing musculoskeletal injuries.Study designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that evaluated the effectiveness of sports injury prevention programs. We excluded published abstracts, narrative reviews, articles not published in English, commentaries, studies that described sports injury prevention strategies but did not assess their effectiveness, studies that did not assess musculoskeletal injuries, and studies that did not assess sports-related injuries. The most relevant results were extracted and summarized. Levels of evidence were determined per the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, revised version).ResultsA total of 507 articles were retrieved, and 129 were included. Articles pertaining to all injuries were divided into 9 topics: sports and exercise in general (n = 20), soccer (n = 13), ice hockey (n = 1), dance (n = 1), volleyball (n = 1), basketball (n = 1), tackle collision sports (n = 1), climbing (n = 1), and youth athletes (n = 4). Articles on injuries by anatomic site were divided into 11 topics: general knee (n = 8), anterior cruciate ligament (n = 34), ankle (n = 14), hamstring (n = 11), lower extremity (n = 10), foot (n = 6), groin (n = 2), shoulder (n = 1), wrist (n = 2), and elbow (n = 1). Of the 129 studies, 45.7% were ranked as evidence level 1, and 55.0% were evidence level 2. Based on the AMSTAR-2, 58.9% of the reviews reported a priori review methods, 96.1% performed a comprehensive literature search, 47.3% thoroughly described excluded articles, 79.1% assessed risk of bias for individual studies, 48.8% reported a valid method for statistical combination of data (ie, meta-analysis), 45.0% examined the effect of risk of bias on pooled study results, and 19.4% examined the risk for publication bias.ConclusionThis comprehensive review provides sports medicine providers with a single source of the most up-to-date publications in the literature on sports injury prevention.

Project description:ImportancePatient care should be informed by clinical practice guidelines, which in turn should be informed by evidence from reliable systematic reviews. The American Academy of Ophthalmology is updating its Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for the management of the following 6 corneal diseases: bacterial keratitis, blepharitis, conjunctivitis, corneal ectasia, corneal edema and opacification, and dry eye syndrome.ObjectiveTo summarize the reliability of the existing systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases.Data sourceThe Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database.Study selectionIn this study of published systematic reviews from 1997 to 2017 (median, 2014), the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US Satellite database was searched for systematic reviews evaluating interventions for the management of any corneal disease, combining eyes and vision keywords and controlled vocabulary terms with a validated search filter.Data extraction and synthesisThe study classified systematic reviews as reliable when each of the following 5 criteria were met: the systematic review specified eligibility criteria for inclusion of studies, conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies, assessed risk of bias of the individual included studies, used appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (only assessed if meta-analysis was performed), and had conclusions that were supported by the results of the systematic review. They were classified as unreliable if at least 1 criterion was not met.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of systematic reviews that were reliable and the reasons for unreliability.ResultsThis study identified 98 systematic reviews that addressed interventions for 15 corneal diseases. Thirty-three of 98 systematic reviews (34%) were classified as unreliable. The most frequent reasons for unreliability were that the systematic review did not conduct a comprehensive literature search for studies (22 of 33 [67%]), did not assess risk of bias of the individual included studies (13 of 33 [39%]), and did not use appropriate methods for quantitative syntheses (meta-analysis) (12 of 17 systematic reviews that conducted a quantitative synthesis [71%]). Sixty-five of 98 systematic reviews (66%) were classified as reliable. Forty-two of the 65 reliable systematic reviews (65%) addressed corneal diseases relevant to the 2018 American Academy of Ophthalmology PPPs; 33 of these 42 systematic reviews (79%) are cited in the 2018 PPPs.Conclusions and relevanceOne in 3 systematic reviews addressing interventions for corneal diseases are unreliable and thus were not used to inform PPP recommendations. Careful adherence by systematic reviewers and journal editors to well-established best practices regarding systematic review conduct and reporting might help make future systematic reviews in eyes and vision more reliable.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough subjective expressions and linguistic fluency have been shown as important factors in processing and interpreting textual facts, analyses of these traits in textual health information for different audiences are lacking. We analyzed the readability and linguistic psychological and emotional characteristics of different textual summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews.MethodsWe performed a multitrait-multimethod cross-sectional study of Press releases available at Cochrane web site (n = 162) and corresponding Scientific abstracts (n = 158), Cochrane Clinical Answers (n = 35) and Plain language summaries in English (n = 156), French (n = 101), German (n = 41) and Croatian (n = 156). We used SMOG index to assess text readability of all text formats, and natural language processing tools (IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Stanford NLP Sentiment Analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) to examine the affective states and subjective information in texts of Scientific abstracts, Plain language summaries and Press releases.ResultsAll text formats had low readability, with SMOG index ranging from a median of 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3-15.9) for Scientific abstracts to 14.7 (95% CI 14.4-15.0) for Plain language summaries. In all text formats, "Sadness" was the most dominantly perceived emotional tone and the style of writing was perceived as "Analytical" and "Tentative". At the psychological level, all text formats exhibited the predominant "Openness" tone, and Press releases scored higher on the scales of "Conscientiousness", "Agreeableness" and "Emotional range". Press releases had significantly higher scores than Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries on the dimensions of "Clout", and "Emotional tone".ConclusionsAlthough the readability of Plain language summaries was higher than that of text formats targeting more expert audiences, the required literacy was much higher than the recommended US 6th grade level. The language of Press releases was generally more engaging than that of Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries, which are written by the authors of systematic reviews. Preparation of textual summaries about health evidence for different audiences should take into account readers' subjective experiences to encourage cognitive processing and reaction to the provided information.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on Anticoagulant Therapy in Sepsis.

Publications

A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on Anticoagulant Therapy in Sepsis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets