Dataset Information

A Protocol for the Use of Case Reports/Studies and Case Series in Systematic Reviews for Clinical Toxicology.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: Systematic reviews are routinely used to synthesize current science and evaluate the evidential strength and quality of resulting recommendations. For specific events, such as rare acute poisonings or preliminary reports of new drugs, we posit that case reports/studies and case series (human subjects research with no control group) may provide important evidence for systematic reviews. Our aim, therefore, is to present a protocol that uses rigorous selection criteria, to distinguish high quality case reports/studies and case series for inclusion in systematic reviews. Methods: This protocol will adapt the existing Navigation Guide methodology for specific inclusion of case studies. The usual procedure for systematic reviews will be followed. Case reports/studies and case series will be specified in the search strategy and included in separate sections. Data from these sources will be extracted and where possible, quantitatively synthesized. Criteria for integrating cases reports/studies and case series into the overall body of evidence are that these studies will need to be well-documented, scientifically rigorous, and follow ethical practices. The instructions and standards for evaluating risk of bias will be based on the Navigation Guide. The risk of bias, quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations will be assessed by two independent review teams that are blinded to each other. Conclusion: This is a protocol specified for systematic reviews that use case reports/studies and case series to evaluate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in disciplines like clinical toxicology, where case reports/studies are the norm.

SUBMITTER: Nambiema A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8450367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is a rare clinical and radiological entity characterized by a typical brain edema. Although several case reports have described PRES in a context of poisoning, to our knowledge, a comprehensive assessment has not been performed. The aim of this systematic review was to raise awareness on poisoning-specific PRES features and to encourage consistent and detailed reporting of substance abuse-and drug overdose-associated PRES. Methods: Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were screened through May 31, 2019, to systematically identify case reports and case series describing PRES associated with poisoning (i.e., alcohol, drugs, illicit drugs, natural toxins, chemical substances) in accidental context, intentional overdose, and substance abuse. The methodological quality of eligible case reports/series was assessed. Patients and exposure characteristics were recorded; relevant toxicological, radiological, and clinical data were extracted. Results: Forty-one case reports and one case series reporting 42 unique cases were included. The median time to PRES onset from the start of exposure was 3 days (IQR 2-10). Acute high blood pressure, visual disturbance, and seizure were reported in 70, 55, and 50% of patients, respectively. The initial clinical presentation was alertness disorders in 64% of patients. Nine patients (21%) required mechanical ventilation. One-third of patients had at least one risk factor for PRES such as chronic hypertension (17%) or acute/chronic kidney failure (24%). The main imaging pattern (67%) was the combination of classical parieto-occipital edema with another anatomical region (e.g., frontal, basal ganglia, posterior fossa involvement). Vasogenic edema was found in 86% of patients. Intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 14% of patients. Both brain infarction and reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome were diagnosed in 5% of patients. Three patients (12%, 3/25) had non-reversible lesions on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. The median time required to hospital discharge was 14 days (IQR 7-18). Mortality and neurological recurrence rate were null. Conclusions: Comorbidities such as chronic hypertension and kidney failure were less frequent than in patients with other PRES etiologies. Imaging analysis did not highlight a specific pattern for poisoning-induced PRES. Although less described, PRES in the context of poisoning, which shares most of the clinical and radiological characteristics of other etiologies, is not to be ignored.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Sometimes, observational studies may provide important evidence that allow inferences of causality between exposure and outcome (although on most occasions only low certainty evidence). Authors, frequently and perhaps usually at the behest of the journals to which they are submitting, avoid using causal language when addressing evidence from observational studies. This is true even when the issue of interest is the causal effect of an intervention or exposure. Clarity of thinking and appropriateness of inferences may be enhanced through the use of language that reflects the issue under consideration. The objectives of this study are to systematically evaluate the extent and nature of causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies and to relate that to the actual intent of the investigation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a systematic survey of systematic reviews of observational studies addressing modifiable exposures and their possible impact on patient-important outcomes. We will randomly select 200 reviews published in 2019, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by use and non-use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Teams of two reviewers will independently assess study eligibility and extract data using a standardised data extraction forms, with resolution of disagreement by discussion and, if necessary, by third party adjudication. Through examining the inferences, they make in their papers' discussion, we will evaluate whether the authors' intent was to address causation or association. We will summarise the use of causal language in the study title, abstract, study question and results using descriptive statistics. Finally, we will assess whether the language used is consistent with the intention of the authors. We will determine whether results in reviews that did or did not use GRADE differ. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval for this study is not required. We will disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journals. REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (osf.io/vh8yx).

Project description:BackgroundClinical study reports (CSRs) are produced for marketing authorisation applications. They often contain considerably more information about, and data from, clinical trials than corresponding journal publications. Use of data from CSRs might help circumvent reporting bias, but many researchers appear to be unaware of their existence or potential value. Our survey aimed to gain insight into the level of familiarity, understanding and use of CSRs, and to raise awareness of their potential within the systematic review community. We also aimed to explore the potential barriers faced when obtaining and using CSRs in systematic reviews.MethodsOnline survey of systematic reviewers who (i) had requested or used CSRs, (ii) had considered but not used CSRs and (iii) had not considered using CSRs was conducted. Cochrane reviewers were contacted twice via the Cochrane monthly digest. Non-Cochrane reviewers were reached via journal and other website postings.ResultsOne hundred sixty respondents answered an open invitation and completed the questionnaire; 20/160 (13%) had previously requested or used CSRs and other regulatory documents, 7/160 (4%) had considered but not used CSRs and 133/160 (83%) had never considered this data source. Survey respondents mainly sought data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and/or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Motivation for using CSRs stemmed mainly from concerns about reporting bias 11/20 (55%), specifically outcome reporting bias 11/20 (55%) and publication bias 5/20 (25%). The barriers to using CSRs noted by all types of respondents included current limited access to these documents (43 respondents), the time and resources needed to obtain and include these data in evidence syntheses (n?=?25) and lack of guidance about how to use these sources in systematic reviews (n?=?26).ConclusionsMost respondents (irrespective of whether they had previously used them) agreed that access to CSRs is important, and suggest that further guidance on how to use and include these data would help to promote their use in future systematic reviews. Most respondents who received CSRs considered them to be valuable in their systematic review and/or meta-analysis.

Dataset Information

A Protocol for the Use of Case Reports/Studies and Case Series in Systematic Reviews for Clinical Toxicology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets