BACKGROUND: Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.
METHODS: We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).
RESULTS: All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.
CONCLUSIONS: Each of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.
OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
METHODS: A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework.
RESULTS: In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS.
CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.
Apart from involving skin, psoriasis can compromise the nails and adjacent structures. Even though there are multiple therapeutic alternatives, there is great interest in biological therapy, but no consensus on its role exists. Searching in Epistemonikos database, which is maintained by screening 30 databases, we identified two systematic reviews including three randomized trials. We combined the evidence using meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table following the GRADE approach. We concluded it is not clear whether biological therapy is superior to placebo in the treatment of nail psoriasis because the certainty of the evidence is very low. ; Además de comprometer la piel, la psoriasis puede comprometer las uñas y las estructuras adyacentes. Si bien se dispone de diversas alternativas de terapia existe gran interés por la terapia biológica, aunque no existe consenso sobre su rol. Utilizando la base de datos Epistemonikos, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en 30 bases de datos, identificamos dos revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen tres estudios aleatorizados. Extrajimos los datos relevantes y realizamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. Concluimos que no está claro si la terapia biológica es superior al placebo en el tratamiento de psoriasis ungueal porque la certeza de la evidencia existente es muy baja.
OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).
METHODS: A core group led the development of the recommendations, starting with the treatment questions. A literature review group conducted systematic literature reviews of studies that addressed 57 specific treatment questions, based on searches conducted in OVID Medline (1946-2014), PubMed (1966-2014), and the Cochrane Library. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. A separate voting group reviewed the evidence and voted on recommendations for each question using the GRADE framework.
RESULTS: In patients with active AS, the strong recommendations included use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) when activity persists despite NSAID treatment, not to use systemic glucocorticoids, use of physical therapy, and use of hip arthroplasty for patients with advanced hip arthritis. Among the conditional recommendations was that no particular TNFi was preferred except in patients with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease or recurrent iritis, in whom TNFi monoclonal antibodies should be used. In patients with active nonradiographic axial SpA despite treatment with NSAIDs, we conditionally recommend treatment with TNFi. Other recommendations for patients with nonradiographic axial SpA were based on indirect evidence and were the same as for patients with AS.
CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for the management of common clinical questions in AS and nonradiographic axial SpA. Additional research on optimal medication management over time, disease monitoring, and preventive care is needed to help establish best practices in these areas.
Several commonly used medications have been associated with increased cancer risk in the literature. Here, we evaluated the strength and consistency of these claims in published meta-analyses. We carried out an umbrella review of 74 meta-analysis articles addressing the association of commonly used medications (antidiabetics, antihyperlipidemics, antihypertensives, antirheumatics, drugs for osteoporosis, and others) with cancer risk where at least one meta-analysis in the medication class included some data from randomized trials. Overall, 51 articles found no statistically significant differences, 13 found some decreased cancer risk, and 11 found some increased risk (one reported both increased and decreased risks). The 11 meta-analyses that found some increased risks reported 16 increased risk estimates, of which 5 pertained to overall cancer and 11 to site-specific cancer. Six of the 16 estimates were derived from randomized trials and 10 from observational data. Estimates of increased risk were strongly inversely correlated with the amount of evidence (number of cancer cases) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.77, P < 0.001). In 4 of the 16 topics, another meta-analysis existed that was larger (n = 2) or included better controlled data (n = 2) and in all 4 cases there was no statistically significantly increased risk of malignancy. No medication or class had substantial and consistent evidence for increased risk of malignancy. However, for most medications we cannot exclude small risks or risks in population subsets. Such risks are unlikely to be possible to document robustly unless very large, collaborative studies with standardized analyses and no selective reporting are carried out.
Targeted immune modulators, commonly referred to as biological response modifiers or simply biologics, are a relatively new category of medications used in the treatment of certain types of immunologic and inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. The US Food and Drug Administration approved the first of the biologics (infliximab) in 1998 and approved 9 additional agents since that time for treating various rheumatic conditions and plaque psoriasis: etanercept (1998), anakinra (2001), adalimumab (2002), alefacept (2003), efalizumab (2003), abatacept (2005), rituximab (2006), natalizumab (2008), and certolizumab pegol (2008). In this report, we review the comparative effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of targeted immune modulators.
Search filters are standardised sets of search terms, with validated performance, that are designed to retrieve studies with specific characteristics. A cost-utility analysis (CUA) is the preferred type of economic evaluation to underpin decision-making at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Until now, when searching for economic evidence for NICE guidelines, we have used a broad set of health economic-related search terms, even when the reviewer's interest is confined to CUAs alone.
METHODS:
We developed search filters to retrieve CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase. Our aim was to achieve recall of 90% or better across both databases while reducing the overall yield compared with our existing broad economic filter. We used the relative recall method along with topic expert input to derive and validate 3 pairs of filters, assessed by their ability to identify a gold-standard set of CUAs that had been used in published NICE guidelines. We developed and validated MEDLINE and Embase filters in pairs (testing whether, when used together, they find target studies in at least 1 database), as this is how they are used in practice. We examined the proxy-precision of our new filters by comparing their overall yield with our previous approach using publications indexed in a randomly selected year (2010).
RESULTS:
All 3 filter-pairs exceeded our target recall and led to substantial improvements in search proxy-precision. Our paired 'sensitive' filters achieved 100% recall (95% CI 99.0 to 100%) in the validation set. Our paired 'precise' filters also had very good recall (97.6% [95%CI: 95.4 to 98.9%]). We estimate that, compared with our previous search strategy, using the paired 'sensitive' filters would reduce reviewer screening burden by a factor of 5 and the 'precise' versions would do so by a factor of more than 20.
CONCLUSIONS:
Each of the 3 paired cost-utility filters enable the identification of almost all CUAs from MEDLINE and Embase from the validation set, with substantial savings in screening workload compared to our previous search practice. We would encourage other researchers who regularly use multiple databases to consider validating search filters in combination as this will better reflect how they use databases in their everyday work.
