暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: A network meta-analysis aims to help clinicians make clinical decisions on the most effective treatment for a certain condition. Neck pain is multifactorial, with various classification systems and treatment options. Classifying patients and grouping interventions in clinically relevant treatment nodes for a NMA is essential, but this process is poorly defined.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to obtain consensus among experts on neck pain classifications and the grouping of interventions into nodes for a future network meta-analysis.
METHODS: A Delphi consensus study involving neck pain experts worldwide.
METHODS: We invited authors of neck pain clinical practice guidelines published from 2014 onwards. The Delphi baseline questionnaire was developed based on the findings of a scoping review, including four items on classifications and 19 nodes. Participants were asked to record their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale or using Yes/No/Not sure answer options for the various statements. We used descriptive analysis to summarise the responses on each statement with content analysis of the free-text comments.
RESULTS: In total, 18/80 experts (22.5%) agreed to participate in one or more Delphi rounds. We needed three rounds to reach consensus for two classification of neck pain: one based on aetiology and one on duration. In addition, we also reached consensus on the grouping of interventions, including a definition of each node, with the number of nodes reduced to 17.
CONCLUSIONS: With this consensus we clinically validated two neck pain classifications and grouped conservative treatments into 17 well-defined and clinically relevant nodes.

In recent years, several novel agents have become available to treat individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D), such as sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i), tirzepatide, which is a dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist (GIP RA)/glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), and finerenone, a non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) that confers significant renal and cardiovascular benefits in individuals with (CKD). New medications have the potential to improve the lives of individuals with diabetes. However, clinicians are challenged to understand the benefits and potential risks associated with these new and emerging treatment options. In this article, we discuss how use of network meta-analyses (NMA) can fill this need.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental disorder that can emerge after an individual experiences a traumatic event such as physical abuse, sexual/relationship violence, combat exposure, witnessing death, or serious injury. This study aimed to identify the most suitable drugs for the management of PTSD based on a network meta-analysis (NMA).
Six databases (Ovid Medline, EMBase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Ovid Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to September 6, 2022.
Thirty articles with a total of 5170 participants were included. Compared with placebo, active drugs including olanzapine (SMD = -0.66, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.13), risperidone (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.03), quetiapine (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI: -0.93 to -0.04), venlafaxine (SMD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.16), sertraline (SMD = -0.23, 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.11), paroxetine (SMD = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.60 to -0.36) and fluoxetine (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI: -0.42 to -0.12), significantly reduced the total clinician-administered PTSD scale score.
The results of this study support the use of paroxetine, venlafaxine, and quetiapine as first-line treatment for PTSD. In addition, quetiapine is recommended for patients with PTSD affected by symptoms of hyperarousal and re-experience disorder. Clinicians should prescribe medications based on the severity of PTSD symptoms and other conditions to develop the best treatment strategy for this patient population.

To appraise all available antithrombotic treatments within or after 12 months following coronary revascularization and/or acute coronary syndrome in two network meta-analyses.
Forty-three (N = 189 261 patients) trials within 12 months and 19 (N = 139 086 patients) trials beyond 12 months were included for efficacy/safety endpoints appraisal. Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.88], aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95), or aspirin, clopidogrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) were the only treatments associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, compared with aspirin and clopidogrel, without or with greater bleeding risk for the first and the other treatment options, respectively. Beyond 12 months, no strategy lowered mortality; compared with aspirin; the greatest reductions of myocardial infarction (MI) were found with aspirin and clopidogrel (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (HR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95), especially ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92), and of stroke with VKA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76) or aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76). All treatments increased bleeding except P2Y12 monotherapy, compared with aspirin.
Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg monotherapy was the only treatment associated with lower mortality, without bleeding risk trade-off compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Beyond 12 months, P2Y12 monotherapy, especially ticagrelor 90 mg, was associated with lower MI without bleeding trade-off; aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg most effectively reduced stroke, with a more acceptable bleeding risk than VKA, compared with aspirin.Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifiers: CRD42021243985 and CRD42021252398.

Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer alternative options to second-generation antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD).
To compare the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic treatments with second-generation antidepressants as first-step interventions for acute MDD, and to compare second-step treatment strategies for patients who did not achieve remission after an initial attempt with antidepressants.
English-language studies from several electronic databases from 1 January 1990 to 8 August 2022, trial registries, gray literature databases, and reference lists to identify unpublished research.
2 investigators independently selected randomized trials of at least 6 weeks\' duration.
Reviewers abstracted data about study design and conduct, participants, interventions, and outcomes. They dually rated the risk of bias of studies and the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
65 randomized trials met the inclusion criteria; eligible data from nonrandomized studies were not found. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses indicated similar benefits of most nonpharmacologic treatments and antidepressants as first-step treatments. Antidepressants had higher risks for discontinuation because of adverse events than most other treatments. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptomatic relief. The certainty of evidence for most comparisons is low; findings should be interpreted cautiously.
Many studies had methodological limitations or dosing inequalities; publication bias might have affected some comparisons. In some cases, conclusions could not be drawn because of insufficient evidence.
Although benefits seem to be similar among first- and second-step MDD treatments, the certainty of evidence is low for most comparisons. Clinicians and patients should focus on options with the most reliable evidence and take adverse event profiles and patient preferences into consideration.
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42020204703).

The concept of network meta-analyses (NMA) has been introduced to the field of physical therapy. However, the reporting standard guidelines of these studies have not been evaluated. In this systematic review, we included all published NMA physical therapy studies that compared the clinical efficacy of three or more interventions to evaluate whether NMAs in physical therapy exhibit adequate reporting recommendations. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to 30 June 2022. Among the 252 identified articles, 19 NMAs including 805 randomized controlled trials were included. We applied both preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) and PRISMA-NMA checklists, which are 27- and 32-item reporting standard guidelines assessment tools, respectively. Protocol registrations (68.4%), risk of bias across studies (63.2%), additional analysis (57.9%), and funding (31.6%) were problematic items considering the PRISMA guidelines. Four studies reported all five new NMA-reporting items, and 15 (78.9%) did not address items S1-5 from the PRISMA-NMA guidelines. The median score (interquartile range) of the reporting standard guidelines was 27.0 (25.8-28.0). The identified shortcomings of published NMAs should be addressed while training researchers, and they should be encouraged to apply PRISMA-NMA, as a recognized tool for assessing NMA reporting guidelines is required.

暂无摘要。

Choledocholithiasis presents in a considerable proportion of patients with gallbladder disease. There are several management options, including preoperative or intraoperative endoscopic cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE).
To develop evidence-informed, interdisciplinary, European recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones in the context of intact gallbladder with a clinical decision to intervene to both the gallbladder and the common bile duct stones.
We updated a systematic review and network meta-analysis of LCBDE, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative ERCP. We formed evidence summaries using the GRADE and the CINeMA methodology, and a panel of general surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative contributed to the development of a GRADE evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions.
The panel reached unanimous consensus on the first Delphi round. We suggest LCBDE over preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative ERCP, when surgical experience and expertise are available; intraoperative ERCP over LCBDE, preoperative or postoperative ERCP, when this is logistically feasible in a given healthcare setting; and preoperative ERCP over LCBDE or postoperative ERCP, when intraoperative ERCP is not feasible and there is insufficient experience or expertise with LCBDE (weak recommendation). The evidence summaries and decision aids are available on the platform MAGICapp ( https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/nJ5zyL ).
We developed a rapid guideline on the management of common bile duct stones in line with latest methodological standards. It can be used by healthcare professionals and other stakeholders to inform clinical and policy decisions.
IPGRP-2022CN170.

There are several options for the surgical management of GERD in adults. Previous guidelines and systematic reviews have compared the effects of total fundoplication versus pooled effects of different techniques of partial fundoplication.
To develop evidence-informed, trustworthy, pertinent recommendations on the use of total, posterior partial and anterior partial fundoplications for the management of GERD in adults.
We performed an update systematic review, network meta-analysis, and evidence appraisal using the GRADE and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis methodologies. An international, multidisciplinary panel of surgeons, gastroenterologists, and a patient representative reached unanimous consensus through an evidence-to-decision framework to select among multiple interventions, and a Delphi process to formulate the recommendation. The project was developed in an online authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp), and was overseen by an external auditor.
We suggest posterior partial fundoplication over total posterior or anterior 90° fundoplication in adult patients with GERD. We suggest anterior >90° fundoplication as an alternative, although relevant comparative evidence is limited (weak recommendation). The guideline, with recommendations, evidence summaries and decision aids in user friendly formats can also be accessed in MAGICapp: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/j20X4n.
This rapid guideline was developed in line with highest methodological standards and provides evidence-informed recommendations on the surgical management of GERD. It provides user-friendly decision aids to inform healthcare professionals\' and patients\' decision making.