How to Analyze Systematic Reviews: practical session Akbar Soltani.MD. Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Shariati Hospital www.soltaniebm.com.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
What is a review? An article which looks at a question or subject and seeks to summarise and bring together evidence on a health topic.
Advertisements

Occupational Therapy for patients with problems in personal activities of daily living after stroke. Avril Drummond April, 2008.
Meta-analysis: summarising data for two arm trials and other simple outcome studies Steff Lewis statistician.
QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY DESIGNS IN EVALUATING MEDICINES USE INTERVENTIONS 1 Lloyd Matowe 2 Craig Ramsay 1 Faculty of Pharmacy, Kuwait University 2 HSRU,
CRITICAL READING Stephen Newell. December Reading a paper – R-E-A-D-ER  Relevant?  Educational? Does it add anything?  Applicable? Primary-care.
Rattan Juneja MD¹; Michael E. Stuart, MD 2,3 ; Sheri A. Strite 3 Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana¹ University of Washington,
Examples of systematic reviews Goran Poropat. Cochrane systematic reviews To make unmanageable amounts of information – manageable Identify, appraise.
Introduction to Critical Appraisal : Quantitative Research
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS
St John’s wort for major depression (Review) Linde, Berner & Kriston (2008/9)
Journal Club Alcohol and Health: Current Evidence January-February 2006.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence July–August 2014.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence November–December 2009.
Critical Appraisal of an Article by Dr. I. Selvaraj B. SC. ,M. B. B. S
Critical Appraisal of an Article on Therapy (2). Formulate Clinical Question Patient/ population Intervention Comparison Outcome (s) Women with IBS Alosetron.
Gut-directed hypnotherapy for functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome in children: a systematic review Journal club presentation
Cordotomy in mesothelioma- related pain: a systematic review CASP Analysis Emma Lowe.
Enhanced recovery meta-analysis Kirsty Cattle Research Registrar.
Lipid Modifying Therapies and Risk of Pancreatitis: A Meta-analysis Presented by: MaCie Rogers Pharm.d Candidate 2013.
Critical appraisal Systematic Review กิตติพันธุ์ ฤกษ์เกษม ภาควิชาศัลยศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
Are the results valid? Was the validity of the included studies appraised?
EBD for Dental Staff Seminar 2: Core Critical Appraisal Dominic Hurst evidenced.qm.
POSTER TEMPLATES BY: Introduction Results Discussion References Study Objective(s) Methods (Continued) Specify the objective(s)
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS. Objectives Define systematic review and meta- analysis Know how to access appraise interpret the results of a systematic.
Systematic Reviews.
Searching beyond the RCT - looking for sibling studies on qualitative, economic and process research Faten Hamad and Christine Urquhart.
Evidence Based Medicine Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Ross Lawrenson.
Introduction to Systematic Reviews Afshin Ostovar Bushehr University of Medical Sciences Bushehr, /9/20151.
How to Read Systematic Reviews : An Approach For The Clinician Part (1) Akbar Soltani. MD,MS, Endocrinologist Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS)
A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Improve Chronic Illness Care Alexander Tsai 1 S.C. Morton 2, C.M. Mangione 3, E.B. Keeler 2 1 Case.
How to Analyze Therapy in the Medical Literature (part 2)
How to Analyze Therapy in the Medical Literature: practical session Akbar Soltani.MD. Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Shariati Hospital
Should developing countries continue to use older drugs for essential hypertension? A prescription survey in South Africa suggested that prescribers were.
Systematic Reviews By Jonathan Tsun & Ilona Blee.
Literature searching & critical appraisal Chihaya Koriyama August 15, 2011 (Lecture 2)
CHRIS BAUMERT, MD MONTANA FAMILY MEDICINE RESIDENCY 2/25/15 PURLs Journal Club.
Christopher Eccleston Centre for Pain Research The University of Bath
Clinical Writing for Interventional Cardiologists.
ITU Journal Club: Dr. Clinton Jones. ST4 Anaesthetics.
EBM Conference (Day 2). Funding Bias “He who pays, Calls the Tune” Some Facts (& Myths) Is industry research more likely to be published No Is industry.
How to Analyze Therapy in the Medical Literature (part 1) Akbar Soltani. MD.MSc Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Shariati Hospital
Objectives  Identify the key elements of a good randomised controlled study  To clarify the process of meta analysis and developing a systematic review.
CAT 5: How to Read an Article about a Systematic Review Maribeth Chitkara, MD Rachel Boykan, MD.
Sifting through the evidence Sarah Fradsham. Types of Evidence Primary Literature Observational studies Case Report Case Series Case Control Study Cohort.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
PVL_COUNTRY_DATE00/1 Département santé et recherche génésiquesDepartment of reproductive health and research Day 3 - Session 2 DAY (3) Session 2 Presentation:
Figure 1. Hazard ratios for progression-free survival analyzed with fixed effect model. Table 1: Relevant trials Table 2. Methodological quality Conclusions.
Protocol Launch Meeting and Research Skills Course September 16 th 2015, RCS England Searching the Literature.
How to Read a Journal Article. Basics Always question: – Does this apply to my clinical practice? – Will this change how I treat patients? – How could.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when and how to do them Andrew Smith Royal Lancaster Infirmary 18 May 2015.
Evidence Based Practice (EBP) Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences(RCRS) Riphah International University Islamabad.
1 Lecture 10: Meta-analysis of intervention studies Introduction to meta-analysis Selection of studies Abstraction of information Quality scores Methods.
Is a meta-analysis right for me? Jaime Peters June 2014.
Selenium supplementation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a Cochrane review Clinical
Acupuncture in Pain Management Zekeriya AKTÜRK Şifa University Medical Faculty, Department of Family Medicine 17 March 2016
/ 42 1 Acupuncture or acupressure for pain management in labour. (review of systematic reviews)
Critical Appraisal of a Paper Feedback. Critical Appraisal Full Reference –Authors (Surname & Abbreviations) –Year of publication –Full Title –Journal.
Webinar May 25th METHYLPHENIDATE FOR CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD)
Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA)
Evidenced-Based Medicine
Chris baumert, MD Montana Family Medicine Residency 2/25/15
EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE
Foroutan N1,2, Muratov S1,2, Levine M1,2
Geir Smedslund, Ph.D.: Diakonhjemmet Hospital (DH)
Pearls Presentation Use of N-Acetylcysteine For prophylaxis of Radiocontrast Nephrotoxicity.
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Literature searching & critical appraisal
Interpreting Basic Statistics
Tac vs Cyc Non DM Pt Post RTx
Does cinnamon reduce fasting blood glucose in Type II diabetics?
Presentation transcript:

How to Analyze Systematic Reviews: practical session Akbar Soltani.MD. Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) Shariati Hospital

Clinical question In older people (> 50 years), do corticosteroid injections into the knee joint, compared with no injections, reduce the symptoms of osteoarthritis?

Search A search in PubMed: ClinicalQueries using the terms: corticosteroid AND knee* AND osteoarthrit* … brings up a few review papers, of which the most recent and largest is a Cochrane review published in While you might wish to go straight to the Cochrane review, for this exercise, we want you to imagine that the only published review for this issue is one published in the BMJ in 2004.

Search Arroll F, Goodyear-Smith F (2004). Corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis of the knee: meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 328:869–873.

Authors’ conclusion The authors of this paper concluded that: Evidence supports short-term (up to two weeks) improvement of symptoms after intra-articular corticosteroid injection for osteoarthritis of the knee.…

Is the PICO of the corticosteroid study close enough to your PICO? Looking at the corticosteroids review, the I and O of the PICO can be identified from the Abstract and Introduction to the paper, while a quick look at Table 2 shows the population for the included studies. It is much the same as our PICO. Therefore, it certainly looks as though it is worth continuing.

Three Step Guide in Using an Article to Assess Therapy 1.Are the results of the study valid? 2.What are the results? What measures of precision of effects were reported (CIs, p- values)? 3.How can I apply these results to patient care?

1) Question — Did the corticosteroid reviewers ask a focused research question? The corticosteroid review includes the following information on the objectives of the review and the selection of papers: ‘Objectives: To determine the efficacy of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis of the knee…’ See ‘Abstract’ (CS review p1).

1) Question — Did the corticosteroid reviewers ask a focused research question? ‘Efficacy’ is also defined as ‘improving the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee’. See ‘Introduction’, last paragraph (CS review p1).

1) Question — Did the corticosteroid reviewers ask a focused research question? ‘Efficacy’ is also defined as ‘improving the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee’. See ‘Introduction’, last paragraph (CS review p1). ‘Our selection criterion was randomised placebo controlled trials in which the efficacy of intra- articular corticosteroids for osteoarthritis of the knee, of any duration, could be assessed.’ 10 RCTs were included on this basis from 36 papers initially identified. See ‘Methods’ (CS review p1) and Fig 1 ‘Summary of search results’ (CS review p2).

2) Find — Did the corticosteroid reviews find all the best evidence? Search protocol ‘We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2003), and EMBASE (1980 to 2003)’ ‘The reference lists [of included studies] were scrutinised for relevant papers.’ ‘We searched the Cochrane controlled trials register’ How did the corticosteroid reviewers overcome publication bias? ‘Authors of included studies were contacted for details of any further work.’ See ‘Methods’ (CS review p1).

2) Find — Did the corticosteroid reviews find al the best evidence? See ‘Methods’ (CS review p1).

2) Find — Did the corticosteroid reviews find al the best evidence? Best evidence ‘Our selection criterion was randomised placebo controlled trials in which the efficacy of intra- articular corticosteroids for osteoarthritis of the knee, of any duration, could be assessed.’ 10 RCTs were included on this basis from 36 papers initially identified. See ‘Methods’ (CS review p1) and Fig 1 ‘Summary of search results’ (CS review p2).

3) Appraise — How did the corticosteroid reviewers appraise the studies? ‘The two authors independently assessed the methodological quality using the Jadad scoring system. Consensus was reached through discussion.’ See ‘Methods’ (CS review p1) and Table 1 ‘Jadad quality scores…’ (CS review p2).

Three Step Guide in Using an Article to Assess Therapy 1.Are the results of the study valid? 2.What are the results? What measures of precision of effects were reported (CIs, p- values)? 3.How can I apply these results to patient care?

4 ) Synthesise — Did the corticosteroid reviewers synthesise the results using appropriate summary tables and plots? ‘Table 2 Details of included studies with outcomes on improvement in osteoarthritis of the knee ‘ This table shows a summary of the 10 included studies with information about the patients and type of osteoarthritis suffered, intervention and control groups, and outcomes. See ‘Results’, Table 2 (CS review p3).

4 ) Synthesise — Did the corticosteroid reviewers synthesise the results using appropriate summary tables and plots? See ‘Results’, Table 2 (CS review p3).

4)Synthesise — Did the corticosteroid reviewers synthesise the results using appropriate summary tables and plots? Figures 2, 3 and 4 show forest plots for 3 improvements in osteoarthritis symptoms and include statistical analysis of heterogeneity. See ‘Results’, Figs 2–4 (CS review p4).

Fig 2: Improvements up to two weeks after steroid injection in knee

Figure 2: Improvements up to two weeks after steroid injection in knee  Heterogeneity score (Cochran Q): P = 0.12 (not significant); df = 5; Q/df = (< 1)  This indicates that heterogeneity is unlikely.  Around 45% of the patients improved with placebo (the control event rate). The number needed to treat (NNT) to obtain one improvement based on the summary estimate was 3.5.

Figure 2: Improvements up to two weeks after steroid injection in knee Six studies included this outcome. Only three of the individual studies are statistically significant and one of these has a very large CI. However, the summary estimate shows RR = 1.66 (95% CI 1.37 to 2.01), which does not cross 1 (the ratio for ‘no effect’) and hence is a statistically significant improvement.

Fig 2: Improvements up to two weeks after steroid injection in knee

Fig 3 Improvements at weeks after high dose steroid injection in knee for two high quality studies

Figure 3: Improvements at 16–24 weeks after high-dose steroid injection in knee for two high-quality studies Two high-quality studies included this outcome. Neither of the studies is statistically significant.  However, the summary estimate shows RR = 2.09 (95% CI 1.20 to 3.65), which is a statistically significant improvement

Figure 3: Improvements at 16–24 weeks after high-dose steroid injection in knee for two high-quality studies  Heterogeneity score (Cochran Q): P = 0.83 (not significant); df = 1; Q/df = 0.83 (< 1)  This indicates that heterogeneity is unlikely.  Around 21% of the patients improved with placebo (control event rate); NNT = 4.4.

Fig 3 Improvements at weeks after high dose steroid injection in knee for two high quality studies

Figure 4: Levels of pain recorded for up to two weeks after steroid injection Five studies showed this outcome. The summary estimate shows RR = –16.47 (95%CI –22.92 to –10.03), which is a statistically significant reduction in pain.

5) What do the results of the corticosteroid review mean? The corticosteroid paper provides three forest plots.

5) What do the results of the corticosteroid review mean? The results show statistically significant improvement in symptoms, including reduction in pain, for up to 2 weeks after corticosteroid injections at a range of doses. Two studies also showed statistically significant improvement in symptoms at 16–24 weeks after injection of a higher dose. Heterogeneity analysis in each case showed that heterogeneity was unlikely. There was no mention of side-effects in the paper, which means we may have to look elsewhere for this. For example, how common were local reactions or infection?

Overall conclusion The study is a good-quality systematic review that shows a statistically significant reduction in symptoms of osteoarthritis after corticosteroid injections at various doses. Further work is needed on the relationship between the duration of symptom relief and dose.

Thank you!