Nadera Ahmadzai

Perioperative use of pregabalin for acute pain-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract Evidence supporting postoperative pain management using pregabalin as an adjunct intervention across various surgical pain models is lacking. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate “model-specific” comparative effectiveness and harms of pregabalin following a previously published systematic review protocol. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through August 2013. Data were screened and single extraction with independent verification and dual risk of bias assessment was performed. Quality of evidence (QoE) was rated using the GRADE approach. Primary outcomes were pain relief at rest and on movement and reduction in postoperative analgesic consumption. A total of 1423 records were screened, and 43 studies were included. Perioperative pregabalin resulted in: 16% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9%-21%) reduction in analgesic consumption (moderate QoE, 24 trials) and a small reduction in the magnitude of pain in surgeries associated with pronociceptive pain. Per 1000 patients, 10 more will experience blurred vision (95% CI, 5-20 more; moderate QoE, 17 trials) and 41 more sedation (95% CI, 13-77 more, 17 trials). To prevent 1 case of perioperative nausea and vomiting, the number needed to treat is 11 (95% CI: 7-28, 25 trials). Inadequate evidence addressed outcomes of enhanced recovery and serious harms. Pregabalin analgesic effectiveness is largely restricted to surgical procedures associated with pronociceptive mechanisms. The clinical significance of observed pregabalin benefits must be weighed against the uncertainties about serious harms and enhanced recovery to inform the careful selection of surgical patients. Recommendations for future research are proposed.

Stop this waste of people, animals and money

Our evidence disputes this view. We spent 12 months rigorously characterizing nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 journals thought likely to be predatory. More than half of the corresponding authors hailed from highand upper-middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank. Of the 17% of sampled articles that reported a funding source, the most frequently named funder was the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The United States produced more articles in our sample than all other countries save India. Harvard University (with 9 articles) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the University of Texas (with Predatory journals are easy to please. They seem to accept papers with little regard for quality, at a fraction of the cost charged by mainstream openaccess journals. These supposedly scholarly publishing entities are murky operations, making money by collecting fees while failing to deliver on their claims of being open access and failing to provide services such as peer review and archiving. Despite abundant evidence that the bar is low, not much is known about who publishes in this shady realm, and what the papers are like. Common wisdom assumes that the hazard of predatory publishing is restricted mainly to the developing world. In one famous sting, a journalist for Science sent a purposely flawed paper to 140 presumed predatory titles (and to a roughly equal number of other open-access titles), pretending to be a biologist based in African capital cities. At least two earlier, smaller surveys found that most authors were in India or elsewhere in Asia. A campaign to warn scholars about predatory journals has concentrated its efforts in Africa, China, India, the Middle East and Russia. Frequent, aggressive solicitations from predatory publishers are generally considered merely a nuisance for scientists from rich countries, not a threat to scholarly integrity. Stop this waste of people, animals and money

A protocol for a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of blood markers, synovial fluid, and tissue testing in periprosthetic joint infections (PJI)

BackgroundTotal joint replacement (TJR) procedures have been one of the most rewarding interventions for treating patients suffering from joint disease. However, developing a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication that is associated with the highest burden of cost and reduction in patients’ quality of life compared to other complications following TJRs. One of the main challenges facing clinicians who are treating PJIs is accurately diagnosing infection in a timely fashion. Multiple orthopedic associations have published clinical guidelines for diagnosing PJI which are based solely on consensus approaches, expert opinions, and narrative reviews. We believe that a higher quality of scientific rigor is necessary to establish a diagnostic guideline that represents current evidence more accurately and that identifies important knowledge gaps in PJI diagnosis. Therefore, we will conduct a systematic review on diagnostic performance of blood markers, synovial fluids, and tissue tests for diagnosing PJI.Methods/designElectronic search strategies will be developed and tested by an experienced medical information specialist in consultation with the review team, and gray literature will be searched using the checklist from CADTH’s Grey Matters Light. Two reviewers will independently screen the literature for inclusion using the prespecified eligibility criteria. Non-English language and animal-only studies will be excluded. Quality assessment and data extractions by reviewers will be verified, and disagreements will be resolved through consensus or third party adjudication. We will assess the quality of individual studies using the QUADAS-2 tool and use GRADE to summarize the strength of body of evidence. Analyses of evidence will be conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews.DiscussionWe will conduct a systemic review of tests (blood markers, synovial fluids, and tissue testing) for diagnosing PJI in patients’ knee, hip, and shoulder joint replacements. This will be the first scientifically rigorous and comprehensive systematic review in the field and may feed into an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. We will compare the findings of this review with the consensus-based guides and discuss the differences, similarities, and knowledge gaps.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015023768

A protocol for a systematic review for perioperative pregabalin use

BackgroundPerioperative pain management has recently been revolutionized with the recognition of novel mechanisms and introduction of newer drugs. Many randomized trials have studied the use of the gabapentinoid anti-epileptic, pregabalin, in acute pain. Published systematic reviews suggest that using pregabalin for perioperative pain management may decrease analgesic requirements and pain scores, at the expense of troublesome side effects. A major limitation of the extant reviews is the lack of rigorous investigation of clinical characteristics that would maximize the benefit harms ratio in favor of surgical patients. We posit that effects of pregabalin for perioperative pain management vary by the type of surgical pain model and propose this systematic review protocol to update previous systematic reviews and investigate the heterogeneity in findings across subgroups of surgical pain models.Methods/DesignUsing a peer-reviewed search strategy, we will search key databases for clinical trials on perioperative pregabalin use in adults. The electronic searches will be supplemented by scanning the reference lists of included studies. No limits of language, country or year will be imposed. Outcomes will include pain; use of co-analgesia, particularly opioids; enhanced recovery; and drug-related harms. We will focus on the identification of surgical models and patient characteristics that have shown benefit and adverse effects from pregabalin.Two clinical experts will independently screen the studies for inclusion using eligibility criteria established a priori. Data extracted by the reviewers will then be verified. Publication bias will be assessed, as will risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Meta-analysis and meta-regression are planned if the studies are deemed statistically, methodologically and clinically homogenous. Evidence will be graded for its strength for a select number of outcomes.DiscussionWe will explore the findings of perioperative clinical trials studying the use of pregabalin for acute pain. We will comment on the implications of the findings and provide further direction for the appropriate use of pregabalin in acute pain. This protocol will attempt to bridge the growing gap between clinical experience and emerging evidence, and has the potential to aid future guideline development in the perioperative use of pregabalin.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42012002078

Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to investigate the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) of therapeutic interventions, without restriction by journal, clinical condition, or specialty. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We evaluated a random sample of SRs assembled previously, which were indexed in MEDLINE® during February 2014, focused on a treatment or prevention question, and reported at least one meta-analysis. The reported statistical methods used in each SR were extracted from articles and online appendices by one author, with a 20% random sample extracted in duplicate. RESULTS We evaluated 110 SRs; 78/110 (71%) were non-Cochrane SRs and 55/110 (50%) investigated a pharmacological intervention. The SRs presented a median of 13 (interquartile range: 5-27) meta-analytic effects. When considering the index (primary or first reported) meta-analysis of each SR, just over half (62/110 [56%]) used the random-effects model, but few (5/62 [8%]) interpreted the meta-analytic effect correctly (as the average of the intervention effects across all studies). A statistical test for funnel plot asymmetry was reported in 17/110 (15%) SRs; however, in only 4/17 (24%) did the test include the recommended number of at least 10 studies of varying size. Subgroup analyses accompanied 42/110 (38%) index meta-analyses, but findings were not interpreted with respect to a test for interaction in 29/42 (69%) cases, and the issue of potential confounding in the subgroup analyses was not raised in any SR. CONCLUSIONS There is scope for improvement in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in SRs of therapeutic interventions. The involvement of statisticians on the SR team and establishment of partnerships between researchers with specialist expertise in SR methods and journal editors may help overcome these shortcomings.

What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2 nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27 th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped. Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors. Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.