@article{ReisPoppSchmidetal.2021,
  author    = {Reis, Stefanie and Popp, Maria and Schmid, Benedikt and Stegemann, Miriam and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Safety and efficacy of intermediate- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm11010057},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252285},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. Results: Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95\% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95\% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95\% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95\% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95\% CI 1.15-2.74). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeibelPoppReisetal.2023,
  author    = {Weibel, Stephanie and Popp, Maria and Reis, Stefanie and Skoetz, Nicole and Garner, Paul and Sydenham, Emma},
  title     = {Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis},
  series = {Research Synthesis Methods},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Research Synthesis Methods},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1002/jrsm.1599},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-318236},
  pages     = {357 -- 369},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40\% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Reis2024,
  author    = {Reis, Stefanie},
  title     = {Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit der halbtherapeutischen und therapeutischen Antikoagulation bei hospitalisierten Patientinnen und Patienten mit COVID-19: eine systematische {\"U}bersichtsarbeit und Meta-Analyse},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-35960},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-359607},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten haben ein hohes thrombotisches Risiko. Die Sicherheit und Wirksamkeit verschiedener Antikoagulationsschemata bei COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten sind unklar. Acht RCTs mit 5580 Patientinnen und Patienten wurden identifiziert, wovon zwei RCTs Antikoagulation in halbtherapeutischer und sechs RCTs Antikoagulation in therapeutischer Dosierung mit der Standard Thromboembolieprophylaxe verglichen haben. Die halbtherapeutische Antikoagulation kann wenig oder gar keinen Einfluss auf thrombotische Ereignisse oder Todesf{\"a}lle haben (RR 1,03, 95\% KI 0,86-1,24), kann aber schwere Blutungen (RR 1,48, 95\% KI 0,53-4,15) bei mittelschweren bis schweren COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten verst{\"a}rken. Therapeutische Antikoagulation kann thrombotische Ereignisse oder den Tod bei Patientinnen und Patienten mit mittelschwerem COVID-19 (RR 0,64, 95\% KI 0,38-1,07) verringern, kann aber bei Patientinnen und Patienten mit schwerer Erkrankung (RR 0,98, 95\% KI 0,86-1,12) wenig oder keine Wirkung haben. Das Risiko schwerer Blutungen kann unabh{\"a}ngig vom Schweregrad der Erkrankung zunehmen (RR 1,78, 95\% KI 1,15-2,74). Die Evidenzsicherheit ist immer noch gering. M{\"a}ßig betroffene COVID-19 Patientinnen und Patienten k{\"o}nnen von einer therapeutischen Antikoagulation profitieren, jedoch ist das Blutungsrisiko erh{\"o}ht.},
  subject      = {Metaanalyse},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{StanglPoppReisetal.2024,
  author    = {Stangl, Stephanie and Popp, Maria and Reis, Stefanie and Sitter, Magdalena and Saal-Bauernschubert, Lena and Schießer, Selina and Kranke, Peter and Choorapoikayil, Suma and Weibel, Stephanie and Meybohm, Patrick},
  title     = {Reported outcomes in patients with iron deficiency or iron deficiency anemia undergoing major surgery: a systematic review of outcomes},
  series = {Systematic Reviews},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Systematic Reviews},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13643-023-02431-x},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357213},
  year      = {2024},
  abstract  = {Background Iron deficiency (ID) is the leading cause of anemia worldwide. The prevalence of preoperative ID ranges from 23 to 33\%. Preoperative anemia is associated with worse outcomes, making it important to diagnose and treat ID before elective surgery. Several studies indicated the effectiveness of intravenous iron supplementation in iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)). However, it remains challenging to establish reliable evidence due to heterogeneity in utilized study outcomes. The development of a core outcome set (COS) can help to reduce this heterogeneity by proposing a minimal set of meaningful and standardized outcomes. The aim of our systematic review was to identify and assess outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in iron-deficient patients with or without anemia. Methods We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov systematically from 2000 to April 1, 2022. RCTs and observational studies investigating iron supplementation in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of ID(A), were included. Study characteristics and reported outcomes were extracted. Outcomes were categorized according to an established outcome taxonomy. Quality of outcome reporting was assessed with a pre-specified tool. Reported clinically relevant differences for sample size calculation were extracted. Results Out of 2898 records, 346 underwent full-text screening and 13 studies (five RCTs, eight observational studies) with sufficient diagnostic inclusion criteria for iron deficiency with or without anemia (ID(A)) were eligible. It is noteworthy to mention that 49 studies were excluded due to no confirmed diagnosis of ID(A). Overall, 111 outcomes were structured into five core areas including nine domains. Most studies (92\%) reported outcomes within the 'blood and lymphatic system' domain, followed by "adverse event" (77\%) and "need for further resources" (77\%). All of the latter reported on the need for blood transfusion. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous in measures and timing. Merely, two (33\%) of six prospective studies were registered prospectively of which one (17\%) showed no signs of selective outcome reporting. Conclusion This systematic review comprehensively depicts the heterogeneity of reported outcomes in studies investigating iron supplementation in ID(A) patients regarding exact definitions and timing. Our analysis provides a systematic base for consenting to a minimal COS. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020214247},
  language  = {en}
}