@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}
}
@article{RiemerKrankeHelfetal.2021,
  author    = {Riemer, Manuel and Kranke, Peter and Helf, Antonia and Mayer, Debora and Popp, Maria and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting},
  series = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265518},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22\% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36\% (27/75) were pro- and 64\% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41\% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22\% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37\% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32\%), a new primary outcome (26\%), and different outcome assessment times (26\%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80\% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64\% vs 28\%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeibelPaceSchaeferetal.2021,
  author    = {Weibel, Stephanie and Pace, Nathan L. and Schaefer, Maximilian S. and Raj, Diana and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Kienbaum, Peter and Eberhart, Leopold H. J. and Kranke, Peter},
  title     = {Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia: An abridged Cochrane network meta-analysis},
  series = {Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1111/jebm.12429},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-259470},
  pages     = {188-197},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Objective In this abridged version of the recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs, we summarize its most important findings and discuss the challenges and the time needed to prepare what is now the largest Cochrane review with network meta-analysis in terms of the number of included studies and pages in its full printed form. Methods We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analyses to compare and rank single antiemetic drugs and their combinations belonging to 5HT₃-, D₂-, NK₁-receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics used to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anesthesia. Results 585 studies (97 516 participants) testing 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were included. The studies' overall risk of bias was assessed as low in only 27\% of the studies. In 282 studies, 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs lowered the risk of vomiting at least 20\% compared to placebo. In the ranking of treatments, combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs. Single NK1 receptor antagonists were as effective as other drug combinations. Of the 10 effective single drugs, certainty of evidence was high for aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron, while moderate for fosaprepitant and droperidol. For serious adverse events (SAEs), any adverse event (AE), and drug-class specific side effects evidence for intervention effects was mostly not convincing. Conclusions There is high or moderate evidence for at least seven single drugs preventing postoperative vomiting. However, there is still considerable lack of evidence regarding safety aspects that does warrant investigation.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchlesingerWeibelSteinfeldtetal.2021,
  author    = {Schlesinger, Tobias and Weibel, Stephanie and Steinfeldt, Thorsten and Sitter, Magdalena and Meybohm, Patrick and Kranke, Peter},
  title     = {Intraoperative management of combined general anesthesia and thoracic epidural analgesia: A survey among German anesthetists},
  series = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica},
  volume    = {65},
  journal   = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica},
  number    = {10},
  doi       = {10.1111/aas.13971},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-258286},
  pages     = {1490-1496},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background Evidence concerning combined general anesthesia (GA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) is controversial and the procedure appears heterogeneous in clinical implementation. We aimed to gain an overview of different approaches and to unveil a suspected heterogeneity concerning the intraoperative management of combined GA and EA. Methods This was an anonymous survey among Members of the Scientific working group for regional anesthesia within the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) conducted from February 2020 to August 2020. Results The response rate was 38\%. The majority of participants were experienced anesthetists with high expertise for the specific regimen of combined GA and EA. Most participants establish EA in the sitting position (94\%), prefer early epidural initiation (prior to skin incision: 80\%; intraoperative: 14\%) and administer ropivacaine (89\%) in rather low concentrations (0.2\%: 45\%; 0.375\%: 30\%; 0.75\%: 15\%) mostly with an opioid (84\%) in a bolus-based mode (95\%). The majority reduce systemic opioid doses intraoperatively if EA works sufficiently (minimal systemic opioids: 58\%; analgesia exclusively via EA: 34\%). About 85\% manage intraoperative EA insufficiency with systemic opioids, 52\% try to escalate EA, and only 25\% use non-opioids, e.g. intravenous ketamine or lidocaine. Conclusions Although, consensus seems to be present for several aspects (patient's position during epidural puncture, main epidural substance, application mode), there is considerable heterogeneity regarding systemic opioids, rescue strategies for insufficient EA, and hemodynamic management, which might explain inconsistent results of previous trials and meta-analyses.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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{HackenbroichKrankeMeybohmetal.2022,
  author    = {Hackenbroich, Samantha and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Include or not to include conference abstracts in systematic reviews? Lessons learned from a large Cochrane network meta-analysis including 585 trials},
  series = {Systematic Reviews},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Systematic Reviews},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13643-022-02048-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-299660},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background Systematic reviews attempt to gather all available evidence. Controversy exists regarding effort and benefit of including study results presented at conferences only. We recently published a Cochrane network meta-analysis (NMA) including 585 randomized controlled trials comparing drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Studies published as conference abstracts only were excluded. This study aimed to include all eligible studies published as abstracts only, assessing their added value regarding reporting quality and effect on the review's interpretation. Methods Conference abstracts were searched in the review's excluded studies and conference proceedings of anaesthesiologic societies. We assessed their reporting quality regarding review's eligibility criteria, Cochrane 'risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0, and adherence to CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) for abstracts. Abstracts were included in sensitivity NMA, and impact on the NMA structure was investigated. Results We identified 90 abstracts. A total of 14\% (13/90) were eligible. A total of 86\% (77/90) are awaiting classification due to insufficient reporting of review's eligibility criteria. In abstracts awaiting classification, sufficient information was missing on standardization of anaesthesia in 71\% (55/77), age of participants in 56\% (43/77), and outcome details in 46\% (36/77). A total of 73\% (66/90) of abstracts lacked sufficient information on 15/25 data extraction items. Reported study characteristics of abstracts were comparable to included studies of the review. A total of 62\% (56/90) of abstract trials were assessed as overall high risk of bias due to poor reporting. Median adherence to CONSORT for abstracts was 24\% (IQR, 18 to 29\%). Six of the 13 eligible abstracts reported relevant outcome data in sufficient detail for NMA on seven outcomes of the Cochrane review. Inclusion of abstracts did not substantially change the network structure, network effect estimates, ranking of treatments, or the conclusion. Certainty of evidence for headache on palonosetron use was upgraded from very low to low. Conclusions Most conference abstracts on PONV were insufficiently reported regarding review's narrow inclusion criteria and could not be included in NMA. The resource-intensive search and evaluation of abstracts did not substantially extent the full-text evidence base of the review, given the few adequately reported abstracts. Conferences should oblige authors to adhere to CONSORT for abstracts.},
  language  = {en}
}